Bart D. Ehrman discussions

Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogThe Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old

I just got home from spending a week in Lawrence Kansas, my home town.   As I’ve done now for years, I took my mom fishing in the Ozarks for a few days.  She’s 87, and on a walker, but still able to reel them in!
I go back to Lawrence probably three or four times a year, and each time it is like going down memory lane.  I left there to go to Moody Bible Institute in 1973, when I was all of 17 years old; I still called it home for years, but never lived there full time, not even in the summers usually.  I was married and very much on my own only four years later.  So my memories of the place are entirely of childhood through high school.   I can’t help reflecting on this, that, and the other thing in my past as I drive around town, remembering doing this thing here, that thing there, and so on.
This time, for some reason, there was an unusually high concentration of “religious” recollections, of my different religious experiences in one place or another.   As I’ve said a number of times, I had a born-again experience in high school, when I “asked Jesus into my heart.”  I must have been 15 at the time. The odd thing was that I was already a committed church person before that – for my entire life, in fact.  I was an acolyte in the Episcopal church from junior high onwards, every week praying to God, confessing my sins, thinking about the salvation brought by Christ, and so on.   So looking back, it’s hard to know what really I was thinking when I finally “became a  Christian.”  What exactly was I before?
But what really struck me this time around, in particular, was this.   Most of my family and friends who also became evangelical Christians – at least the ones who have stayed that way – are, naturally, upset and confused about why I left the faith.   In their view, the faith I had when I was 16 was the “truth,” and now I have gone over to the way of “error.”  I should stress that my mom and I never talk about such things – we both know it would do no good and that we would just both get upset.  So instead we talk about basketball, and family, and fishing, and lots of other things – but not religion.  Still, I know that she, like the others I knew way back then, think that I used to be right; that I made a terrible mistake when I became a “liberal” Christian in my late-20s; and that I really went off the deep end when I became an agnostic.
But here is what struck me.   About what other form of knowledge or belief would we say that it is better that we should think the way we did when we were 16 than the way we think now?
Would we say that our understanding of science was better then?  Our understanding of biology or physics or astronomy?   Were our views in 1972 better than our views now?   Or how about politics?  Or philosophy?  Would we be better off thinking what we did when we were 16?   Or what about our views of sexual relations?  Or literature?  Or economic investments?  Or … Or anything else?
Isn’t it very strange indeed that so many people of faith – not all of them, of course; and arguably not even most of them; but certainly some of them; in fact a *lot* of them in evangelical circles – think that even though they are supposed to grow, and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge, and change their understandings  as they get older in every *other* aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the SAME religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen year old?
That is one of the things that I find most puzzling and dissatisfying and frustrating about many of the good, concerned, committed evangelical Christians who contact me via email or in person (say, at one of my talks): the views they put forth, in trying to “win me over,” are views that are at the intellectual and spiritual level of sophistication of a 16 year old.  They may be successful businessmen, or teachers, or investors, or … name your profession.  And in other parts of their lives they may have considerable maturity and sophistication.  But when it comes to religious belief, they are still back where they were in 1972.   There’s something wrong about that….
I should emphasize that there are lots (and lots) of theologians who are serious scholars, some of them quite brilliant.  They obviously do not work with a 16-year-old’s view of religion.   they are philosophically astute and intellectually impressive, people like Rowan Williams, Herbert McCabe, Fergus Kerr, and Stanley Hauerwas (they are not all like each other, either).   I have no argument with them.  My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Larry Hurtado’s Critique of How Jesus Became God«
Thomasine “Gnostics” and Others»


1

JUN

2014

202
  
Comments
202  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Adam0685  June 1, 2014
I suspect that many evangelicals never move beyond stage 3 (“Synthetic-Conventional”) of Fowler’s stages of faith development. I also suspect many would stop being evangelical if they did…
Log in to Reply  



madmargie  June 1, 2014
I agree with you. Twenty or twenty five years ago, I had an existential faith crisis when I decided that 90% of what I had believed since my youth was pure nonsense. I had to decide what to keep at that point. I have been trying to decide what Jesus truly taught ever since. I think it was all about God’s kingdom on earth. I think the salvation theology came later…after his death. To me, it is pure selfishness….all about “ME” and certainly not about others.
Log in to Reply  

cheriq

cheriq  June 1, 2014
I don’t return to Lawrence often, but, can pinpoint where I began to question the religious teachers. It was in that Nazarene church at about 20th and Massachusetts. I asked if one went to the same hell for lying as for being a murderer. The answer was yes, and even as a 10 yr old, I didn’t believe it. I could not believe in a God who was that unfair.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Yup, I know the church! But it’s no longer Nazarene….
Log in to Reply  
 



TomTerrific  June 1, 2014
Very well put, Dr. E, as usual.
I think it was Muhammad Ali who said, “A man who is the same at fifty as he was at twenty wasted thirty years.”
Log in to Reply  



asahagian  June 1, 2014
I often think about when I was a child and believed in Santa Claus. I truly believed and everyone I trusted and respected also seemed to believe as well. It was not questioned. (I actually even remember having seen his footprints in the snow on Christmas morning…probably just my imagination…) Then when I got older and began to hear that Santa was just a figment of my imagination I was very indignant and would not believe it….eventually I realized it was all just for fun and really was not true. But my belief had been absolute! No one ever suggests that we should go back to this childhood belief. What a perfect parallel to what you are describing above.
 The bible says you should have faith like a child ~ when you think about it you realize that a child’s faith exists because that child has not yet learned to question what he/she was taught to believe. Not a good thing.
Log in to Reply  



fishician  June 1, 2014
I was recently pondering how the major religions, although they may all claim uniqueness, all share this in common: you are supposed to rely on God’s message that he gave to certain people many centuries ago, and if you question what was said the problem is with you, not with what the ancients said. Even when what the ancients said is demonstrably in error. So, check your brains at the door – you really won’t need them any more, and if yo do use your brain, then you’re a tool of Satan (or so I was recently told).
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 25, 2014
“I was recently pondering how the major religions, although they may all claim uniqueness, all share this in common: you are supposed to rely on God’s message that he gave to certain people many centuries ago, and if you question what was said the problem is with you, not with what the ancients said. Even when what the ancients said is demonstrably in error. So, check your brains at the door – you really won’t need them any more, and if yo do use your brain, then you’re a tool of Satan (or so I was recently told).”
Where does Christ say that?
Log in to Reply  
 



Jim  June 1, 2014
Well, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever *said in an apologetic voice with cheezy reverb*
Log in to Reply  



Richard Thrift  June 2, 2014
“Child-like” faith is not limited to evangelicals. When I was a Lutheran minister (and a believer) I was oft disheartened in realizing that most (not all but certainly most) of my parishioners had the spiritual understanding of a 13-year-old. That’s the traditional age with most were confirmed…and it also marked the end of their Christian education.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Good point!
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
Would you explain the differences between the spiritual understanding of a 13 year old and a 17 year old?
Log in to Reply  


shakespeare66  August 26, 2014
There is about four years of spiritual growth between the two.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



RonaldTaska  June 2, 2014
Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth:
 1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants. For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths. So, the epistemology is different, much different.
 2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Excellent points!
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 9, 2014
RonaldTaska June 2, 2014
Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth:
 1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants. For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths. So, the epistemology is different, much different.
 2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Bart Ehrman June 2, 2014
 Excellent points!
“What are facts and evidence compared to that?”
Odd. I don’t know christians who are unconcerned with truth and facts. Why do some believe that many christians are less than non-believers intellectually or less interested in the profound questions of life?
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 26, 2014
“For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths.”
I know many who needed to be and were convinced through evidence that overwhelming and significant reasons prove god is.
“The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence.”
In a heartbeat. The demands of discipleship are so rigorous that many would be relieved to shed the whole shebang.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 30, 2014
It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Facts and evidence. There’s no comfort believing something that isn’t true
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  September 5, 2014
“Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth: 1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants…”
The same thing happens with theories explaining how the bible is meant to be interpreted-they come and go.
“2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?”
What is wrong with a sense of comfort and community, a sense of certainty, and mutual appreciation of one another? It should be comforting to know Something is out there and that we will live forever. It should be unbelievably wonderful to know that the most powerful force in the universe is on our side! Dr. Bart, he started it! I’m not trying to preach! I am agreeing with him. His argument isn’t against those things, per se, if I understand him. He believes that those who hold those ideas to be true, do so only because it feels so good. He implies none of those kinds of things is true, therefore, one sacrifices truth for warm fuzzies. I imagine some do that. But even “the book” that makes those claims, also commands his followers to love this force with all their minds, too.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  November 3, 2014
“For many, disbelief is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths.” ?
Log in to Reply  
 



natashka  June 2, 2014
Beautiful post. And so true.
I’ve often wondered; do any of your family or old friends ever read your books/blog or attend your lectures? If so, hasn’t at least one ever been inspired to break their minds out of captivity?
 Are the youngins’ in the family–hope for the new generation–allowed to read Uncle Bart’s books, or are they banned like heretical scripture?
I’m also wondering….what kind of fish did Mom catch?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Yes, my family members have read some of my books, and my mom has heard me lecture a number of times. But none has been persuaded yet! (Although some of my relatives are now agnostics. I don’t think I had anything to do with it).
Trout!!
Log in to Reply  
 



JBSeth1  June 2, 2014
HI Bart,
I understand where you are coming from and I too, often find it surprising that it seem people are willing to challenge almost any and all aspects of life except for their own personal religious beliefs.
However, I believe there is much more involved here than just an intellectual exercise of changing personal religious beliefs. If someone was willing to do this, then they would have to be willing to face the following potential consequences.
For some, the fear of God’s retribution, if, in fact, they were wrong. The issue of loneliness and the potential loss of church family, church friends and church support, once they changed their beliefs. The concern about not knowing what to believe in and how to determine what is right and wrong, once they changed their beliefs.
Given all this, I suspect, that for some people at least, the tradeoff here just isn’t worth it and as a result, they opt to continue to stick with their 16 year old beliefs.
Would you agree?
John
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
In a lot of cases, I agree!
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 24, 2014
“I understand where you are coming from and I too, often find it surprising that it seem people are willing to challenge almost any and all aspects of life except for their own personal religious beliefs.” JBSeth1
Can you explain why it is that you believe some people are unwilling to challenge their own personal religious beliefs? How did you reach that conclusion?
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 29, 2014
What we find on this blog is essentially limitless criticism of all things “religious”. Which is fine, if that was the stated purpose of the blog. If so, go for it. By all means. What seems beneath Dr. Bart’s integrity is the hypocrisy. Extra care is taken to weed out comments that some might consider “devotional” in nature, when the deluge of negative comments about christians, christianity, the church, religion, the writers of the n.t. drown almost every page. If the topic is “historical, textual criticism”, and that is my understanding, it is disappointing indeed to see the vast majority of commenters criticizing the list above, and other posters with differing points of view, not the “textual” kind. Apparently, tell me if I’m wrong, unless one trashes christianity, that person really cannot be educated, cultured, intelligent, well-read, scholarly, open-minded, interested in truth, etc. “Believe as we do”, the message is clear, or “you are worthless”. Many here have seemingly “evolved” into the very essence of the people they so despise: those religious fundamentalists, the radical, know-it-all, self righteous and utterly repulsive boobs.
I might add, I wouldn’t defend “the church” they detest, either. Yet, the fact is, there are millions of good, honest, intelligent, hard working, educated, loving, compassionate, dedicated followers of his around the world, who don’t grab headlines or make the news. I shouldn’t have to remind anyone. I am most disappointed that. Dr. Bart is exceptional, a genius and a good guy, and I fear the balance of the content of this blog has become something other than what truly represents what he is about, who he is.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 30, 2014
I’m afraid I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t know of limitless criticism of religion on this blog — certainly not by me. As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not opposed to religion, only to certain kinds of fundamentalism. If anyone feels their religoin is under attack, I don’t think their feelings are well placed — unless they are themselves hold to a fundamentalist form of religion (Islam/Christianity/whatever).
As to weeding out your devotional comments, you probably know that there are over 3000 people on this blog, and of all of them you have had more comments posted over the past month than anyone! But I would prefer that you stick to historical issues rather than using comments to profess your religious faith.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 30, 2014
As happens too often, I said what I didn’t mean and meant what I didn’t say. You are not the one criticizing. Not at all. You are extraordinarily fair in your comments to all sides.
 
 



shakespeare66  August 31, 2014
I really do think you are misreading what people are saying. No one is attacking religion and no one is here to denigrate the church. We are just trying to educate ourselves about early Christianity.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



hwl  June 2, 2014
I often puzzle over the same issue. Of course, very few of these Christians you are referring would see themselves checking their intelligence at the door when it comes to matters of religious faith. It is a truism that the moment someone thinks his religious worldview is stupid or crazy, he would promptly stop believing in it. Religious people do what they think makes sense to them. I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.
Although church life is not and is never meant to be like academia, the disconnection between teachings provided in sermons and Bible studies groups on one hand, and biblical scholarship on the other, contributes to very naive attitudes to the Bible, hence naive theology. The issue isn’t about lack of intelligence, as you noted. It is just that the laity is not exposed to discoveries in scholarship that are the result of cumulative efforts over generations by full-time scholars. The attitude towards the Bible among fundamentalists would have been the position of many of society’s elite and intelligentsia for centuries in the pre-modern era. For Protestant fundamentalism, the biggest problem is an attitude towards the Bible that is out of touch with scholarship. For Catholic conservatives, other factors are at work besides attitude towards the Bible.
The life of a church community can stifle critical thinking – when the hundreds of people from all walks of life you met and converse with in a church think like yourself, believe the same things, you have no reason to suspect your perspective is in any way defective or naive. Church life can do much social good, by providing mutual support and sense of community, but the downside is it generates powerful psychological and sociological pressures in reinforcing a narrow worldview.
Then there are organisations staffed by smooth-talking fundamentalists, actively promoting scientific falsehoods e.g. creationist organisations.
I am not sure American religious life would be for the better if more lay Christians attempt to engage with rational arguments – if this means imitating apologists the likes of James White, Dinesh D’Souza. They will end up being argumentative and promoting a vocal fundamentalist form of religion.
Between different Christian circles, there are polarised conceptions of “faith” – some view it as belief despite the evidence or despite the lack of evidence (the stronger the evidence against belief, the deeper faith needs to be), while others (particularly the vocal Christian apologists) insist faith is to believe based on evidence.
It would be interesting to examine the attitudes of people of non-Christian religions, to see whether there is a perception from the secular academic world that religious people tend to be rather intellectually naive when it comes to religious matters, despite their professional achievements in other fields of life.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 24, 2014
“I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
Would you clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
Log in to Reply  


hwl  August 25, 2014
prestonp: Email me on honwai.lai@gmail.com for a response to your question. Hon Wai
prestonp August 24, 2014
“I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
Would you clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
Log in to Reply  



shakespeare66  August 26, 2014
It appears to be the one you are holding.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 24, 2014
“The life of a church community can stifle critical thinking – when the hundreds of people from all walks of life you met and converse with in a church think like yourself, believe the same things, you have no reason to suspect your perspective is in any way defective or naive. Church life can do much social good, by providing mutual support and sense of community, but the downside is it generates powerful psychological and sociological pressures in reinforcing a narrow worldview.
Then there are organisations staffed by smooth-talking fundamentalists, actively promoting scientific falsehoods e.g. creationist organisations.” hwl
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
“Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
How do you know they use personal religious experience as vindication for their religious worldview? How do you know what discourages thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system?
Log in to Reply  
 

TracyCramer

TracyCramer  June 2, 2014
Dear Bart,
Thank you for sharing this with us. (And it’s good to hear your mom is still fishing!)
As a bit of an outsider to the whole Christian experience, and I mean no disrespect, but it All seems a little juvenile, including the views of the extremely bright and deep and articulate and scholarly Rowan Williams, whose lectures online I’ve listened to a number of times. And I’m just thinking of his talks on the resurrection at the moment, but I just remember thinking at the time, “how can such an extraordinarily intellectually gifted man really believe what he saying”?
I had similar thoughts as that last one when I was 16 too. But, that did not stop me from trying to get through my depression as a 19 year old sophomore at Michigan State University, by finally taking the medicine suggested by the friendly evangelists in my dorm, the same you took: pray for Jesus to enter my heart. I laid in my bunk, cleared my head of disbelief, repeated the mantra for a long time and with real sincerity, and then had an extraordinary out of body experience! (Well, it seemed extraordinary at the time.)
I reported the results to the nice Christian guy, and he said yes, that’s it, that’s God, or Jesus. I said okay, if you say so, but, hmmmm, I don’t really know. He said now pray for forgiveness of my sins. Then I got stuck because I couldn’t understand what he meant, or his explanation, though I think I tried it a couple of times, but without “results”. So, there ended my dalliance with Christianity.
If you feel it is not inappropriate, would you someday share with us what it meant or felt like for you to have Jesus in your heart when you were 16? Thank you, Tracy
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
For me, at the time, it felt like an enormous relief, a lifting of burden, a sense of connecting with the universe in a way I never had before. Very powerful!
Log in to Reply  
TracyCramer

TracyCramer  June 3, 2014
Very cool! (And I don’t mean that to sound trivializing.) So now I have to ask, to *what* do you attribute that experience now? (Now that you are agnostic/atheist). If you don’t mind my asking…
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 3, 2014
I think most internal experiences and sensations are driven by psychological needs, sometimes deep ones.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 24, 2014
TracyCramer June 3, 2014
Very cool! (And I don’t mean that to sound trivializing.) So now I have to ask, to *what* do you attribute that experience now? (Now that you are agnostic/atheist). If you don’t mind my asking…
“I think most internal experiences and sensations are driven by psychological needs, sometimes deep ones.” Dr. Bart.
As a result of our psychological needs, sometimes deep ones, are we better off ignoring them than to succumb to a “religious experience” to meet those needs? Are those needs to be ignored? Are they unhealthy? Do they leave us vulnerable to self-deception or self-destructive and harmful behavior? Is “religion” a substitute for addressing those needs in a mature fashion?
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 25, 2014
No, I’m not saying that one should go in a direction other than the one they feel deeply drawn to take. But they should question where they are going, all the time. You don’t want to step into a rut. Or a cliff.
 



prestonp  August 25, 2014
“No, I’m not saying that one should go in a direction other than the one they feel deeply drawn to take. But they should question where they are going, all the time. You don’t want to step into a rut. Or a cliff.” Dr. Bart
In your case you fell in love and so did those who met him because of this love. So, it seems that your deep needs were more than satisfied with the internal experiences of god, far from being injured by stepping into a rut?
 
 
 
 
 



jmorgan  June 2, 2014
Fascinating post.
 The good news is that conservative evangelical’s influence and numbers are declining. Molly Worthen, also of UNC, just wrote an interesting article on it:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/did-the-southern-baptist-conservative-resurgence-fail.html
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Interesting article! Thanks!
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
Not in china.
If christianity disappeared from the face of the earth today, the message of its god remains in print and others can find and follow him. Remember, almost no one followed him at first. He was a nobody, a nothing. No money, no political power, no status, no degreed education, no military power, no written communications, and he was murdered. From that origin he has become the most influential person in history.
Log in to Reply  
 



doug  June 2, 2014
I went from being a Christian to being a Biblical literalist Christian when I was 16. That was what I had been told “good people” were. Fortunately, I saw that there were good, caring people who were not Biblical literalists, and so I did not cling to my religious conservatism. I’ve long since been a secular humanist. Perhaps the most convincing argument for humanism is to be caring to other people. Thanks for your good post and for your good blog, Bart.
Log in to Reply  



drdavid600  June 2, 2014
Whether it’s fear of hell or desire for a supernatural love and truth to be in charge of the universe, the most sophisticated Christians I’ve known stand on an idea that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The idea of hell rests on a lack of love or a justice that exceeds love and isn’t all that just. The universe is full of suffering, not all of which is building character.
It’s like people whose knowledge of economics begins and ends with the gold standard. If one’s beliefs regarding an entire section of life are based on a childish oversimplification, one will never grow beyond that. One will remain vulnerable to whatever silliness one’s peer group is pushing, like climate change denial.
I’m not sure how the best expert in human behavior would see this, but it seems like a fundamental trap for the human mind, to be stuck in childish simplicity at the core of one’s beliefs, rejecting any knowledge that would free one from such childishness.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 25, 2014
“…the most sophisticated Christians I’ve known stand on an idea that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.”
Because they believe in the idea of hell. I believed in hell before I heard the gospel.
“The idea of hell rests on a lack of love or a justice that exceeds love and isn’t all that just.”
What does holy mean?
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“I’m not sure how the best expert in human behavior would see this, but it seems like a fundamental trap for the human mind, to be stuck in childish simplicity at the core of one’s beliefs, rejecting any knowledge that would free one from such childishness.”
It is a fundamental trap to believe that what’s most important in life necessarily must be complex.
Log in to Reply  
 



Wilusa  June 2, 2014
Hmm. I remember that when I was a *child*, I understood perfectly well why children went to church on Sunday: because adults were forcing us to. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why *adults* went to church, when *no one* was forcing them!
But…yep, I was 16 when that priest gave our senior class (I was the youngest) “reasons” for accepting the doctrines, and I was briefly convinced. It was all intellectual, though. I still find it hard to understand people’s either embracing a religion, or rejecting it, for emotional reasons, and thinking that’s somehow *better* than relying on one’s intellect. In what other area of life would they think *that* was desirable?
Say, I’m delighted your mother is still enjoying those fishing trips! I hope you’ll share many more.
Makes me think…the new Catholic bishop was recently installed here. He’s 65, and both his parents were able to attend the ceremonies. Wonderful.
Log in to Reply  



RyanBrown  June 2, 2014
Perhaps one of the biggest reasons people remain at a 16 year-old level in religion, is that they have never actually read the entire Bible.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 26, 2014
“Perhaps” reading the entire bible inspired many to become devout, well-informed christians. Apparently, some are attached to a profound misconception: that if a person questions her faith, if she challenges her own thinking process, if she looks carefully at the world, she will choose not to follow Christ.
Log in to Reply  
 



gsteidley  June 2, 2014
I don’t know if you really want comment… or ….if you were just venting. In either case, here’s my two cents…
Many people probably have the religious sophistication of a 16 year old for the same reasons they have the math, English and science skills of a 16 year old. Lack of aptitude, interest and/or need. What they know is all they need for their field and they just don’t have interest or ability to go further. Also, prejudices and beliefs acquired in childhood are probably some of the most difficult to overcome since they become almost “hardwired” into the brain during those developmental years.
…. and now my venting…
My frustration is the general attitude towards “faith”, that it is something one can just choose to have. I went to Catholic schools up until my senior year of high school. The nuns taught me that the definition of faith was “the acceptance of something as true without proof”. I have come to the opinion that saying or acting like one believes something or just choosing to believe something does not mean that down deep inside one really believes it. It’s not ones fault if one doesn’t believe something that can’t be proved. I am frustrated by those individuals that treat people of different (or no) belief with contempt and try to force their belief system on them.
Log in to Reply  


Janeewoo  July 13, 2014
I AGREE!!!! We have brains/intelligence for a reason. We learn how to use our minds to make smart choices, to analyze data and determine the best course for ourselves. My grandfather, who passed away in the early 80’s, did not believe that we ever but a person on the moon. He saw it on TV, read about it in the paper, all his family believed it, but he did not. But he believed every word in the Bible, verbatim. I adored my Grandpa – i’m sitting in front of a photo of him now – and would never do or say anything to demean his memory. But he lived and believed based on a whole different knowledge base than we have today. I can understand him falling under the sway of the Good Book. I cannot understand my coworkers, who are in their 30’s and 40’s, falling for it. And the regularly tell me that, while i’m the nicest person they know, i’m going to Hell for not believing too. I say, “and how does that make you feel about your God, that he would send a perfectly nice normal person to Hell just for not believing his unbelievable story?” and they are fine with it… whatever… i can’t make myself believe it, and i’ve finally come to peace with that.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 25, 2014
“We have brains/intelligence for a reason. We learn how to use our minds to make smart choices, to analyze data and determine the best course for ourselves.”
You refuse to demean Grandpa’s memory, but he believed like your coworkers do and they believe in hell for the nicest people.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“The nuns taught me that the definition of faith was “the acceptance of something as true without proof”.”
Where did you go to catholic school? That isn’t the definition of faith taught by anyone I know.
Log in to Reply  
 



silvertime  June 2, 2014
Dr. Ehrman: I have thought about this issue a lot, and I assume that the religious thoughts and traditions in your area of Kansas and North Carolina are similar to that of southern Kentucky. I think, in the case of religion, the concepts of ” the preacher says it’, and “I was raised that way” are anchors in their lives that give them a sense of comfort and security. Bacause it is religion, and their concept of it comes from the Bible which was written thousands of years previously, nothing else(scholarship, discoveries, or critical thinking) since then can make any difference in their understanding. If they allowed any modification to their anchor beliefs, it would tend to undercut their beliefs. For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 25, 2014
“For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking.”
How many, would you estimate, are religious and embrace scholarship and critical thinking?
 3? 6? 19?
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“Bacause it is religion, and their concept of it comes from the Bible which was written thousands of years previously, nothing else(scholarship, discoveries, or critical thinking) since then can make any difference in their understanding. If they allowed any modification to their anchor beliefs, it would tend to undercut their beliefs. For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking”
Religion doesn’t allow scholarship? Provide examples where christianity rejects scholarship, please
Log in to Reply  
 



DBybee  June 2, 2014
Changing my views on chemistry, or investments doesn’t really affect the way I live. But changing my reliegious views has rocked my world. Like you I was a committed believer with a very literal interpretation of scripture until I couldn’t reconcile the religious world view with the real world as I experienced it. Adam and Eve verses evolution for example. Your scholarship on the New Testatment has been a true revelation. What I’ve always wanted to ask you is if you have (or had) the same feelings of massive betrayal that I’ve felt. I know that my parents thought they were teaching me the truth and have no fault in this but realizing that I have been mislead for 40 years by people that I trusted to tell me the truth has left me angry and embarrassed that I couldn’t see what seems obvious now. Has that been an issue you’ve dealt with?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Not so much with my family as with the fellow who “led me to Christ,” and to some extent with my training at Moody Bible Institute. On the other hand, if none of that had happened, I would not have had the life and career I’ve had. So how can I really complain??
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
When I became a believer, my family rejected and mocked me for the rest of their lives (except dad who found god just before he went to the next dimension. He was a saul of tarsus until then. For 30 years whenever he had the chance, he pummeled me with insults and disgust.)
Log in to Reply  
 



Foxtank  June 2, 2014
I have given this question much thought over the years as I have traveled a similar path, but much later in life. I think the short answer for most is two fold. First there is fear. Fear of eternal damnation. Second, and I think the most powerful is loss of community in all its aspects. Church becomes ones life. To lose it is to lose your history, in a way. And in the evangical community, there is no maturing beyond the basic doctrinal standards. Unless you think moving those standards into the political community is progress. This is a very puzzling question, but only if you ponder it from outside the fold.
Log in to Reply  


Scott F  June 4, 2014
When I lost my faith at twenty, I had a hard time deciding what was right and what was wrong. Thank goodness I was an engineer and could fall back on science for certain truths but others were a real struggle.
It is very scary to “step out of the boat” with no idea of whether you will sink or swim, no idea of what lies on the other side.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 26, 2014
“When I lost my faith at twenty…”
Let me make a suggestion, if you don’t mind. Perhaps instead of losing your faith, you gave it away. To be a true follower of Christ, life will be grueling at times, even brutal, It is less painful to give up.
I don’t know if I have ever heard a former christian admit she preferred indulging in the pleasures of the flesh, yielding to the attractions of our world and was swayed by a slick, deceiving con artist.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 31, 2014
“When I lost my faith at twenty, I had a hard time deciding what was right and what was wrong. Thank goodness I was an engineer and could fall back on science for certain truths but others were a real struggle.”
“Biologists’ investigation
 of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable
 complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life,
 that intelligence must have been involved” (p. 123).
Andrew Flew
 World renown former atheist
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Unhookthestars  June 2, 2014
Thanks for the thoughtful post. Your reflection reminded me of what Karen Armstrong says in her book “The Case for God” regarding how our ideas about Santa Claus and God change (or not) over time:
“We learned about God at about the same time as we were told about Santa Claus. But while our understanding of the Santa Claus phenomenon evolved and matured, our theology remained somewhat infantile. Not surprisingly, when we attained intellectual maturity, many of us rejected that God that we had inherited and denied that he existed.”
Here, she’s suggesting that as we develop cognitively and emotionally, some of us are unable to square the intellectual propositions foisted on us by the more conservative elements of our religious traditions (“If you appeal to your God as a personal God, he will intervene to save you from personal disaster”) with our own maturing understanding of the non-black-and-whiteness of the world (“Even if you appeal to God as a personal God, tragedy may still strike”). One response is agnosticism/atheism – that is, a rejection of that official, received version of God. But the other response, as exemplified by evangelical family/friends/detractors you wrote about, is fundamentalism — a desperate clinging to an immature, literalist, absolutist version of God.
This is why even as an agnostic, I can relate to the liberal Christians you mention in the opening to the last chapter of “How Jesus Became God.” While these Christians don’t believe in the theological propositions laid out in the Nicene Creed or even understand the nuances inherent in each statement, I don’t see their regular church attendance or continued identification as Christians as necessarily inconsistent with their lack of belief. As many thoughtful theologians have pointed out (Harvey Cox immediately comes to mind), there is a difference between “faith” IN Jesus’s message and “belief” in propositions ABOUT Jesus. You can have faith in Jesus’s call for a world of social justice and participate in bringing about “the Kingdom of God” he preached about without subscribing to doctrinal beliefs about Jesus, which are bound up in the time and place in which they first emerged. To paraphrase Armstrong, if intellectual assent to the doctrine of the Trinity somehow helps you become a better (i.e., more compassionate/empathetic) person, then there’s absolutely no harm in it. But if your insistence on the literal truth of the “Divine Triad” just makes you unproductively combative, then how exactly are you making straight the way for God’s kingdom of social justice?
Log in to Reply  



IamWilliamLocke  June 2, 2014
I had a similar experience to you. I am an agnostic/cultural Christian (I attend a liberal Anglican church because I like choir music and it functions as my social life). For a while I attended a very fundamentalist bible study with a few engineers (like myself), scientists, and other university educated young adults. All of them were fundamentalist. I have talked with some of them individually, I have even lent them some of my books (technically speaking, some of them are your books as well), despite this they still stick to the idea that the bible is inerrant, continuous, and 100% historically and scientifically accurate despite the evidence that is in plain sight. From what I have gathered from speaking with them, I think the whole issue lies with the fact that they do not want to leave their “16-year-old” faith. I think this mindset has to do with emotional security and emotional.
(The following is just my own speculation, each case will be different, but this is a general trend that I see)
When people have a born again experience , as I am sure you know, there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hype at that moment (I never had one even though I was an evangelical fundamentalist until I was 21, it probably has to do with the fact that I have high functioning autism and don’t really do the whole “emotional” thing). The born again moment for them in genuine, and that is when they “knew” Jesus . The time when they “knew” Jesus the best and the most clearly, was when they had the knowledge and intellectual capacity of a 16-year-old. The Jesus that they experienced at a concert, revival, or youth group was built on their 16-year-old understanding of who Jesus was and how he interacted with the world. They had trust and faith in the Jesus that they “knew” when they “felt” him. I was told by a girl attending my group “The Jesus I knew then has to be the same Jesus I know now, I felt him move in my life, and I felt him change me”.
It seems that they don’t want to change the Jesus they had. Accepting the historical and scientific facts could drastically change that Jesus that they knew at 16. It could get very messy, everyone in evangelical circles has heard the horror stories of the ones who go to a secular college and lose their faith because they questioned the fundamental principles (At the bottom I have linked a picture given to me before I left for university with the words “Don’t take that first step”) . If they accept something as simple as the fact that the bible has mistakes, or the fact that we don’t know that Jesus said everything in the red letters, that doesn’t just change the interesting historical portrait of the life of Jesus, it changes the Jesus that they knew, felt, and loved. If that Jesus changes, then what do you happens? Do you accept that your understanding of Jesus when you “met” him was flawed and attempt to restructure the very foundations of your faith, completely reforming the fundamental building blocks and deal with the subsequent change in world view? Or do you stay with what you first felt, keeping the foundations of your faith and maintain your core moral and ethical beliefs, your world view, and your emotional support/spiritual guidance? One is clearly easier, safer, and more secure. For those of us who go rogue (that is to say become a liberal Christian or *gasp* an agnostic/atheist), I think it is the acceptance of the former that forces us to grow and change. For the ones who stick to their first “16-year-old” experience, they can keep going on as it was before, biblical archaeology, textual criticism, evolutionary biology and the likes are interesting but have almost no effect of their day to day lives. They can keep the comfortable belief, the support, the community, the certainty and the security that comes with the “faith like a child” (I know that is taken out of context).
Before I left my group, they asked me why I changed my views to fit with the new body of knowledge I discovered rather than keeping the faith. In a very tongue and cheek manner I quoted Paul saying
“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.” (needless to say, they were not very impressed with my quotation)
As for the family and friends who are confused and upset. I think that has something to do with the whole “us against the fallen world” mentality that comes with evangelicalism. When I was still in the church, I remember them talking about two students who were with them. They told me about how they had “fallen” to the lure and seduction of “darkside”. Their change of world view was always attributed to sin, temptation, and the seduction of “the ways of this world”, it was never seen as an intellectual reform, a sincere search that ended for answers, or a legitimate problem with the way fundamentalism addresses science, history, and politics. My reasons for leaving the faith were completely intellectual and had nothing to do with passions, lust, or sin, however the emails I keep getting from them seem to presuppose devious and deceitful intentions. I think the problem with mentality is they “know” they have the right answer, so if you are at a different stage, it couldn’t have been from a search for understanding, it had to be from a corruption of truth (but I really haven’t researched this enough to know for certain)
Anyway, those are my thoughts, kindest regards,
Jonathan
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs0fyMpFXRyNxJ0zZUAVtFuLu23IPvL-mQv7LfXisYMM8Ozqb80GWM7Z5qGyBOuwiI3GPLu6QRRxJTDEBgs-7SiyuyOJKpgvthK4uUkwG-Yzbfz5OEqAHl4IYY7mQn3L0uCmN30MekmLSp/s1600/descent.jpg
Log in to Reply  



shakespeare66  June 3, 2014
Thanks for bearing your soul to us about the experiences of going home. It struck a chord with me because it has been challenging taking the other side of religion. People in general are not willing to listen to any view about their religion that they do not agree with. It is like trying to convince a Republican that Obama really is a good guy. It is a fruitless exercise. So, too, is trying to reveal information that might take them out of their 16 year old mind set. But we call it a “mind set” because that is exactly what it is—my mind is set on these ideas and no one can change them, and if one tries, then it is considered the work of the devil or the dark side or whatever they want to call it. I have a Jehovah Witness brother who has not seen the light of day in 40 some years….he is so imbued with what he believes that he cannot entertain another idea. He has a Jehovah Witness mentality and it mirrors any cult religion I know. But your point about growing intellectually in all aspects of one’s knowledge is a good one. Those who choose to learn more about any given avenue of knowledge are going to change their understanding of the given knowledge studied, but so many people abate their learning that they become entrenched in a kind of fairy land of existence, never really understanding anything, must less the complexities of religion.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 11, 2014
“But your point about growing intellectually in all aspects of one’s knowledge is a good one. Those who choose to learn more about any given avenue of knowledge are going to change their understanding of the given knowledge studied…”
Right you are,
“atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that “onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist.”1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”3
 In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”4 According to Flew, “…it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.”2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology.”
by Rich Deem
Log in to Reply  
 



JeffinFairfax  June 3, 2014
I hear you, Dr. Ehrman, and I think there are many of us. I was a devout and active evangelical who had a slow and painful “de-conversion” experience while doing graduate work in philosophy at UVA. I could no longer, with integrity, sustain belief in light of the logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible. Moreover, I felt I owed an explanation to friends and family for why I was leaving the faith to be agnostic and so I gave it, leading to a social rending that followed the intellectual one. To some degree this rift continues to the present but, as you’ve noted, religion often becomes an unmentioned feature in the landscape for the sake of peace. In any event, new births of any kind can be painful but they can also lead to new places of happiness, for which I’m grateful.
I’ve had discussions over the years with a friend (who’s traveled a similar path) about how to reconcile and weave together our very different early and later lives. Like you, I’ve come to see that were it not for that very different early environment I would not have come to be where I am and who I am today. New wine in old wineskins, I think (despite Jesus’ reported words to the contrary). Our stories and their meanings are always changing, it seems, and we incorporate old truths and experiences in new ways, just as Jesus and Paul did with the Jewish prophets.
To your point, though, I think many hold to their child-like religious formulations because of the enormous role that the worldview/group myth of one’s kith and kin play in forming and maintaining one’s identity and in providing social cohesion. In ironic obedience to Jesus’ command to leave behind old, traditional social ties for the sake of truth, we who have made an intellectual exodus from the thinking and community of our youth have untied one of the strongest cords used to bind (“religare”) people together internally and to each other–religion. This is a risky thing for a person to do–and even more for an entire culture to do. But, as you say, how can we stay stuck in our 16th year–or in the first century? I don’t regret the migration and have no plans to go back but I do sometimes feel nostalgic for the old country.
In any event, I’m new here and not sure where to ask this or if you’ve already posted about this (I can’t see it anywhere), but what do you think about these metal plates?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1371290/70-metal-books-Jordan-cave-change-view-Biblical-history.html
Jeff
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 3, 2014
The metal plates have been shown to be forgeries.
Log in to Reply  


JeffinFairfax  June 4, 2014
Thanks, I see that now. http://www.livescience.com/13657-exclusive-early-christian-lead-codices-called-fakes.html. Not sure why it keeps circulating. I see the Mormons were intrigued.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  September 11, 2014
To your point, though, I think many hold to their child-like religious formulations because of the enormous role that the worldview/group myth of one’s kith and kin play in forming and maintaining one’s identity and in providing social cohesion. In ironic obedience to Jesus’ command to leave behind old, traditional social ties for the sake of truth, we who have made an intellectual exodus from the thinking and community of our youth have untied one of the strongest cords used to bind (“religare”) people together internally and to each other–religion. This is a risky thing for a person to do–and even more for an entire culture to do. But, as you say, how can we stay stuck in our 16th year–or in the first century? I don’t regret the migration and have no plans to go back but I do sometimes feel nostalgic for the old country.
I think you are wrong.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  September 11, 2014
“I could no longer, with integrity, sustain belief in light of the logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible.”
“…logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible.”
For example?
Log in to Reply  
 



FrankJay71  June 3, 2014
Hey, since you’re kind of on the subject, what exactly is being “borne again?” From what I thought I understood, in Greek, in John 3:7, Jesus uses a sort of double entendre, where the phase “borne again” also means “borne from above”. And the joke is that Nicodemus, doesn’t get that Jesus means from above, but that he is supposed to literally reascend from his mothers womb?
 So, how do “borne again” evangelicals understand the phrase. Is seems that in the context they use the term, and how the describe it, they literally mean reborn, but in spirit, or something like that.
 In short, do they misuse the term??
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 3, 2014
Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).
Log in to Reply  
 



maxhirez  June 5, 2014
How about fashion? I wish I could dress the way I did when I was 16. That wouldn’t fly now…
Log in to Reply  

cheito

cheito  June 6, 2014
DR EHRMAN:
I still believe what I first believed when i was 20 years old: That God raised Jesus Christ from the dead! This is what attracted me to Jesus. I was lost, empty and slave of sin. When I heard for the first time that God had raised a man from the dead, I thought, this is the greatest thing I’ve ever heard, but surely this has to be a fairy tale. I began reading the new Testament and after reading for about a year or so I came to the conclusion that Jesus’ resurrection was indeed true and I received Him by faith. This was 42 years ago and although today I don’t believe that all the books in the bible are inspired by God I do believe that many of the books in our canon were inspired by God himself but men have altered and perverted the originals. Among the collection of the inspired books and letters we possess, Some have been altered more than others. Still however there’s no way to alter what the message of the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead with body and spirit means, and there’s absolutely no way to alter what the statement, “God is Love”, means! You may not believe it but you can’t alter it ! It is what it is, believe it or not!
Log in to Reply  


gavm  June 11, 2014
it sounds like your just following the religion you fell into. everything you said could easily be parroted by a muslim. it annoys me when people treat there own religion as special but disrespect other faiths.
Log in to Reply  
 



gavm  June 11, 2014
yes religion has a way of preventing one from thinking to much. i suppose people have the same biases in other areas of life. for example i know many very intelligent agnostics who have very silly socialist attitudes about economics which almost no economist worth there salt would even slightly agree with
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  July 31, 2014
This time, for some reason, there was an unusually high concentration of “religious” recollections, of my different religious experiences in one place or another. Dr. Ehrman
Tell us more about those religious experiences you had, if you would.. Sounds as if they were significant, powerful and deep. In fact, you began to make adult kinds of decisions that would inform the rest of your life as a result of what took place at that time: to go to Moody, which led to Wheaton and on to Princeton. All were all born out of what occurred then, as a young man in your youth (beginning at 15!) Whatever it was, it was unique to you, substantial and had nothing to do with the way you had been praying, reading or confessing your sins, did it? Did you change? Your memories that surfaced had nothing to do with doctrine, dispensations, or attending church services, I bet. You had “religious experiences.” You didn’t have them before you, “asked Jesus into my heart” did you? Memories of how you viewed your friends, your enemies, your family, you, strangers, God, differently? With love gushing from your heart, the way the sunlight seemed to caress the trees, did the air smell different, pure?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  July 31, 2014
Maybe I will some time!
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 2, 2014
“But here is what struck me. About what other form of knowledge or belief would we say that it is better that we should think the way we did when we were 16 than the way we think now?”
When he was a kid, he blew the minds of older folks with his understanding of spiritual matters, and he never went to school. No biblical mandate that one should remain satisfied with her level of understanding at any age. Remember milk to meat and studying always to be approved. Dr. Ehrman, looking back, you wonder aloud what was it, actually, that was different for you after your religious experience. I think your memories yield truth. I think your memories refresh what was happening In your Heart, In You. Those things, whatever they stem from, were so important that they created within your gut a burning desire for spiritual understanding, and biblical truth, for god himself. You prayed, sincerely, for Christ to enter your heart and he did, at least it seems like it from what you say. If you had prayed for Julius Caesar to enter your life, would you have had such recollections visiting Lawrence? Your love for others, for everybody really, especially the needy, rat on you.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  July 31, 2014
The Telegraph on Rowan Williams
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
7:49PM BST 02 Jul 2014
 (I don’t know if I’m allowed to quote others or not.)
John Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a ‘neo-medievalist’, preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it is not true. In an interview with Third Way Magazine Williams responded: “I am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don’t. I don’t know how to persuade him, but I really don’t.”
and
“Over the years increasing exposure to and engagement with the Buddhist world in particular has made me aware of practices not unlike the ‘Jesus Prayer’ and introduced me to disciplines that further enforce the stillness and physical focus that the prayer entails,” he explained
“Walking meditation, pacing very slowly and coordinating each step with an out-breath, is something I have found increasingly important as a preparation for a longer time of silence.
“So: the regular ritual to begin the day when I’m in the house is a matter of an early rise and a brief walking meditation or sometimes a few slow prostrations, before squatting for 30 or 40 minutes (a low stool to support the thighs and reduce the weight on the lower legs) with the ‘Jesus Prayer': repeating (usually silently) the words as I breathe out, leaving a moment between repetitions to notice the beating of the heart, which will slow down steadily over the period.”
Far from it being like a “magical invocation”, he explained that the routine helps him detach himself from “distracted, wandering images and thoughts”, picturing the human body as like a ‘cave’ through which breath passes.
“If you want to speak theologically about it, it’s a time when you are aware of your body as simply a place where life happens and where, therefore, God ‘happens’: a life lived in you,” he added.
He went on to explain that those who perform such rituals regularly could reach “advanced states” and become aware of an “unbroken inner light”.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 10, 2014
“The general public today is widely unaware of how remarkable were the beliefs about Jesus and the extraordinary place of Jesus in the devotional practices of earliest Christian circles. So, if the book sells as well as his previous general-reader books, in addition to enriching Ehrman’s bank balance further, this one might help general readers to appreciate more how astonishing these early beliefs and devotional practices were.”
A review of How Jesus became “God,” per Ehrman by Larry W. Hurtado
Some professional jealousy imo. Some of Dr. Bart’s peers seem a little resentful of his enormous success. While they praise his wonderful communication skills, they usually can’t leave him alone until they take a few swipes at him. Notice he never retaliates. He’s earned every penny and he raises funds for the less fortunate by investing his time and efforts.
I do not think the early christian beliefs were more astonishing than one might expect, given what they encountered. Rather, if their response to what they believed had happened was more tame, that would be astonishing. After all, Dr. Bart describes the profound impact that his religious experience had on and in him 40 years later. That is powerful, in my estimation.
This isn’t textual criticism. I apologize.
 I find it difficult to believe on an intellectual level, that which changed Dr. Bart’s perception of the universe and gave him relief and lifted his burden, hold no value in a thoroughly honest and fair analysis why the new testament was written. As we attempt to examine the things that influenced those ancient writers and try to assess what they intended, while ascribing no value to the very words they penned and to which he responded, how is that different than the fundamentalists?
Log in to Reply  


shakespeare66  August 18, 2014
How is what different from the fundamentalists? Odd.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 11, 2014
“I’ve never, ever written a book that, in my opinion, is as important as this one, since the historical issues are of immense, almost incalculable importance,” Ehrman said. “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
Ehrman sees the Gospel of John, which traces the divine origins of Jesus all the way back to the beginning of creation, as belonging to a category unto itself. In this Gospel, Jesus makes overt and explicit statements about his own divinity.
 When it comes to John’s Gospel, Ehrman and some of his evangelical critics agree: The fourth Gospel should be understood as a theological treatise and an imaginative re-enactment, not an eyewitness account containing verbatim quotes.
 On “How Jesus Became God”
John Murawski
If jesus did not say the following, who did? In all of literature throughout the ages, about which we know, did anyone ever compose statements like these? No. At least, I am unaware of any. Who would or could walk around on the face of this planet and contrive such declarations (and be sane?). Why would they? I wonder if experts in the field of “Forensic Linguistics and Recognizing Individual Written and Spoken Word Usages” would conclude that many individuals had a hand in creating this document?
* “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith* in God; have faith also in me. 2In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? 3* And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be.a 4Where [I] am going you know the way.”* 5Thomas said to him, “Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?” 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth* and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.b 7If you know me, then you will also know my Father.* From now on you do know him and have seen him.”c 8Philip said to him, “Master, show us the Father,* and that will be enough for us.”d 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?e 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.f 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves.g 12Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.h 13And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.i 14If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
15“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.j 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always,k 17the Spirit of truth,* which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.l 18I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.* 19In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.m 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.n 21Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.”o 22Judas, not the Iscariot,* said to him, “Master, [then] what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?”p 23Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.q 24Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.
25“I have told you this while I am with you. 26The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that [I] told you.r 27Peace* I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.s 28* You heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’t If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. 29And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.u 30I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world* is coming. He has no power over me, 31but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me. Get up, let us go.”
These words are the heart of the gospel. They pour forth, they gush, honest, sincere unrehearsed thoughts, feelings, instructions and promises of someone unique to this world. Dr. Bart was an active member in his congregation, partaking in various religious functions and rituals. It wasn’t until he was born again that god became real to him. (I believe that is an accurate way of stating what happened. I pray I am not putting words in his mouth. That is when he had a profound religious experience, from what he’s written and it a common experience. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, entered into him, just as promised.) This was not a fleeting, momentary happening to some teenage space cadet. And, Dr. Bart trusted this “spiritual awakening” until his late twenties.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 13, 2014
Again, who said these things in what we call John 14? who said the following from john 15? Who on god’s green earth could possibly have thought of these things to attribute them to some fictitious godman? “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye love one another. 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you, 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.”
Can anyone identify even one human being with the potential ability to create what is written here?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 13, 2014
There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 13, 2014
Like that?
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 13, 2014
“There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!”
Those people claimed to be god? and said things like, “These things I command you, that ye love one another”?
And, “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.”?
“8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things…”?
I always thought no one else spoke like this.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 15, 2014
I don’t think Jesus ever claimed to be God. You really should read my book How Jesus Became God.
But there have been lots and lots of people who *have* claimed to be God, as you surely know.
 



prestonp  August 15, 2014
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things…
Dr B., specifically, who wrote these words, and the others I quoted from John 14 and 15, any idea? There are plenty of scholars who wrote “deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical work” but not these guys. They were mostly poor, non-professional scribes for the first few centuries, not brilliant scholars, from what you wrote in Misquoted.
I have an idea. Let’s identify everything we believe Christ actually did say. Let’s build a complete record of each and every word that he spoke and add to it as we discover more and more words that can be attributed to him alone. We could approach this argument from a more balanced perspective that way, wouldn’t that make sense?No need to answer.
I have never read or seen anything like that which we find in these verses. We read the words of a human being, known to have existed, as he’s saying farewell to his friends and companions, as their god and as god almighty. He’s eloquent. Utterly human, but much more than human, obviously. He says things that people don’t say to one another, ever. In fact, he spent his ministry saying things that confounded the well educated. Who put those words in his mouth?
32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” This apparent discrepancy has been resolved as have many other issues raised by textual criticism.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 16, 2014
I”m not completely sure what you’re asking. The author of the Gospel of John wrote those words. Or the source that he used wrote them. I can’t think of any alternative. They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus. The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.
 
 



prestonp  October 3, 2014
Besides the gospel of Thomas, which fails miserably on this score, imo, who or where else, specifically can we find someone who sounds just like Christ?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 3, 2014
I think the bigger question is how you know what Jesus sounded like. No one was recording his teachings at the time. The accounts of his words were weritten 40-60 years later. And the way he sounds in Mark is VERY different from the way he sounds in John (and in the Gospel of Thomas, or Philip, or Nicodemus, or Mary, or … take your pick)
 



prestonp  October 10, 2014
“I think the bigger question is how you know what Jesus sounded like. No one was recording his teachings at the time. The accounts of his words were weritten 40-60 years later. And the way he sounds in Mark is VERY different from the way he sounds in John (and in the Gospel of Thomas, or Philip, or Nicodemus, or Mary, or … take your pick)” Dr. Bart
I have read and reread what he said many, many, many times. I have studied the words attributed to him intensely. Reading is a passion of mine and I’m not altogether unfamiliar with how others express themselves verbally.
We have no credible evidence that his words were not written down soon after he spoke them. Ms. Hezser has written that well to do people of that time could afford to and did have such people writing down what was said immediately after it was spoken.
 

Bart

Bart  October 10, 2014
Yes, if you assume that the words in the Gospels are the words that Jesus really spoke, you don’t have much of a problem!
 



prestonp  October 12, 2014
“Yes, if you assume that the words in the Gospels are the words that Jesus really spoke, you don’t have much of a problem!” Dr. Bart
I made no such assumptions. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. It just wasn’t possible 1. that god existed. 2. that he had a kid. 3. that his kid visited planet earth. 4. that he loved us. 5 that he died to set me free from me. 6. that any kind of true record existed. 7. at best we had a santa claus nut running around back then. In fact there were many of them. that’s what I believed when I opened that book
COULD NOT BE TRUE.
 
 



prestonp  October 12, 2014
“As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love”
“There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!” Dr. Bart
I have not found a single example of someone who spoke like this guy, nor have I seen anyone quoted who sounds anything like him, either. I don’t know what kind of scholarly discipline it is called, or even if there is one, but it is fascinating to come to understand that his words are indeed, “the unmatched expression” as an argument for his divinity.
 (“Divine non-criticism”, perhaps?)
 Not one of these many brilliant, powerful, deeply moving authors has produced anything like the gospel of John has he?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 13, 2014
It is important to notice that “he” doesn’t sound like this in Matthew, Mark, or Luke either. Also: you’ll notice that John the Baptist sounds just like “him” in the fourth Gospel. And so does the narrator. Why is that? They are not three different voices. They are all the voice of the author.
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“It is important to notice that “he” doesn’t sound like this in Matthew, Mark, or Luke either. Also: you’ll notice that John the Baptist sounds just like “him” in the fourth Gospel. And so does the narrator. Why is that? They are not three different voices. They are all the voice of the author.” Dr Bart
Dr Bart, would you cite some examples, please?
Imo, John was a melancholic or he had a melancholic personality, if that is more accurate. He viewed the world and everyone in it from that inborn perspective, He was very sensitive. He was a “feeling oriented” man who valued human relationships and interactions above all else.
Say General Schwarzkopf and Michelangelo lived 2,000 years ago and had gotten to know jesus, or of him, and set out to describe him. Can you see how differently their views of him might have been expressed?
 

Bart

Bart  October 15, 2014
The lines you cited from John do not sound anything like Jesus sounds in any of the other Gospels. You cited the examples yourself! As to the three sounding the same. Ask yourself: who is talking in John 3:13-15? Who is talking in John 3:16-18? How do you know? And consider JB’s words in John 1.
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
The brilliant, spiritually powerful and deeply moving authors to whom you refer did not emerge from that time and place, did they? None of them wrote about a godman sharing his life with others with radically different ideas like jesus, did he?
Off topic a bit: Somerset Maugham’s Of Human Bondage blew me away.
 
 
 
 



shakespeare66  August 18, 2014
You banter around with words that make no point. You assume the reader of your comments will discover the point in your verbal wanderings. Make a point.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 12, 2014
“My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.”
Dr. Bart The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old
At the beginning of every season, Jack Nicklaus took time out to return to the basics of the game and stayed there until he was confident in his grip, his stance, his set up routine, his putting, his turn, etc. Vince Lombardi ran the sweep in practice until Kramer, Thurston and Hornung consistently could go full speed and get their footing within one half inch of the route he designed for them to take. Over and over and over and again and again, repeatedly, and then again and again…It was their bread and butter. The play they relied upon to gain a chunk of yardage, no matter what. Off of it they built various formations and complex plays and passing schemes, even a few trick plays. In fact, Lombardi boasted that opponents might very well know what play the Packers would run next (some version of the sweep). Didn’t matter. They would simply run it perfectly. The point is we can grow, and we must grow, but we don’t have to shed the foundation.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 12, 2014
But if Jack Nicklaus played golf the way he did when he was sixteen, for his entire life, he never would have won a *single* golf tournament, let alone a major, let alone 18 majors! And if Lombardi coached when he was 40 the way he would have when he was 16, he never would have been the most awe-inspiring figure in football coaching history….
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 12, 2014
Ha! on a more serious note, Dr. Bart wasn’t delusional or susceptible to brain washing or hocus pocus magical thinking. How was the burden lifted? How did he connect in such a powerful fashion to the universe in a way never known to him? Why have multitudes proclaimed they too found the same kinds of things? “For me, at the time, it felt like an enormous relief, a lifting of burden, a sense of connecting with the universe in a way I never had before. Very powerful!” Dr. Bart to this day maintains this was a very real, very significant, true experience for him. Burden lifted. Enormous relief. A sense of connecting with the universe. How did it happen?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 13, 2014
There’s really no difficulty explaining religious experience psychologically. You may want to read some psychological literature, starting with William James!
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 13, 2014
I agree with James that many of us may experience a variety of special states of mind for different reasons. No doubt. That doesn’t disprove the born again experience. Dr. Bart, what happened to you? When you say you were born again, did god become real to you, or no?
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 15, 2014
Of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t have remained a Christian. But there really is no difficulty in explaining Christian conversion — or conversion to Judaism, or Islam or Krishna or to any other religious view/person on psychological grounds.
 



prestonp  August 22, 2014
Dr. Bart, what happened to you? When you say you were born again, did god become real to you, or no?
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
 Of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t have remained a Christian. But there really is no difficulty in explaining Christian conversion — or conversion to Judaism, or Islam or Krishna or to any other religious view/person on psychological grounds.
God became real to you, not something psychological. It wasn’t a conversion to christianity that became real to you. God, himself, revealed to you, Bart, that he was REAL, in the present tense. Experiencing God cannot be explained away on psychological grounds, or any other grounds, can he?
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 22, 2014
I think I’d rather that we focus principally on the historical study of early Christianity. I occasionally say things here about what I believe, or used to believe, but it’s not really the central feature of the blog.
 



prestonp  August 23, 2014
“Why Join Bart’s Blog?
 As a member, you will gain full access to read Bart’s thoughts and dialogue with him about his books, debates, beliefs and more! All membership fees will be used in full to aid the poor in the most difficult living conditions.”
Dr. Bart, If you prefer not to go in depth about your beliefs, that is ok. I have no desire to be a thorn in your side. I do think, in light of the promised benefits upon joining your blog, and your very warm and open, personal style of communicating, not sharing with your audience the details of your transformative shift from knowing god is real to denying that fact, is quite a let down.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 23, 2014
I have gone into considerable depth into my beliefs in my books and on the blog. I just don’t want to keep repeating the same things about it — with so many other issues that we could be addressing.
 
 
 
 
 



prestonp  August 12, 2014
Nicklaus won the Tri-State High School Championship (Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana) at the age of 14 with a round of 68, and also recorded his first hole-in-one in tournament play the same year. At 15, Nicklaus shot a 66 at Scioto Country Club, (Site of five Major Tournaments: 1926 U.S. Open. 1931 Ryder Cup. 1950 PGA Championship. 1968 U.S. Amateur. 1986 Senior Open.) which was the amateur course record, and qualified for his first U.S. Amateur. He won the Ohio Open in 1956 at age 16, highlighted by a phenomenal third round of 64, competing against professionals. In all, Nicklaus won 27 events in the Ohio area from age 10 to age 17.
Lombardi “went to church 365 days of the year. He never missed.” In fact, while he coached the Packers, he not only attended church every day, but also served as the altar boy (as an adult)… Lombardi often shared his beliefs with players and coaches….
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 13, 2014
I’m not sure what your point is. My point is that if you stay where you were as a sixteen year old, you will be a stunted adult.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 13, 2014
Nicklaus was a phenomenon before he was 16! I am approaching this lightheartedly. My point is this: I don’t have to become “sophisticated” and “more advanced” in every area of my life to prove that I’m a growing, fully-involved adult. To grow and to develop as a human being who follows him means that I will become more like him as I pass through young adulthood, midlife and old age. Initial contact with god is exhilarating for many. We are “high on Christ” some say. We are not meant to stay forever in that state of pure ecstasy. Nor do we need to deny the wonder of it to be able to move forward.
Dr., I am just saying that followers aren’t supposed to rot after conversion, but that doesn’t mean we have to study and interpret the new testament in a more “modern”, a more “sophisticated” fashion, necessarily. Truth is truth, wherever it originates and wherever it takes us. I may fear the outcome, but if god is god, can’t he lead me into more truth that confirms his presence and reality when I encountered him at first? If he is not the real deal, he wasn’t then and he cannot be now. If he was then, he is now. IMO, anyway. Dr. Bart, no one can or will interpret “the book” perfectly, imo, and we don’t have to, at least in terms of enjoying friendship with god. I think as we learn and grow, we find he is more interested in sharing life with us as a co-traveler, a co-creator, happy to be as intimate with us as we want to be. Don’t mean to preach. Trying to point out that we are designed to keep maturing, as you say, just in a different realm.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 14, 2014
“I’ve never, ever written a book that, in my opinion, is as important as this one, since the historical issues are of immense, almost incalculable importance, Ehrman said. “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
Whose assertion? A multitude of anonymous scribes over 15 centuries who spun a ridiculous tale based on unreliable 50 to 70 year old oral traditions from the first century? How and why did their various assertions challenge anyone to do or to think anything of significance? I mean, how did they manage to pull off such a huge fraud? Their assertion arguably is the most important development in the history of the development of the West? (Not to mention the same assertions enormous impact on the East.) All kinds of nuts were running around back then claiming all kinds of things. For centuries, some have asserted that Santa is real. All kinds of myths have been perpetuated throughout the millennia. What makes Dr. Bart and many others believe this “assertion” about jesus rises to such an extraordinary level?
If you don’t believe in miracles, these unknown, non-professional scribes, who were biased and unrelated, these lying forgerers separated by thousands of years and concocted this absolute nonsense conning the western world, might make you think twice.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 15, 2014
The assertion that Jesus is God is made and has been made by most Christians from the first century down until today. I’m not completely sure what you’re objecting to.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 15, 2014
If you are correct, there’s no valid reason to believe that jesus was god. So, how did they con the world? How did they pull off a hoax that revolutionized the world? The written stories about jesus were embellished, modified, and altered repeatedly over the centuries and were the product of hear-say. So, how did they manage to fool so many for so long? If they had tried to do create a story that would have such phenomenal results, they couldn’t.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 16, 2014
No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God. I just disagree with them. My book is not about whether Jesus is God. It’s about how the idea that he is God arose and developed. Those are two very different things.
 



prestonp  August 16, 2014
Are you referring to the assertions we find in the new testament?
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 17, 2014
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. (When I get comments for moderatoin, they do not include the comments on which the comments are commenting on — so you need to make sure you explain what you’re referring to)
 



prestonp  August 17, 2014
Right from the start, one gets the impression Ehrman’s Jesus is a truncated version construed by a historical-critical scholar—and an unduly skeptical one at that. This isn’t only Ehrman the historian; it’s also Ehrman the ex-believer and notorious skeptic. [3]
From beginning to end Ehrman dichotomizes between faith and reason, history and theology, the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. [4] With such premises in place, the outcome of his historical research is predictable: Jesus never claimed to be God; he viewed himself as an apocalyptic prophet (echoes of Albert Schweitzer); and his followers never considered him to be God either. In customary fashion, Ehrman assigns the emergence of the notion of Jesus’ divinity to the latest possible date. He asserts ancient people frequently thought of a particular human as a god or of a god having become human, so there’s nothing unique about Christians’ claim that Jesus was divine. [5]
How Jesus Became God
Bart D. Ehrman | Review by: Andreas Köstenberger
While Dr. B. is unusually gracious and attempts to be fair to all sides, unfortunately Kostenberger is correct. His commitment to skepticism is as strong or stronger than any fundamentalist’s devotion. It is his religion and his god. Dr. B. is so smart (perhaps too smart) and articulate it is easy to ignore his weaknesses. One expects him to be practically perfect in everything he tackles as a scholar, to recognize his faults and to modify his positions accordingly.
He’s only human, after all, and though a remarkably talented one, he’s prone to all the weaknesses which challenge the rest of us. George Will uses a line that applies here. To accept Dr. B’s view, we have to overlook volumes of data and common sense.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 17, 2014
This seems to be mainly name-calling and branding to me. If there are substantive points that can refute my position, I’d rather deal with those.
 



prestonp  August 20, 2014
When we consider what you believe to be overwhelming evidence that the new testament is a farce, a forgery, a twisted batch of distortions based on unreliable 60 year old collections of hear-say, how can anyone assign any significance to it? After decades of research, you have proven it does not represent what most christians claim it does: a revelatory expression of god’s incarnation. Therefor, any assertion or claim that the new testament presents the case that Christ is divine must fail. It does no such thing. Isn’t that your position?
I am reading your books and related material. My questions remain.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 20, 2014
No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.
 
 



shakespeare66  August 17, 2014
The Christian world is doing the asserting that Jesus was God. Who else is making that assertion? Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Where is the proof that Jesus was God or the son of God? So what is your point?
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 24, 2014
What substantial reasons do christians have for believing in Christ according to Dr. Bart, do you know?
 
 
 
 



shakespeare66  August 17, 2014
I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with these arguments. The point is that as one investigates the truth of any matter, one’s mind changes over the course of that investigation. I used to think certain things about Shakespeare until I read a great deal more about his life and his work at the Globe.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 20, 2014
I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with these arguments. The point is that as one investigates the truth of any matter, one’s mind changes over the course of that investigation. I used to think certain things about Shakespeare until I read a great deal more about his life and his work at the Globe.
As some investigate this matter, they become more certain that Christ is god.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  August 16, 2014
“I”m not completely sure what you’re asking. The author of the Gospel of John wrote those words. Or the source that he used wrote them. I can’t think of any alternative.” Dr. B.
The original account given in John was altered and added to and subtracted from depending on the scribes who copied it, in your opinion, I thought.
“They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus. The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. B.
What he said on that occasion, and every other time he opened his mouth, could have been written down at any moment after he spoke them. Maybe someone did take notes at the last supper. The “many” Luke refers to in chapter 1 may include some of those present at that meal. They were free to record everything they could remember, whenever and wherever they could. We have no reason to believe they would wait 60 years to begin jotting down their recollections of what was said and had occurred. Just the opposite. The earliest band of followers were supercharged to tell the world, everyone/anyone/all who would listen to them, or read what they wrote, concerning those things that had taken place in that obscure tiny dot on planet earth.
How much scripture did you memorize after your religious experience?
If you peer back in time and observe them (silently from the shadows) you can tell they were absolutely overwhelmed (smitten) by the reality of having spent many months hanging with the one they were certain was god, himself. They couldn’t help themselves. They engaged in every conceivable activity to inform others what they had just seen and heard and handled. 1 john 1: 1, even as you began telling everyone about what happened to you. Some were better at preaching, some organizing, some writing.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 17, 2014
I memorized a number of the shorter books of the NT.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 24, 2014
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart
Can you tell us what a few of those reasons Are? Thanks
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 25, 2014
Personal experience. Decision to stand within a certain faith tradition. Sense of the meaning of the world.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



shakespeare66  August 17, 2014
How is your certain account of these witnesses conceivable in a time when most people were illiterate? You sound like everyone walked around with notebook and pen and paper writing down comments. How silly. No one had that ability to do so. If you had taken the time to read many of Dr. Erhman’s books, one would find how this “story” of Christ emerged through a long litany of concocted stories.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 18, 2014
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
 This seems to be mainly name-calling and branding to me. If there are substantive points that can refute my position, I’d rather deal with those
I am sorry Dr. My errors.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
I was referring to your quotation, not to your views.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 18, 2014
The words spoken in John 14, 15, 16 and 17 were extraordinary. In all that has ever been written down, of which we are aware, what comes closest in content and meaning? What is the most similar example that you can recall or find? Anyone?
Dr. Bart, can a valid argument be made regarding the authenticity of certain words having been spoken by a particular individual from antiquity in part using the process of elimination?
Do we have any good reasons to believe the followers would (or could restrain themselves) for 60 years to begin jotting down their recollections of what was said and what had occurred?
“The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, at the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. B., how can we say that no one took notes or wrote down soon after the supper, what he said?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 20, 2014
Ehrman’s argument that Peter and John were illiterate based
 on the use of the word !”#$%%&Therefore'() to describe the two disciples in Acts 4:13
 is unconvincing. The word !”#$%%&'() is the opposite of “#&%%&’*+), which
 is used in the NT to denote a professional scribe. , !”#$%%&'() can
 simply mean to lack rabbinical training. 7 In the context of Acts 4, the Jewish
 council is described as “#&%%&’*,) (Acts 4:5), in contrast to Peter and John
 who are !”#$%%&'(-. It is evident that the contrast is between those who have
 formal rabbinical training (the Jewish council) and those who do not (Peter
 and John). In any case, as Carson asserts, “The astonishment of the authorities
 was in any case occasioned by the competence of Peter and John when
 they should have been (relatively) ignorant, not by their ignorance when they
 should have been more competent.” 8 Moreover, most Jewish boys did learn to
 read, and since John’s family was not poor (Luke 5:3 and Mark 1:20 indicate
 his family owned boats and employed others), it is highly probable that he
 received a better-than-average education. 9 Ben Witherington responds pointedly to Ehrman’s overall argument that the first disciples were mere illiterate peasants: First of all, fishermen are not peasants. They often made a good living from the Sea of Galilee, as can be seen from the famous and large fisherman’s house excavated in Bethsaida. Secondly, fishermen were businessmen and they had to either have a scribe or be able to read and write a bit to deal with tax collectors, toll collectors, and other business persons. Thirdly, if indeed Jesus had a Matthew/ Levi and others who were tax collectors as disciples, they were indeed literate, and again were not peasants. As the story of Zaccheus makes perfectly clear, they could indeed have considerable wealth, sometimes from bilking people out of their money. In other words, it is a caricature to suggest that all Jesus’ disciples were illiterate peasants.
 JETS 54.3 (September 2011) 449–65
 DISUNITY AND DIVERSITY:
 THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF BART EHRMAN
 Josh Chatraw
Dr., they could have asked others to take dictation, too. Many probably did. They were not proud. Christ had some wealthy women who supported his ministry as well. They were besides themselves with joy, preaching and sharing the good news with everyone in sight. They were overwhelmed by the same “religious experience” that meant so much to you and others you helped to find god.
Isn’t it “illogical” or against some debating rule to make a blanket statement about what others could or couldn’t do without knowing for sure? Just look how important writing about jesus is to you, and he isn’t your god. (Now, you’re brilliant, but you could write about many topics.)
I am convinced, in my own non-scholarly way, that it was jesus and none other, who spoke the words recorded in john 14-17. No human being thought up what was said there. It is not possible. It is a different language. The words are words we use yes, but on a different level, a different plane and from a different dimension. I don’t know how to speak that language. Nothing like it is spoken by mankind, as far as I know. At least, I have never seen anything or heard anything like it, anywhere, have you Dr.?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 20, 2014
If you’re interested in a full discussion of the dictation theory, I’d suggest you read my extended discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery. I show there why that can probalby not account for the books we have.
Most Jewish boys certainly did not learn how to read. Don’t take my word for it. The definitive study is Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine. She is quite clear and convincing on this point. On fishermen not being peasants — good grief. This is Romance, not History. I’d suggest you read up on what we know about the social context of rural Galilee.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 20, 2014
If you’re interested in a full discussion of the dictation theory, I’d suggest you read my extended discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery. I show there why that can probalby not account for the books we have.
Will do. Thanks for the reference. I just hope I get a passing grade when I’ve finished all the reading you’ve assigned to me!
Most Jewish boys certainly did not learn how to read. Don’t take my word for it. The definitive study is Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine. She is quite clear and convincing on this point.
Ok. As soon as I’ve finished my homework, remember the 37 volumes you gave me?
On fishermen not being peasants — good grief. This is Romance, not History. I’d suggest you read up on what we know about the social context of rural Galilee.
I will. Got to catch my breath
Dr. Bart, let’s say fisherman were illiterate, dictation is not an option and most jewish boys were illiterate. Among his followers were tax collectors, 2 members of the Sanhedrin, several wealthy women, etc.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 21, 2014
A tax collector was not necessarily educated; he could simply be the guy who bangs on your door telling you to pay up. And tehre were no members of the Sanhedrin among Jesus’ followers.
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“We shall obviously never know in a clear-cut numerical way how many people were literate, semi-literate, or illiterate in the Graeco-Roman world in general, or even in any particular …”
Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine.
 

Bart

Bart  October 13, 2014
That’s right — we will never be able to put a number on it.
 
 
 



prestonp  September 11, 2014
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
“Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
Dr. Bart, as a true scholar, (an amazing one at that) are you unaware that your statement here cannot be true? You do not Know they were illiterate. You Cannot know that, so you cannot make that an honest statement of fact, isn’t that true?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 11, 2014
History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. I have no trouble saying that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, even though it is only *probably* true.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 13, 2014
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
“Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
“Dr. Bart, as a true scholar, (an amazing one at that) are you unaware that your statement here cannot be true? You do not Know they were illiterate. You Cannot know that, so you cannot make that an honest statement of fact, isn’t that true?” pp
“History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. I have no trouble saying that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, even though it is only *probably* true.” Dr. Bart
Would this be a more acceptable statement from an intellectual such as yourself? “Jesus’ own followers may not have been restraining themselves. They may have been illiterate. They may not have been able to write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
Jesus’ followers may have been unable to refrain from writing all about him from the moment he called them. A few of them may have been literate. They certainly may have written down exactly what he said.
As a scholar, as a widely respected and even a beloved, true-blue, “peoples’ scholar”, you may not have given this particular matter enough purely objective analysis, imho.
It appears very probable that they wrote down what they heard and the world has never been the same. Their pronouncement that god dwelt among us, died and was resurrected was the most significant factor in the development of Western civilization. I agree. pp
Unrelated, have you watched old tapes of NASA test firing the Saturn 5 rockets on the net, from Huntsville, Alabama? Got to
 
 
 
 
 



prestonp  August 19, 2014
There’s really no difficulty explaining religious experience psychologically. You may want to read some psychological literature, starting with William James! Dr. B from above.
I cannot imagine You were somehow tricked into a psychological ruse–that you were the victim of a pseudo-spiritual experience, especially given the way you changed and the profound influence you describe it has had on your life. Some other people? Absolutely! You? Dr. Bart, that is tough to swallow. I bet most people who know even a little bit about you would say you would be the last person to be fooled by some kind of bull. “I told my friends, family, everyone about Christ,” he remembers now. “The study of the Bible was a religious experience. The more you studied the Bible, the more spiritual you were. I memorized large parts of it. It was a spiritual exercise, like meditation.” Some of those you reached out to continue to enjoy him and walk with him. Not, I expect, the kind of response we’d anticipate from normal, healthy people who rely on forged, misquoted, altered, added to, removed from, embellished and twisted words of biased boobs, primarily and originally built upon information that was 60 years old, which itself was mere hear-say and rumors– all about some obscure, uneducated, average appearing, jewish peasant who lived 2,000 years ago.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 19, 2014
“In fact, as I argue in the book, the followers of Jesus had no inkling that he was divine until after his death.” Dr. B. Huffington Post on “How Jesus Became God”
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
You really need to read my book.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 20, 2014
I’ve been reading your books, Dr. and they are great.
To say that his followers had no clue he was Christ before he was resurrected, when we have examples from the new testament that contradict that position, is a legitimate argument, I think. I am enjoying your books very much. haven’t found your explanation for this yet. I do think that your position that his followers were illiterate is not supported very well. To conclude that no one wrote down what he said for 60 years is a leap of faith and cannot be proven. Components of your arguments, I suggest, weaken its foundation.
Log in to Reply  
 
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
I don’t think psychology is a matter of being tricked into ruses. The psychology of religion is a profound and complicated field. Again, I’d suggest you do some reading to help inform your opinions.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 21, 2014
“Regarding Matt 24:36, although many witnesses record Jesus as speaking of his own prophetic ignorance (“But as for that day and hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father alone”), many others lack the words “nor the Son.” Whether “nor the Son” is authentic or not is disputed, but what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel in Mark 13:32—“But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father.” Thus, there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of his own prophetic ignorance in the Olivet Discourse. Consequently, what doctrinal issues are really at stake here? One simply cannot maintain that the wording in Matt 24:36 changes one’s basic theological convictions about Jesus since the same sentiment is found in Mark.
 In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best. Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong.”
Review of
 Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005)
 by
 Daniel B. Wallace,
 Executive Director,
 Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 21, 2014
Yes, this is another instance in which Dan Wallace completely misunderstands my point, as I think you’ll see if you actually read my discussion of the problem.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 21, 2014
“…over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise”.
Bruce Manning Metzger
 American biblical scholar
 and textual critic,
 professor at Princeton Theological Seminary
“Ehrman points to the fact that in Matthew’s version of the ignorance saying (cf. Mk. 13.32 to Mt. 24.36) as some sort of proof that Jesus should not be seen as divine, at least in Matthew’s Gospel. We can debate the textual variants, but even if we include ‘not even the Son’ here which is certainly present in Mk. 13.32 it in no way proves that Matthew presents a merely human Jesus. The Emmanuel (God with us Christology) which we find at the beginning and end of this Gospel rules that notion out all together, as do various other texts in Matthew where Jesus presents himself as the Wisdom of God come in the flesh…”
Daniel B. Wallace,
 Executive Director,
 Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)
Reading various points of view
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 21, 2014
Metzger was my teacher, and I agree with his statement. I agree with Wallace that Jesus is divine in Matthew, but not for the reasons he thinks.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 21, 2014
I know. Thought it was interesting that you and Metzger seemingly drifted far apart on some important issues.
While 85 to 90 percent of the population may have been illiterate where and when Christ grew up, and while Petaus and Ischyrion may have been barely literate, you apparently recognize that as little as 60 years after his death, at least a few, who wrote the new testament, were brilliant. Common sense mandates that very likely they would have insisted on using qualified scribes.
Don’t forget that something else factored in to the early minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years following the murder of jesus. He was loved.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 22, 2014
Loving someone is not a guarantee that you will remember his words and deeds accurately, as cognitive psychologists have demonstrated time and again.
Probalby 97% of Jesus’ world was illiterate. Those who could read and write were the very upper crust of the wealthy elite.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 22, 2014
Loving someone in this case means they were devoted to getting his message out to everyone, everywhere, and to ensure it was accurate. They didn’t love him hoping to get rich. If he was savagely murdered, so could they. They faced real danger being his devotees. Look at what Saul, on his own, was doing and later what Paul faced for his efforts to tell the world.
Remember, too, your own first love for him.
3% of 100,000 is 3,000.
 
 
 



prestonp  October 3, 2014
Doesn’t agreeing with Metzger regarding the “90%” contradict the pronouncements you’ve made that the mistakes and contradictions textual critics have found in the n.t. are major, numerous and profound?
“…over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise”.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 3, 2014
Nope. I think you need to read my views (and Metzger’s) more closely to see what they are. Metzger’s comment is unrelated to my discussions of discrepancies in the NT.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



prestonp  August 21, 2014
A tax collector was not necessarily educated; he could simply be the guy who bangs on your door telling you to pay up.
 He would have to handle and read receipts
And tehre were no members of the Sanhedrin among Jesus’ followers.
 Joe of Arimathea and Nicodemus were not members?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 22, 2014
Nicodemus is almost certainly a fictional character; Joseph may be as well. But in any event, neither of them (even inthe preserved stories) accompanied Jesus during his ministry.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 22, 2014
Wouldn’t it have been risky to name them as members when it was verifiable?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 23, 2014
Members of what? Remember, the Gospels were written decades later in a completely different part of the world, to people who for the most part were not alive when the events narrated took place.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 27, 2014
“Remember, the Gospels were written decades later…”
The gospels reveal words that were spoken and describe events that took place thousands of years ago. As these things unfolded, people began to write about them for their personal reasons, in their diaries, in letters to loved ones near and far. Children would tell their parents what they saw and heard, undoubtedly, which may have become part of the family’s written history. People are people. I cannot imagine that he wasn’t the topic of conversation wherever people gathered. They knew something special was taking place; even the highest ranking officials were familiar with his reputation and were eager to meet him. Why would his followers or anyone else hesitate to make an accurate accounting? Why would they wait? Most likely they didn’t. Repeatedly, they proclaim that what they had heard and seen and handled was the greatest experience known to mankind, their first hand encounter with the creator of all things. Not trying to preach. Trying to make clear that they were motivated, eager, in fact they were bursting to share the most precious thing they’d ever known. Just look at Dr. Bart’s actions as a young man and new believer. Immediately, he shared with those he loved and others what had become so meaningful to him.
 
 
 



prestonp  September 6, 2014
Even if they didn’t follow him on the ground, that wouldn’t disqualify them in any way from being true believers. Whoever wrote that they were members and followers was foolish if he was lying. They weren’t stupid back then. For the writer to say that herod was curious about him, if untrue, was a good way to get killed real quick.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  August 23, 2014
Dr. Bart, the names of the members of the Sanhedrin would be on record when Joe and Nick were mentioned as members and as disciples. Whoever included their names in the account we have would have taken a big risk if he lied because the Sanhedrin was viable and what he wrote would have been available.
If the authors of the accounts of Pilate were lying, even years later, they took a big risk. They could not be certain someone wouldn’t check other sources and they executed people back then for less.
Sharing the gospel was dangerous from the get go. The accounts we have of the birth of the church are filled with threats, imprisonment and death. They murdered him to rid their world of the threat of genuine spirituality. He said, expect the same.
They hated me. They will hate you.
There are too many texts that support this reality.
To say that none of his disciples was literate is impossible. We don’t know that. It may be a certain probability, fine. But, it cannot be established as a fact. When “criticism” is scrutinized with the same standards with which it examines the n.t. the culture, the politics and customs, etc. of that era, usually the best it can offer is probabilities of probabilities which decrease sharply the possibilities of 100% certainty. For example, 70% of 90% is only 63%.
“Criticism” should and must be evaluated in the same fashion it is used. It doesn’t hold up, imo.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
“I have no argument with them. My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.”
If everyone obeyed the unsophisticated, old fashioned, ancient 10 commandments presented by hebrews of antiquity, our civilization would be totally revolutionized, completely rejuvenated for the good.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 26, 2014
Much of what was written in the time frame of Christ’s first appearance could be cross-referenced with relatives and others close to those who were intimately involved in his mission.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 27, 2014
Does anyone care to explain/clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 29, 2014
And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gad’arenes.
 2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3 who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: 4 because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, and cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
We think Schwarzenegger is pretty strong. No contest! This guy had superhuman strength and he knows god when he sees him, even if the account is found in the gospel that doesn’t say jesus was divine.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 29, 2014
Mark doesn’t seem to be trying to cover up christ’s divinity, does he?
“…she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. 30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?” Magic?
“While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead; why troublest thou the Master any further? 36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe…And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Tal’itha cu’mi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, (I say unto thee,) arise. 42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.”
Was she still alive when this was written about her, or her sister or her children, etc. Additionally, all those who were astonsished knew people and many of them would have kids and grand kids, nephews, nieces and on and on. They could affirm the story or say it was hogwash. The writer had to be aware of that. These kinds of miracles fill the new testament. If criticism claims the synoptic gospels don’t promote his divinity, who was the guy doing all these miraculous deeds? How? Sleight of hand? If criticism uses the synoptic’s omission of his pre-incarnation divinity, it doesn’t take great reasoning skill to understand that by definition, god is eternal, and therefore he must have been divine forever.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 30, 2014
If you’ve read my recent book, you’ll know that I think Mark does understand Jesus to be divine.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 30, 2014
Thanks Dr. Bart. My understanding of your most recent thoughts on Mark is that he, jesus, doesn’t talk about himself much as divine, rather others make those claims about him. Also, Mark doesn’t establish that he was always divine, as john does, that is, from your point of view.
Your scholarship is absolutely incredible and much appreciated by many, many from all walks of life and all different beliefs. Amazing, truly amazing.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  September 3, 2014
Though a wet behind the ears novice, one thing textual criticism demonstrates to me is that a force outside of man was/is behind the formation of the n.t. In Romans 5, the difference between, “Let us have peace” and “We have peace” for example, is one way of conserving words and space. Rather than finding it troublesome, both meanings are true and applicable. I digress, in a sense. The point is this: the final product, the n.t., just as it is, thoroughly, completely, explains for his purposes, who Christ is, who we are, and the path to redemption.
Dr., Bart, Christ said, “Be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect”. Doesn’t he mean, be complete? Can’t we say the n.t. is “complete” in the same way, or no?
I do not think it is possible for human beings to have produced a volume of books and letters, as in the n.t., on our own. This “Volume” has inspired our greatest minds to devote their lives to study it, to analyze it, to dissect it and to devour all pertinent information about the culture, the politics, educational opportunities, the economic status, etc., of those who lived around the time it was written. Why? Who cares? What difference does it make? Folks, it is 2,00 years old! How tough can it be? We think of these ancients as a fairly primitive, unsophisticated bunch of knuckleheads, generally, don’t we? How is it then that they produced this work that is so unique, so convincing and intriguing and controversial and powerful that it has consumed the minds and lives, the energy, of thousands of brilliant men and women. By itself, that is absolutely amazing. No other “Volume” in recorded history is comparable.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 3, 2014
The difference in Romans 5:1 does not involve words and space. It’s a question of one word and it’s spelling — a long o or a short o.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 4, 2014
I meant to say both words are perfectly acceptable, imo. (Just as the n.t. doesn’t provide specific instructions on what we are to do in every particular circumstance we encounter, rather we can rely upon his teachings and him personally, to guide us, can’t we argue that the n.t. gives us everything one needs to engage in a completely mutually satisfying relationship with jesus?) Dr. Bart, I don’t know how to ask that question without sounding like I’m preaching or professing.
No need to address this next question. I’m still working on it. If people gave names to the various books of the n.t. to try to deceive folks into believing they were authoritative, that doesn’t make them forgeries, if the writers themselves didn’t participate in such a scheme, imo.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  September 8, 2014
–
 “Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).” Dr. Bart
 Dr, this was a slip, wasn’t it? “Jesus means…” Because, you believe, “They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus.”
 —
The following is confusing:
“No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.” Dr. Bart
“My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.” Dr. Bart
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart
“Can you tell us what a few of those reasons are? Thanks” pp
Dr. Bart, “Personal experience. Decision to stand within a certain faith tradition. Sense of the meaning of the world.”
 —
 “The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. Bart
How do we know Jesus had a last supper? Why would he?
–
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 8, 2014
Sorry — this string of comments and questions confuses me. Maybe ask one question at a time and I can address it.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 8, 2014
“Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).” Dr. Bart
Dr, this was a slip, wasn’t it? (“Jesus means…”) Because, you believe, “They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus.”
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 10, 2014
No, it wasn’t a slip. I meant “means” in this narrative context. I agree he means “where.” But the point is that Nicodemus thinks he means “when.” That confusion would not have happened if he were speaking Aramaic. And if Jesus were in jerusalem speaking with a another Jewish teacher, they would have been speaking in Aramaic (since that’s what Jesus spoke).
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 3, 2014
“No, it wasn’t a slip. I meant “means” in this narrative context. I agree he means “where.” But the point is that Nicodemus thinks he means “when.” That confusion would not have happened if he were speaking Aramaic. And if Jesus were in jerusalem speaking with a another Jewish teacher, they would have been speaking in Aramaic (since that’s what Jesus spoke).” Dr. Bart
Then, whom did nic ask? Who answered him?
Critics know this passage is phony because had jesus been speaking to a real jewish teacher in Jerusalem, the two would have spoken Aramaic and in that language a real jewish teacher couldn’t have been confused over the concept of being born-again?
 

Bart

Bart  October 3, 2014
I’m not sure what you mean by “phony.” That’s certainly not the category I have ever used for this passage. The problem is that the double meaning of the Greek word ANOTHEN, on which the entire conversatoin is based, cannot be replicated in Aramaic, the language in which they would have been speaking.
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
Critics know this passage is phony because had jesus been speaking to a real jewish teacher in Jerusalem, the two would have spoken Aramaic and in that language a real jewish teacher couldn’t have been confused over the concept of being born-again?
“I’m not sure what you mean by “phony.” That’s certainly not the category I have ever used for this passage.” Dr. Bart
What it describes never happened so it is phony.
 

Bart

Bart  October 15, 2014
Well, maybe that’s your definition of phony. But I don’t use the term.
 



prestonp  October 17, 2014
Well, maybe that’s your definition of phony. But I don’t use the term.
What it describes never happened so it is phony.
it never happened. what describes it?
 

Bart

Bart  October 17, 2014
There are lots and lots of true stories that never happened.
 
 
 



prestonp  September 9, 2014
The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. Bart
How do we know Jesus had a last supper? Why would he?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 9, 2014
My view is that everyone who dies has had a last supper.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 3, 2014
I know, but he was preparing for his death at that particular meal which happened to be his last, which is exactly what he said, no?
“My view is that everyone who dies has had a last supper.” Dr. Bart
 
 
 
 
 



prestonp  September 8, 2014
Sorry for not making this clear and I appreciate the time you take to address the many questions asked of you.
On the one hand, christianity promotes an infantile world view. The n.t. is a forged, thoroughly debunked document. On the other hand, you say, “No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.” And, “My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.” Dr. Bart
You add,
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart.
How can intelligent and thoughtful christians have substantial reasons for thinking jesus is god when they check their intelligence at the church’s door?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 9, 2014
You are misreading me. I have never said that Christianity presents an infantile world view. But some Christians do indeed hold an infantile Christian world view. You shouldn’t think that every Christian has the same views or the same level of sophistication.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 9, 2014
Richard Thrift June 2, 2014
“Child-like” faith is not limited to evangelicals. When I was a Lutheran minister (and a believer) I was oft disheartened in realizing that most (not all but certainly most) of my parishioners had the spiritual understanding of a 13-year-old. That’s the traditional age with most were confirmed…and it also marked the end of their Christian education.
Bart June 2, 2014
 Good point!
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  October 3, 2014
1 John 1:1-4 New International Version (NIV)
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
More than an hallucination, imo. Much, much more, imo. If we lived back during this episode of history with the exact same set of tools they had and nothing more, what would we have done differently to try to convince others that we had actually experienced god, god, himself, in a human body? They saw him. They heard him. They even touched him.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 17, 2014
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
how could they see, touch and hear god?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 17, 2014
For the Johannine community, Christ was a divine being who became human. This passage is opposing those who deny Christ’s humanity.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 21, 2014
“For the Johannine community…” Dr Bart
 To reduce it to that is rewriting the passage.
“…Christ was a divine being who became human.” Dr Bart
 You are saying this passage was written with this concept in mind?
“This passage is opposing those who deny Christ’s humanity.” Dr. Bart
 And it is asserting that he is indeed god almighty incarnate. We saw him and heard him and even touched the guy! That’s how recent it has been since he was here. I, who write this to you, even me, am among those with firsthand knowledge of him!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/the-religion-of-a-sixteen-year-old/
















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogThe Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old

I just got home from spending a week in Lawrence Kansas, my home town.   As I’ve done now for years, I took my mom fishing in the Ozarks for a few days.  She’s 87, and on a walker, but still able to reel them in!
I go back to Lawrence probably three or four times a year, and each time it is like going down memory lane.  I left there to go to Moody Bible Institute in 1973, when I was all of 17 years old; I still called it home for years, but never lived there full time, not even in the summers usually.  I was married and very much on my own only four years later.  So my memories of the place are entirely of childhood through high school.   I can’t help reflecting on this, that, and the other thing in my past as I drive around town, remembering doing this thing here, that thing there, and so on.
This time, for some reason, there was an unusually high concentration of “religious” recollections, of my different religious experiences in one place or another.   As I’ve said a number of times, I had a born-again experience in high school, when I “asked Jesus into my heart.”  I must have been 15 at the time. The odd thing was that I was already a committed church person before that – for my entire life, in fact.  I was an acolyte in the Episcopal church from junior high onwards, every week praying to God, confessing my sins, thinking about the salvation brought by Christ, and so on.   So looking back, it’s hard to know what really I was thinking when I finally “became a  Christian.”  What exactly was I before?
But what really struck me this time around, in particular, was this.   Most of my family and friends who also became evangelical Christians – at least the ones who have stayed that way – are, naturally, upset and confused about why I left the faith.   In their view, the faith I had when I was 16 was the “truth,” and now I have gone over to the way of “error.”  I should stress that my mom and I never talk about such things – we both know it would do no good and that we would just both get upset.  So instead we talk about basketball, and family, and fishing, and lots of other things – but not religion.  Still, I know that she, like the others I knew way back then, think that I used to be right; that I made a terrible mistake when I became a “liberal” Christian in my late-20s; and that I really went off the deep end when I became an agnostic.
But here is what struck me.   About what other form of knowledge or belief would we say that it is better that we should think the way we did when we were 16 than the way we think now?
Would we say that our understanding of science was better then?  Our understanding of biology or physics or astronomy?   Were our views in 1972 better than our views now?   Or how about politics?  Or philosophy?  Would we be better off thinking what we did when we were 16?   Or what about our views of sexual relations?  Or literature?  Or economic investments?  Or … Or anything else?
Isn’t it very strange indeed that so many people of faith – not all of them, of course; and arguably not even most of them; but certainly some of them; in fact a *lot* of them in evangelical circles – think that even though they are supposed to grow, and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge, and change their understandings  as they get older in every *other* aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the SAME religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen year old?
That is one of the things that I find most puzzling and dissatisfying and frustrating about many of the good, concerned, committed evangelical Christians who contact me via email or in person (say, at one of my talks): the views they put forth, in trying to “win me over,” are views that are at the intellectual and spiritual level of sophistication of a 16 year old.  They may be successful businessmen, or teachers, or investors, or … name your profession.  And in other parts of their lives they may have considerable maturity and sophistication.  But when it comes to religious belief, they are still back where they were in 1972.   There’s something wrong about that….
I should emphasize that there are lots (and lots) of theologians who are serious scholars, some of them quite brilliant.  They obviously do not work with a 16-year-old’s view of religion.   they are philosophically astute and intellectually impressive, people like Rowan Williams, Herbert McCabe, Fergus Kerr, and Stanley Hauerwas (they are not all like each other, either).   I have no argument with them.  My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Larry Hurtado’s Critique of How Jesus Became God«
Thomasine “Gnostics” and Others»


1

JUN

2014

202
  
Comments
202  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Adam0685  June 1, 2014
I suspect that many evangelicals never move beyond stage 3 (“Synthetic-Conventional”) of Fowler’s stages of faith development. I also suspect many would stop being evangelical if they did…
Log in to Reply  



madmargie  June 1, 2014
I agree with you. Twenty or twenty five years ago, I had an existential faith crisis when I decided that 90% of what I had believed since my youth was pure nonsense. I had to decide what to keep at that point. I have been trying to decide what Jesus truly taught ever since. I think it was all about God’s kingdom on earth. I think the salvation theology came later…after his death. To me, it is pure selfishness….all about “ME” and certainly not about others.
Log in to Reply  

cheriq

cheriq  June 1, 2014
I don’t return to Lawrence often, but, can pinpoint where I began to question the religious teachers. It was in that Nazarene church at about 20th and Massachusetts. I asked if one went to the same hell for lying as for being a murderer. The answer was yes, and even as a 10 yr old, I didn’t believe it. I could not believe in a God who was that unfair.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Yup, I know the church! But it’s no longer Nazarene….
Log in to Reply  
 



TomTerrific  June 1, 2014
Very well put, Dr. E, as usual.
I think it was Muhammad Ali who said, “A man who is the same at fifty as he was at twenty wasted thirty years.”
Log in to Reply  



asahagian  June 1, 2014
I often think about when I was a child and believed in Santa Claus. I truly believed and everyone I trusted and respected also seemed to believe as well. It was not questioned. (I actually even remember having seen his footprints in the snow on Christmas morning…probably just my imagination…) Then when I got older and began to hear that Santa was just a figment of my imagination I was very indignant and would not believe it….eventually I realized it was all just for fun and really was not true. But my belief had been absolute! No one ever suggests that we should go back to this childhood belief. What a perfect parallel to what you are describing above.
 The bible says you should have faith like a child ~ when you think about it you realize that a child’s faith exists because that child has not yet learned to question what he/she was taught to believe. Not a good thing.
Log in to Reply  



fishician  June 1, 2014
I was recently pondering how the major religions, although they may all claim uniqueness, all share this in common: you are supposed to rely on God’s message that he gave to certain people many centuries ago, and if you question what was said the problem is with you, not with what the ancients said. Even when what the ancients said is demonstrably in error. So, check your brains at the door – you really won’t need them any more, and if yo do use your brain, then you’re a tool of Satan (or so I was recently told).
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 25, 2014
“I was recently pondering how the major religions, although they may all claim uniqueness, all share this in common: you are supposed to rely on God’s message that he gave to certain people many centuries ago, and if you question what was said the problem is with you, not with what the ancients said. Even when what the ancients said is demonstrably in error. So, check your brains at the door – you really won’t need them any more, and if yo do use your brain, then you’re a tool of Satan (or so I was recently told).”
Where does Christ say that?
Log in to Reply  
 



Jim  June 1, 2014
Well, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever *said in an apologetic voice with cheezy reverb*
Log in to Reply  



Richard Thrift  June 2, 2014
“Child-like” faith is not limited to evangelicals. When I was a Lutheran minister (and a believer) I was oft disheartened in realizing that most (not all but certainly most) of my parishioners had the spiritual understanding of a 13-year-old. That’s the traditional age with most were confirmed…and it also marked the end of their Christian education.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Good point!
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
Would you explain the differences between the spiritual understanding of a 13 year old and a 17 year old?
Log in to Reply  


shakespeare66  August 26, 2014
There is about four years of spiritual growth between the two.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



RonaldTaska  June 2, 2014
Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth:
 1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants. For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths. So, the epistemology is different, much different.
 2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Excellent points!
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 9, 2014
RonaldTaska June 2, 2014
Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth:
 1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants. For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths. So, the epistemology is different, much different.
 2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Bart Ehrman June 2, 2014
 Excellent points!
“What are facts and evidence compared to that?”
Odd. I don’t know christians who are unconcerned with truth and facts. Why do some believe that many christians are less than non-believers intellectually or less interested in the profound questions of life?
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 26, 2014
“For many, faith is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths.”
I know many who needed to be and were convinced through evidence that overwhelming and significant reasons prove god is.
“The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence.”
In a heartbeat. The demands of discipleship are so rigorous that many would be relieved to shed the whole shebang.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 30, 2014
It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?
Facts and evidence. There’s no comfort believing something that isn’t true
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  September 5, 2014
“Thanks so much for sharing this with us. I struggle, really struggle, with the same question. After decades of struggle, here is my current two cents worth: 1. I have become very attached to the scientific method where old theories are constantly discarded for new ones as the evidence warrants…”
The same thing happens with theories explaining how the bible is meant to be interpreted-they come and go.
“2. The comfort, sense of community, certainty, and, to some extent, the mutual adoration that many receive in churches is so powerful and important that most are not going to give all this up no matter what the evidence. So, a discounting of any contrary evidence results. It is more comforting to believe that there is Something up there and out there than to believe that there is Nothing up there and out there. Moreover, it is more comforting to believe that there is life after death rather than believing there is nothing after death. Finally, it is very comforting to believe that the most powerful force in the universe is personally involved in one’s life. What are facts and evidence compared to that?”
What is wrong with a sense of comfort and community, a sense of certainty, and mutual appreciation of one another? It should be comforting to know Something is out there and that we will live forever. It should be unbelievably wonderful to know that the most powerful force in the universe is on our side! Dr. Bart, he started it! I’m not trying to preach! I am agreeing with him. His argument isn’t against those things, per se, if I understand him. He believes that those who hold those ideas to be true, do so only because it feels so good. He implies none of those kinds of things is true, therefore, one sacrifices truth for warm fuzzies. I imagine some do that. But even “the book” that makes those claims, also commands his followers to love this force with all their minds, too.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  November 3, 2014
“For many, disbelief is a much different process which starts with certain assumptions/truths and all new evidence has to be molded to fit those assumptions/truths.” ?
Log in to Reply  
 



natashka  June 2, 2014
Beautiful post. And so true.
I’ve often wondered; do any of your family or old friends ever read your books/blog or attend your lectures? If so, hasn’t at least one ever been inspired to break their minds out of captivity?
 Are the youngins’ in the family–hope for the new generation–allowed to read Uncle Bart’s books, or are they banned like heretical scripture?
I’m also wondering….what kind of fish did Mom catch?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Yes, my family members have read some of my books, and my mom has heard me lecture a number of times. But none has been persuaded yet! (Although some of my relatives are now agnostics. I don’t think I had anything to do with it).
Trout!!
Log in to Reply  
 



JBSeth1  June 2, 2014
HI Bart,
I understand where you are coming from and I too, often find it surprising that it seem people are willing to challenge almost any and all aspects of life except for their own personal religious beliefs.
However, I believe there is much more involved here than just an intellectual exercise of changing personal religious beliefs. If someone was willing to do this, then they would have to be willing to face the following potential consequences.
For some, the fear of God’s retribution, if, in fact, they were wrong. The issue of loneliness and the potential loss of church family, church friends and church support, once they changed their beliefs. The concern about not knowing what to believe in and how to determine what is right and wrong, once they changed their beliefs.
Given all this, I suspect, that for some people at least, the tradeoff here just isn’t worth it and as a result, they opt to continue to stick with their 16 year old beliefs.
Would you agree?
John
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
In a lot of cases, I agree!
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 24, 2014
“I understand where you are coming from and I too, often find it surprising that it seem people are willing to challenge almost any and all aspects of life except for their own personal religious beliefs.” JBSeth1
Can you explain why it is that you believe some people are unwilling to challenge their own personal religious beliefs? How did you reach that conclusion?
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 29, 2014
What we find on this blog is essentially limitless criticism of all things “religious”. Which is fine, if that was the stated purpose of the blog. If so, go for it. By all means. What seems beneath Dr. Bart’s integrity is the hypocrisy. Extra care is taken to weed out comments that some might consider “devotional” in nature, when the deluge of negative comments about christians, christianity, the church, religion, the writers of the n.t. drown almost every page. If the topic is “historical, textual criticism”, and that is my understanding, it is disappointing indeed to see the vast majority of commenters criticizing the list above, and other posters with differing points of view, not the “textual” kind. Apparently, tell me if I’m wrong, unless one trashes christianity, that person really cannot be educated, cultured, intelligent, well-read, scholarly, open-minded, interested in truth, etc. “Believe as we do”, the message is clear, or “you are worthless”. Many here have seemingly “evolved” into the very essence of the people they so despise: those religious fundamentalists, the radical, know-it-all, self righteous and utterly repulsive boobs.
I might add, I wouldn’t defend “the church” they detest, either. Yet, the fact is, there are millions of good, honest, intelligent, hard working, educated, loving, compassionate, dedicated followers of his around the world, who don’t grab headlines or make the news. I shouldn’t have to remind anyone. I am most disappointed that. Dr. Bart is exceptional, a genius and a good guy, and I fear the balance of the content of this blog has become something other than what truly represents what he is about, who he is.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 30, 2014
I’m afraid I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t know of limitless criticism of religion on this blog — certainly not by me. As I’ve repeatedly said, I’m not opposed to religion, only to certain kinds of fundamentalism. If anyone feels their religoin is under attack, I don’t think their feelings are well placed — unless they are themselves hold to a fundamentalist form of religion (Islam/Christianity/whatever).
As to weeding out your devotional comments, you probably know that there are over 3000 people on this blog, and of all of them you have had more comments posted over the past month than anyone! But I would prefer that you stick to historical issues rather than using comments to profess your religious faith.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 30, 2014
As happens too often, I said what I didn’t mean and meant what I didn’t say. You are not the one criticizing. Not at all. You are extraordinarily fair in your comments to all sides.
 
 



shakespeare66  August 31, 2014
I really do think you are misreading what people are saying. No one is attacking religion and no one is here to denigrate the church. We are just trying to educate ourselves about early Christianity.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



hwl  June 2, 2014
I often puzzle over the same issue. Of course, very few of these Christians you are referring would see themselves checking their intelligence at the door when it comes to matters of religious faith. It is a truism that the moment someone thinks his religious worldview is stupid or crazy, he would promptly stop believing in it. Religious people do what they think makes sense to them. I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.
Although church life is not and is never meant to be like academia, the disconnection between teachings provided in sermons and Bible studies groups on one hand, and biblical scholarship on the other, contributes to very naive attitudes to the Bible, hence naive theology. The issue isn’t about lack of intelligence, as you noted. It is just that the laity is not exposed to discoveries in scholarship that are the result of cumulative efforts over generations by full-time scholars. The attitude towards the Bible among fundamentalists would have been the position of many of society’s elite and intelligentsia for centuries in the pre-modern era. For Protestant fundamentalism, the biggest problem is an attitude towards the Bible that is out of touch with scholarship. For Catholic conservatives, other factors are at work besides attitude towards the Bible.
The life of a church community can stifle critical thinking – when the hundreds of people from all walks of life you met and converse with in a church think like yourself, believe the same things, you have no reason to suspect your perspective is in any way defective or naive. Church life can do much social good, by providing mutual support and sense of community, but the downside is it generates powerful psychological and sociological pressures in reinforcing a narrow worldview.
Then there are organisations staffed by smooth-talking fundamentalists, actively promoting scientific falsehoods e.g. creationist organisations.
I am not sure American religious life would be for the better if more lay Christians attempt to engage with rational arguments – if this means imitating apologists the likes of James White, Dinesh D’Souza. They will end up being argumentative and promoting a vocal fundamentalist form of religion.
Between different Christian circles, there are polarised conceptions of “faith” – some view it as belief despite the evidence or despite the lack of evidence (the stronger the evidence against belief, the deeper faith needs to be), while others (particularly the vocal Christian apologists) insist faith is to believe based on evidence.
It would be interesting to examine the attitudes of people of non-Christian religions, to see whether there is a perception from the secular academic world that religious people tend to be rather intellectually naive when it comes to religious matters, despite their professional achievements in other fields of life.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 24, 2014
“I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
Would you clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
Log in to Reply  


hwl  August 25, 2014
prestonp: Email me on honwai.lai@gmail.com for a response to your question. Hon Wai
prestonp August 24, 2014
“I think in some Christian circles, the idea that one needs a child-like faith encourages an infantile religious worldview. Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
Would you clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
Log in to Reply  



shakespeare66  August 26, 2014
It appears to be the one you are holding.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 24, 2014
“The life of a church community can stifle critical thinking – when the hundreds of people from all walks of life you met and converse with in a church think like yourself, believe the same things, you have no reason to suspect your perspective is in any way defective or naive. Church life can do much social good, by providing mutual support and sense of community, but the downside is it generates powerful psychological and sociological pressures in reinforcing a narrow worldview.
Then there are organisations staffed by smooth-talking fundamentalists, actively promoting scientific falsehoods e.g. creationist organisations.” hwl
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
“Some charismatic circles emphasise heavily on personal religious experience as vindication of their religious worldview, and this can discourage a thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system.”
How do you know they use personal religious experience as vindication for their religious worldview? How do you know what discourages thoughtful and critical self-examination of their belief system?
Log in to Reply  
 

TracyCramer

TracyCramer  June 2, 2014
Dear Bart,
Thank you for sharing this with us. (And it’s good to hear your mom is still fishing!)
As a bit of an outsider to the whole Christian experience, and I mean no disrespect, but it All seems a little juvenile, including the views of the extremely bright and deep and articulate and scholarly Rowan Williams, whose lectures online I’ve listened to a number of times. And I’m just thinking of his talks on the resurrection at the moment, but I just remember thinking at the time, “how can such an extraordinarily intellectually gifted man really believe what he saying”?
I had similar thoughts as that last one when I was 16 too. But, that did not stop me from trying to get through my depression as a 19 year old sophomore at Michigan State University, by finally taking the medicine suggested by the friendly evangelists in my dorm, the same you took: pray for Jesus to enter my heart. I laid in my bunk, cleared my head of disbelief, repeated the mantra for a long time and with real sincerity, and then had an extraordinary out of body experience! (Well, it seemed extraordinary at the time.)
I reported the results to the nice Christian guy, and he said yes, that’s it, that’s God, or Jesus. I said okay, if you say so, but, hmmmm, I don’t really know. He said now pray for forgiveness of my sins. Then I got stuck because I couldn’t understand what he meant, or his explanation, though I think I tried it a couple of times, but without “results”. So, there ended my dalliance with Christianity.
If you feel it is not inappropriate, would you someday share with us what it meant or felt like for you to have Jesus in your heart when you were 16? Thank you, Tracy
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
For me, at the time, it felt like an enormous relief, a lifting of burden, a sense of connecting with the universe in a way I never had before. Very powerful!
Log in to Reply  
TracyCramer

TracyCramer  June 3, 2014
Very cool! (And I don’t mean that to sound trivializing.) So now I have to ask, to *what* do you attribute that experience now? (Now that you are agnostic/atheist). If you don’t mind my asking…
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 3, 2014
I think most internal experiences and sensations are driven by psychological needs, sometimes deep ones.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 24, 2014
TracyCramer June 3, 2014
Very cool! (And I don’t mean that to sound trivializing.) So now I have to ask, to *what* do you attribute that experience now? (Now that you are agnostic/atheist). If you don’t mind my asking…
“I think most internal experiences and sensations are driven by psychological needs, sometimes deep ones.” Dr. Bart.
As a result of our psychological needs, sometimes deep ones, are we better off ignoring them than to succumb to a “religious experience” to meet those needs? Are those needs to be ignored? Are they unhealthy? Do they leave us vulnerable to self-deception or self-destructive and harmful behavior? Is “religion” a substitute for addressing those needs in a mature fashion?
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 25, 2014
No, I’m not saying that one should go in a direction other than the one they feel deeply drawn to take. But they should question where they are going, all the time. You don’t want to step into a rut. Or a cliff.
 



prestonp  August 25, 2014
“No, I’m not saying that one should go in a direction other than the one they feel deeply drawn to take. But they should question where they are going, all the time. You don’t want to step into a rut. Or a cliff.” Dr. Bart
In your case you fell in love and so did those who met him because of this love. So, it seems that your deep needs were more than satisfied with the internal experiences of god, far from being injured by stepping into a rut?
 
 
 
 
 



jmorgan  June 2, 2014
Fascinating post.
 The good news is that conservative evangelical’s influence and numbers are declining. Molly Worthen, also of UNC, just wrote an interesting article on it:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/01/did-the-southern-baptist-conservative-resurgence-fail.html
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Interesting article! Thanks!
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
Not in china.
If christianity disappeared from the face of the earth today, the message of its god remains in print and others can find and follow him. Remember, almost no one followed him at first. He was a nobody, a nothing. No money, no political power, no status, no degreed education, no military power, no written communications, and he was murdered. From that origin he has become the most influential person in history.
Log in to Reply  
 



doug  June 2, 2014
I went from being a Christian to being a Biblical literalist Christian when I was 16. That was what I had been told “good people” were. Fortunately, I saw that there were good, caring people who were not Biblical literalists, and so I did not cling to my religious conservatism. I’ve long since been a secular humanist. Perhaps the most convincing argument for humanism is to be caring to other people. Thanks for your good post and for your good blog, Bart.
Log in to Reply  



drdavid600  June 2, 2014
Whether it’s fear of hell or desire for a supernatural love and truth to be in charge of the universe, the most sophisticated Christians I’ve known stand on an idea that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The idea of hell rests on a lack of love or a justice that exceeds love and isn’t all that just. The universe is full of suffering, not all of which is building character.
It’s like people whose knowledge of economics begins and ends with the gold standard. If one’s beliefs regarding an entire section of life are based on a childish oversimplification, one will never grow beyond that. One will remain vulnerable to whatever silliness one’s peer group is pushing, like climate change denial.
I’m not sure how the best expert in human behavior would see this, but it seems like a fundamental trap for the human mind, to be stuck in childish simplicity at the core of one’s beliefs, rejecting any knowledge that would free one from such childishness.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 25, 2014
“…the most sophisticated Christians I’ve known stand on an idea that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.”
Because they believe in the idea of hell. I believed in hell before I heard the gospel.
“The idea of hell rests on a lack of love or a justice that exceeds love and isn’t all that just.”
What does holy mean?
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“I’m not sure how the best expert in human behavior would see this, but it seems like a fundamental trap for the human mind, to be stuck in childish simplicity at the core of one’s beliefs, rejecting any knowledge that would free one from such childishness.”
It is a fundamental trap to believe that what’s most important in life necessarily must be complex.
Log in to Reply  
 



Wilusa  June 2, 2014
Hmm. I remember that when I was a *child*, I understood perfectly well why children went to church on Sunday: because adults were forcing us to. I couldn’t for the life of me understand why *adults* went to church, when *no one* was forcing them!
But…yep, I was 16 when that priest gave our senior class (I was the youngest) “reasons” for accepting the doctrines, and I was briefly convinced. It was all intellectual, though. I still find it hard to understand people’s either embracing a religion, or rejecting it, for emotional reasons, and thinking that’s somehow *better* than relying on one’s intellect. In what other area of life would they think *that* was desirable?
Say, I’m delighted your mother is still enjoying those fishing trips! I hope you’ll share many more.
Makes me think…the new Catholic bishop was recently installed here. He’s 65, and both his parents were able to attend the ceremonies. Wonderful.
Log in to Reply  



RyanBrown  June 2, 2014
Perhaps one of the biggest reasons people remain at a 16 year-old level in religion, is that they have never actually read the entire Bible.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 26, 2014
“Perhaps” reading the entire bible inspired many to become devout, well-informed christians. Apparently, some are attached to a profound misconception: that if a person questions her faith, if she challenges her own thinking process, if she looks carefully at the world, she will choose not to follow Christ.
Log in to Reply  
 



gsteidley  June 2, 2014
I don’t know if you really want comment… or ….if you were just venting. In either case, here’s my two cents…
Many people probably have the religious sophistication of a 16 year old for the same reasons they have the math, English and science skills of a 16 year old. Lack of aptitude, interest and/or need. What they know is all they need for their field and they just don’t have interest or ability to go further. Also, prejudices and beliefs acquired in childhood are probably some of the most difficult to overcome since they become almost “hardwired” into the brain during those developmental years.
…. and now my venting…
My frustration is the general attitude towards “faith”, that it is something one can just choose to have. I went to Catholic schools up until my senior year of high school. The nuns taught me that the definition of faith was “the acceptance of something as true without proof”. I have come to the opinion that saying or acting like one believes something or just choosing to believe something does not mean that down deep inside one really believes it. It’s not ones fault if one doesn’t believe something that can’t be proved. I am frustrated by those individuals that treat people of different (or no) belief with contempt and try to force their belief system on them.
Log in to Reply  


Janeewoo  July 13, 2014
I AGREE!!!! We have brains/intelligence for a reason. We learn how to use our minds to make smart choices, to analyze data and determine the best course for ourselves. My grandfather, who passed away in the early 80’s, did not believe that we ever but a person on the moon. He saw it on TV, read about it in the paper, all his family believed it, but he did not. But he believed every word in the Bible, verbatim. I adored my Grandpa – i’m sitting in front of a photo of him now – and would never do or say anything to demean his memory. But he lived and believed based on a whole different knowledge base than we have today. I can understand him falling under the sway of the Good Book. I cannot understand my coworkers, who are in their 30’s and 40’s, falling for it. And the regularly tell me that, while i’m the nicest person they know, i’m going to Hell for not believing too. I say, “and how does that make you feel about your God, that he would send a perfectly nice normal person to Hell just for not believing his unbelievable story?” and they are fine with it… whatever… i can’t make myself believe it, and i’ve finally come to peace with that.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 25, 2014
“We have brains/intelligence for a reason. We learn how to use our minds to make smart choices, to analyze data and determine the best course for ourselves.”
You refuse to demean Grandpa’s memory, but he believed like your coworkers do and they believe in hell for the nicest people.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“The nuns taught me that the definition of faith was “the acceptance of something as true without proof”.”
Where did you go to catholic school? That isn’t the definition of faith taught by anyone I know.
Log in to Reply  
 



silvertime  June 2, 2014
Dr. Ehrman: I have thought about this issue a lot, and I assume that the religious thoughts and traditions in your area of Kansas and North Carolina are similar to that of southern Kentucky. I think, in the case of religion, the concepts of ” the preacher says it’, and “I was raised that way” are anchors in their lives that give them a sense of comfort and security. Bacause it is religion, and their concept of it comes from the Bible which was written thousands of years previously, nothing else(scholarship, discoveries, or critical thinking) since then can make any difference in their understanding. If they allowed any modification to their anchor beliefs, it would tend to undercut their beliefs. For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 25, 2014
“For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking.”
How many, would you estimate, are religious and embrace scholarship and critical thinking?
 3? 6? 19?
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“Bacause it is religion, and their concept of it comes from the Bible which was written thousands of years previously, nothing else(scholarship, discoveries, or critical thinking) since then can make any difference in their understanding. If they allowed any modification to their anchor beliefs, it would tend to undercut their beliefs. For many, religion is unique in human understanding, in that it is absolute and does not allow scholarship or critical thinking”
Religion doesn’t allow scholarship? Provide examples where christianity rejects scholarship, please
Log in to Reply  
 



DBybee  June 2, 2014
Changing my views on chemistry, or investments doesn’t really affect the way I live. But changing my reliegious views has rocked my world. Like you I was a committed believer with a very literal interpretation of scripture until I couldn’t reconcile the religious world view with the real world as I experienced it. Adam and Eve verses evolution for example. Your scholarship on the New Testatment has been a true revelation. What I’ve always wanted to ask you is if you have (or had) the same feelings of massive betrayal that I’ve felt. I know that my parents thought they were teaching me the truth and have no fault in this but realizing that I have been mislead for 40 years by people that I trusted to tell me the truth has left me angry and embarrassed that I couldn’t see what seems obvious now. Has that been an issue you’ve dealt with?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 2, 2014
Not so much with my family as with the fellow who “led me to Christ,” and to some extent with my training at Moody Bible Institute. On the other hand, if none of that had happened, I would not have had the life and career I’ve had. So how can I really complain??
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
When I became a believer, my family rejected and mocked me for the rest of their lives (except dad who found god just before he went to the next dimension. He was a saul of tarsus until then. For 30 years whenever he had the chance, he pummeled me with insults and disgust.)
Log in to Reply  
 



Foxtank  June 2, 2014
I have given this question much thought over the years as I have traveled a similar path, but much later in life. I think the short answer for most is two fold. First there is fear. Fear of eternal damnation. Second, and I think the most powerful is loss of community in all its aspects. Church becomes ones life. To lose it is to lose your history, in a way. And in the evangical community, there is no maturing beyond the basic doctrinal standards. Unless you think moving those standards into the political community is progress. This is a very puzzling question, but only if you ponder it from outside the fold.
Log in to Reply  


Scott F  June 4, 2014
When I lost my faith at twenty, I had a hard time deciding what was right and what was wrong. Thank goodness I was an engineer and could fall back on science for certain truths but others were a real struggle.
It is very scary to “step out of the boat” with no idea of whether you will sink or swim, no idea of what lies on the other side.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 26, 2014
“When I lost my faith at twenty…”
Let me make a suggestion, if you don’t mind. Perhaps instead of losing your faith, you gave it away. To be a true follower of Christ, life will be grueling at times, even brutal, It is less painful to give up.
I don’t know if I have ever heard a former christian admit she preferred indulging in the pleasures of the flesh, yielding to the attractions of our world and was swayed by a slick, deceiving con artist.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 31, 2014
“When I lost my faith at twenty, I had a hard time deciding what was right and what was wrong. Thank goodness I was an engineer and could fall back on science for certain truths but others were a real struggle.”
“Biologists’ investigation
 of DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable
 complexity of the arrangements needed to produce life,
 that intelligence must have been involved” (p. 123).
Andrew Flew
 World renown former atheist
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Unhookthestars  June 2, 2014
Thanks for the thoughtful post. Your reflection reminded me of what Karen Armstrong says in her book “The Case for God” regarding how our ideas about Santa Claus and God change (or not) over time:
“We learned about God at about the same time as we were told about Santa Claus. But while our understanding of the Santa Claus phenomenon evolved and matured, our theology remained somewhat infantile. Not surprisingly, when we attained intellectual maturity, many of us rejected that God that we had inherited and denied that he existed.”
Here, she’s suggesting that as we develop cognitively and emotionally, some of us are unable to square the intellectual propositions foisted on us by the more conservative elements of our religious traditions (“If you appeal to your God as a personal God, he will intervene to save you from personal disaster”) with our own maturing understanding of the non-black-and-whiteness of the world (“Even if you appeal to God as a personal God, tragedy may still strike”). One response is agnosticism/atheism – that is, a rejection of that official, received version of God. But the other response, as exemplified by evangelical family/friends/detractors you wrote about, is fundamentalism — a desperate clinging to an immature, literalist, absolutist version of God.
This is why even as an agnostic, I can relate to the liberal Christians you mention in the opening to the last chapter of “How Jesus Became God.” While these Christians don’t believe in the theological propositions laid out in the Nicene Creed or even understand the nuances inherent in each statement, I don’t see their regular church attendance or continued identification as Christians as necessarily inconsistent with their lack of belief. As many thoughtful theologians have pointed out (Harvey Cox immediately comes to mind), there is a difference between “faith” IN Jesus’s message and “belief” in propositions ABOUT Jesus. You can have faith in Jesus’s call for a world of social justice and participate in bringing about “the Kingdom of God” he preached about without subscribing to doctrinal beliefs about Jesus, which are bound up in the time and place in which they first emerged. To paraphrase Armstrong, if intellectual assent to the doctrine of the Trinity somehow helps you become a better (i.e., more compassionate/empathetic) person, then there’s absolutely no harm in it. But if your insistence on the literal truth of the “Divine Triad” just makes you unproductively combative, then how exactly are you making straight the way for God’s kingdom of social justice?
Log in to Reply  



IamWilliamLocke  June 2, 2014
I had a similar experience to you. I am an agnostic/cultural Christian (I attend a liberal Anglican church because I like choir music and it functions as my social life). For a while I attended a very fundamentalist bible study with a few engineers (like myself), scientists, and other university educated young adults. All of them were fundamentalist. I have talked with some of them individually, I have even lent them some of my books (technically speaking, some of them are your books as well), despite this they still stick to the idea that the bible is inerrant, continuous, and 100% historically and scientifically accurate despite the evidence that is in plain sight. From what I have gathered from speaking with them, I think the whole issue lies with the fact that they do not want to leave their “16-year-old” faith. I think this mindset has to do with emotional security and emotional.
(The following is just my own speculation, each case will be different, but this is a general trend that I see)
When people have a born again experience , as I am sure you know, there is a lot of emotion and a lot of hype at that moment (I never had one even though I was an evangelical fundamentalist until I was 21, it probably has to do with the fact that I have high functioning autism and don’t really do the whole “emotional” thing). The born again moment for them in genuine, and that is when they “knew” Jesus . The time when they “knew” Jesus the best and the most clearly, was when they had the knowledge and intellectual capacity of a 16-year-old. The Jesus that they experienced at a concert, revival, or youth group was built on their 16-year-old understanding of who Jesus was and how he interacted with the world. They had trust and faith in the Jesus that they “knew” when they “felt” him. I was told by a girl attending my group “The Jesus I knew then has to be the same Jesus I know now, I felt him move in my life, and I felt him change me”.
It seems that they don’t want to change the Jesus they had. Accepting the historical and scientific facts could drastically change that Jesus that they knew at 16. It could get very messy, everyone in evangelical circles has heard the horror stories of the ones who go to a secular college and lose their faith because they questioned the fundamental principles (At the bottom I have linked a picture given to me before I left for university with the words “Don’t take that first step”) . If they accept something as simple as the fact that the bible has mistakes, or the fact that we don’t know that Jesus said everything in the red letters, that doesn’t just change the interesting historical portrait of the life of Jesus, it changes the Jesus that they knew, felt, and loved. If that Jesus changes, then what do you happens? Do you accept that your understanding of Jesus when you “met” him was flawed and attempt to restructure the very foundations of your faith, completely reforming the fundamental building blocks and deal with the subsequent change in world view? Or do you stay with what you first felt, keeping the foundations of your faith and maintain your core moral and ethical beliefs, your world view, and your emotional support/spiritual guidance? One is clearly easier, safer, and more secure. For those of us who go rogue (that is to say become a liberal Christian or *gasp* an agnostic/atheist), I think it is the acceptance of the former that forces us to grow and change. For the ones who stick to their first “16-year-old” experience, they can keep going on as it was before, biblical archaeology, textual criticism, evolutionary biology and the likes are interesting but have almost no effect of their day to day lives. They can keep the comfortable belief, the support, the community, the certainty and the security that comes with the “faith like a child” (I know that is taken out of context).
Before I left my group, they asked me why I changed my views to fit with the new body of knowledge I discovered rather than keeping the faith. In a very tongue and cheek manner I quoted Paul saying
“When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.” (needless to say, they were not very impressed with my quotation)
As for the family and friends who are confused and upset. I think that has something to do with the whole “us against the fallen world” mentality that comes with evangelicalism. When I was still in the church, I remember them talking about two students who were with them. They told me about how they had “fallen” to the lure and seduction of “darkside”. Their change of world view was always attributed to sin, temptation, and the seduction of “the ways of this world”, it was never seen as an intellectual reform, a sincere search that ended for answers, or a legitimate problem with the way fundamentalism addresses science, history, and politics. My reasons for leaving the faith were completely intellectual and had nothing to do with passions, lust, or sin, however the emails I keep getting from them seem to presuppose devious and deceitful intentions. I think the problem with mentality is they “know” they have the right answer, so if you are at a different stage, it couldn’t have been from a search for understanding, it had to be from a corruption of truth (but I really haven’t researched this enough to know for certain)
Anyway, those are my thoughts, kindest regards,
Jonathan
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs0fyMpFXRyNxJ0zZUAVtFuLu23IPvL-mQv7LfXisYMM8Ozqb80GWM7Z5qGyBOuwiI3GPLu6QRRxJTDEBgs-7SiyuyOJKpgvthK4uUkwG-Yzbfz5OEqAHl4IYY7mQn3L0uCmN30MekmLSp/s1600/descent.jpg
Log in to Reply  



shakespeare66  June 3, 2014
Thanks for bearing your soul to us about the experiences of going home. It struck a chord with me because it has been challenging taking the other side of religion. People in general are not willing to listen to any view about their religion that they do not agree with. It is like trying to convince a Republican that Obama really is a good guy. It is a fruitless exercise. So, too, is trying to reveal information that might take them out of their 16 year old mind set. But we call it a “mind set” because that is exactly what it is—my mind is set on these ideas and no one can change them, and if one tries, then it is considered the work of the devil or the dark side or whatever they want to call it. I have a Jehovah Witness brother who has not seen the light of day in 40 some years….he is so imbued with what he believes that he cannot entertain another idea. He has a Jehovah Witness mentality and it mirrors any cult religion I know. But your point about growing intellectually in all aspects of one’s knowledge is a good one. Those who choose to learn more about any given avenue of knowledge are going to change their understanding of the given knowledge studied, but so many people abate their learning that they become entrenched in a kind of fairy land of existence, never really understanding anything, must less the complexities of religion.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 11, 2014
“But your point about growing intellectually in all aspects of one’s knowledge is a good one. Those who choose to learn more about any given avenue of knowledge are going to change their understanding of the given knowledge studied…”
Right you are,
“atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that “onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist.”1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:
“It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”3
 In Flew’s own words, he simply “had to go where the evidence leads.”4 According to Flew, “…it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.”2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology.”
by Rich Deem
Log in to Reply  
 



JeffinFairfax  June 3, 2014
I hear you, Dr. Ehrman, and I think there are many of us. I was a devout and active evangelical who had a slow and painful “de-conversion” experience while doing graduate work in philosophy at UVA. I could no longer, with integrity, sustain belief in light of the logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible. Moreover, I felt I owed an explanation to friends and family for why I was leaving the faith to be agnostic and so I gave it, leading to a social rending that followed the intellectual one. To some degree this rift continues to the present but, as you’ve noted, religion often becomes an unmentioned feature in the landscape for the sake of peace. In any event, new births of any kind can be painful but they can also lead to new places of happiness, for which I’m grateful.
I’ve had discussions over the years with a friend (who’s traveled a similar path) about how to reconcile and weave together our very different early and later lives. Like you, I’ve come to see that were it not for that very different early environment I would not have come to be where I am and who I am today. New wine in old wineskins, I think (despite Jesus’ reported words to the contrary). Our stories and their meanings are always changing, it seems, and we incorporate old truths and experiences in new ways, just as Jesus and Paul did with the Jewish prophets.
To your point, though, I think many hold to their child-like religious formulations because of the enormous role that the worldview/group myth of one’s kith and kin play in forming and maintaining one’s identity and in providing social cohesion. In ironic obedience to Jesus’ command to leave behind old, traditional social ties for the sake of truth, we who have made an intellectual exodus from the thinking and community of our youth have untied one of the strongest cords used to bind (“religare”) people together internally and to each other–religion. This is a risky thing for a person to do–and even more for an entire culture to do. But, as you say, how can we stay stuck in our 16th year–or in the first century? I don’t regret the migration and have no plans to go back but I do sometimes feel nostalgic for the old country.
In any event, I’m new here and not sure where to ask this or if you’ve already posted about this (I can’t see it anywhere), but what do you think about these metal plates?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1371290/70-metal-books-Jordan-cave-change-view-Biblical-history.html
Jeff
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 3, 2014
The metal plates have been shown to be forgeries.
Log in to Reply  


JeffinFairfax  June 4, 2014
Thanks, I see that now. http://www.livescience.com/13657-exclusive-early-christian-lead-codices-called-fakes.html. Not sure why it keeps circulating. I see the Mormons were intrigued.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  September 11, 2014
To your point, though, I think many hold to their child-like religious formulations because of the enormous role that the worldview/group myth of one’s kith and kin play in forming and maintaining one’s identity and in providing social cohesion. In ironic obedience to Jesus’ command to leave behind old, traditional social ties for the sake of truth, we who have made an intellectual exodus from the thinking and community of our youth have untied one of the strongest cords used to bind (“religare”) people together internally and to each other–religion. This is a risky thing for a person to do–and even more for an entire culture to do. But, as you say, how can we stay stuck in our 16th year–or in the first century? I don’t regret the migration and have no plans to go back but I do sometimes feel nostalgic for the old country.
I think you are wrong.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  September 11, 2014
“I could no longer, with integrity, sustain belief in light of the logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible.”
“…logical inconsistencies, factual errors, and moral problems in the Bible.”
For example?
Log in to Reply  
 



FrankJay71  June 3, 2014
Hey, since you’re kind of on the subject, what exactly is being “borne again?” From what I thought I understood, in Greek, in John 3:7, Jesus uses a sort of double entendre, where the phase “borne again” also means “borne from above”. And the joke is that Nicodemus, doesn’t get that Jesus means from above, but that he is supposed to literally reascend from his mothers womb?
 So, how do “borne again” evangelicals understand the phrase. Is seems that in the context they use the term, and how the describe it, they literally mean reborn, but in spirit, or something like that.
 In short, do they misuse the term??
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 3, 2014
Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).
Log in to Reply  
 



maxhirez  June 5, 2014
How about fashion? I wish I could dress the way I did when I was 16. That wouldn’t fly now…
Log in to Reply  

cheito

cheito  June 6, 2014
DR EHRMAN:
I still believe what I first believed when i was 20 years old: That God raised Jesus Christ from the dead! This is what attracted me to Jesus. I was lost, empty and slave of sin. When I heard for the first time that God had raised a man from the dead, I thought, this is the greatest thing I’ve ever heard, but surely this has to be a fairy tale. I began reading the new Testament and after reading for about a year or so I came to the conclusion that Jesus’ resurrection was indeed true and I received Him by faith. This was 42 years ago and although today I don’t believe that all the books in the bible are inspired by God I do believe that many of the books in our canon were inspired by God himself but men have altered and perverted the originals. Among the collection of the inspired books and letters we possess, Some have been altered more than others. Still however there’s no way to alter what the message of the apostles concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the dead with body and spirit means, and there’s absolutely no way to alter what the statement, “God is Love”, means! You may not believe it but you can’t alter it ! It is what it is, believe it or not!
Log in to Reply  


gavm  June 11, 2014
it sounds like your just following the religion you fell into. everything you said could easily be parroted by a muslim. it annoys me when people treat there own religion as special but disrespect other faiths.
Log in to Reply  
 



gavm  June 11, 2014
yes religion has a way of preventing one from thinking to much. i suppose people have the same biases in other areas of life. for example i know many very intelligent agnostics who have very silly socialist attitudes about economics which almost no economist worth there salt would even slightly agree with
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  July 31, 2014
This time, for some reason, there was an unusually high concentration of “religious” recollections, of my different religious experiences in one place or another. Dr. Ehrman
Tell us more about those religious experiences you had, if you would.. Sounds as if they were significant, powerful and deep. In fact, you began to make adult kinds of decisions that would inform the rest of your life as a result of what took place at that time: to go to Moody, which led to Wheaton and on to Princeton. All were all born out of what occurred then, as a young man in your youth (beginning at 15!) Whatever it was, it was unique to you, substantial and had nothing to do with the way you had been praying, reading or confessing your sins, did it? Did you change? Your memories that surfaced had nothing to do with doctrine, dispensations, or attending church services, I bet. You had “religious experiences.” You didn’t have them before you, “asked Jesus into my heart” did you? Memories of how you viewed your friends, your enemies, your family, you, strangers, God, differently? With love gushing from your heart, the way the sunlight seemed to caress the trees, did the air smell different, pure?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  July 31, 2014
Maybe I will some time!
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 2, 2014
“But here is what struck me. About what other form of knowledge or belief would we say that it is better that we should think the way we did when we were 16 than the way we think now?”
When he was a kid, he blew the minds of older folks with his understanding of spiritual matters, and he never went to school. No biblical mandate that one should remain satisfied with her level of understanding at any age. Remember milk to meat and studying always to be approved. Dr. Ehrman, looking back, you wonder aloud what was it, actually, that was different for you after your religious experience. I think your memories yield truth. I think your memories refresh what was happening In your Heart, In You. Those things, whatever they stem from, were so important that they created within your gut a burning desire for spiritual understanding, and biblical truth, for god himself. You prayed, sincerely, for Christ to enter your heart and he did, at least it seems like it from what you say. If you had prayed for Julius Caesar to enter your life, would you have had such recollections visiting Lawrence? Your love for others, for everybody really, especially the needy, rat on you.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  July 31, 2014
The Telegraph on Rowan Williams
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
7:49PM BST 02 Jul 2014
 (I don’t know if I’m allowed to quote others or not.)
John Shelby Spong once accused Williams of being a ‘neo-medievalist’, preaching orthodoxy to the people in the pew but knowing in private that it is not true. In an interview with Third Way Magazine Williams responded: “I am genuinely a lot more conservative than he would like me to be. Take the Resurrection. I think he has said that of course I know what all the reputable scholars think on the subject and therefore when I talk about the risen body I must mean something other than the empty tomb. But I don’t. I don’t know how to persuade him, but I really don’t.”
and
“Over the years increasing exposure to and engagement with the Buddhist world in particular has made me aware of practices not unlike the ‘Jesus Prayer’ and introduced me to disciplines that further enforce the stillness and physical focus that the prayer entails,” he explained
“Walking meditation, pacing very slowly and coordinating each step with an out-breath, is something I have found increasingly important as a preparation for a longer time of silence.
“So: the regular ritual to begin the day when I’m in the house is a matter of an early rise and a brief walking meditation or sometimes a few slow prostrations, before squatting for 30 or 40 minutes (a low stool to support the thighs and reduce the weight on the lower legs) with the ‘Jesus Prayer': repeating (usually silently) the words as I breathe out, leaving a moment between repetitions to notice the beating of the heart, which will slow down steadily over the period.”
Far from it being like a “magical invocation”, he explained that the routine helps him detach himself from “distracted, wandering images and thoughts”, picturing the human body as like a ‘cave’ through which breath passes.
“If you want to speak theologically about it, it’s a time when you are aware of your body as simply a place where life happens and where, therefore, God ‘happens’: a life lived in you,” he added.
He went on to explain that those who perform such rituals regularly could reach “advanced states” and become aware of an “unbroken inner light”.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 10, 2014
“The general public today is widely unaware of how remarkable were the beliefs about Jesus and the extraordinary place of Jesus in the devotional practices of earliest Christian circles. So, if the book sells as well as his previous general-reader books, in addition to enriching Ehrman’s bank balance further, this one might help general readers to appreciate more how astonishing these early beliefs and devotional practices were.”
A review of How Jesus became “God,” per Ehrman by Larry W. Hurtado
Some professional jealousy imo. Some of Dr. Bart’s peers seem a little resentful of his enormous success. While they praise his wonderful communication skills, they usually can’t leave him alone until they take a few swipes at him. Notice he never retaliates. He’s earned every penny and he raises funds for the less fortunate by investing his time and efforts.
I do not think the early christian beliefs were more astonishing than one might expect, given what they encountered. Rather, if their response to what they believed had happened was more tame, that would be astonishing. After all, Dr. Bart describes the profound impact that his religious experience had on and in him 40 years later. That is powerful, in my estimation.
This isn’t textual criticism. I apologize.
 I find it difficult to believe on an intellectual level, that which changed Dr. Bart’s perception of the universe and gave him relief and lifted his burden, hold no value in a thoroughly honest and fair analysis why the new testament was written. As we attempt to examine the things that influenced those ancient writers and try to assess what they intended, while ascribing no value to the very words they penned and to which he responded, how is that different than the fundamentalists?
Log in to Reply  


shakespeare66  August 18, 2014
How is what different from the fundamentalists? Odd.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 11, 2014
“I’ve never, ever written a book that, in my opinion, is as important as this one, since the historical issues are of immense, almost incalculable importance,” Ehrman said. “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
Ehrman sees the Gospel of John, which traces the divine origins of Jesus all the way back to the beginning of creation, as belonging to a category unto itself. In this Gospel, Jesus makes overt and explicit statements about his own divinity.
 When it comes to John’s Gospel, Ehrman and some of his evangelical critics agree: The fourth Gospel should be understood as a theological treatise and an imaginative re-enactment, not an eyewitness account containing verbatim quotes.
 On “How Jesus Became God”
John Murawski
If jesus did not say the following, who did? In all of literature throughout the ages, about which we know, did anyone ever compose statements like these? No. At least, I am unaware of any. Who would or could walk around on the face of this planet and contrive such declarations (and be sane?). Why would they? I wonder if experts in the field of “Forensic Linguistics and Recognizing Individual Written and Spoken Word Usages” would conclude that many individuals had a hand in creating this document?
* “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith* in God; have faith also in me. 2In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? 3* And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be.a 4Where [I] am going you know the way.”* 5Thomas said to him, “Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?” 6Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth* and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.b 7If you know me, then you will also know my Father.* From now on you do know him and have seen him.”c 8Philip said to him, “Master, show us the Father,* and that will be enough for us.”d 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?e 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.f 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves.g 12Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.h 13And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.i 14If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it.
15“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.j 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate* to be with you always,k 17the Spirit of truth,* which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.l 18I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.* 19In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me, because I live and you will live.m 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you.n 21Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.”o 22Judas, not the Iscariot,* said to him, “Master, [then] what happened that you will reveal yourself to us and not to the world?”p 23Jesus answered and said to him, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.q 24Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.
25“I have told you this while I am with you. 26The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that [I] told you.r 27Peace* I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.s 28* You heard me tell you, ‘I am going away and I will come back to you.’t If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I. 29And now I have told you this before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe.u 30I will no longer speak much with you, for the ruler of the world* is coming. He has no power over me, 31but the world must know that I love the Father and that I do just as the Father has commanded me. Get up, let us go.”
These words are the heart of the gospel. They pour forth, they gush, honest, sincere unrehearsed thoughts, feelings, instructions and promises of someone unique to this world. Dr. Bart was an active member in his congregation, partaking in various religious functions and rituals. It wasn’t until he was born again that god became real to him. (I believe that is an accurate way of stating what happened. I pray I am not putting words in his mouth. That is when he had a profound religious experience, from what he’s written and it a common experience. The Holy Spirit, the Comforter, entered into him, just as promised.) This was not a fleeting, momentary happening to some teenage space cadet. And, Dr. Bart trusted this “spiritual awakening” until his late twenties.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 13, 2014
Again, who said these things in what we call John 14? who said the following from john 15? Who on god’s green earth could possibly have thought of these things to attribute them to some fictitious godman? “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye love one another. 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you, 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.”
Can anyone identify even one human being with the potential ability to create what is written here?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 13, 2014
There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 13, 2014
Like that?
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 13, 2014
“There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!”
Those people claimed to be god? and said things like, “These things I command you, that ye love one another”?
And, “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.”?
“8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things…”?
I always thought no one else spoke like this.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 15, 2014
I don’t think Jesus ever claimed to be God. You really should read my book How Jesus Became God.
But there have been lots and lots of people who *have* claimed to be God, as you surely know.
 



prestonp  August 15, 2014
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things…
Dr B., specifically, who wrote these words, and the others I quoted from John 14 and 15, any idea? There are plenty of scholars who wrote “deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical work” but not these guys. They were mostly poor, non-professional scribes for the first few centuries, not brilliant scholars, from what you wrote in Misquoted.
I have an idea. Let’s identify everything we believe Christ actually did say. Let’s build a complete record of each and every word that he spoke and add to it as we discover more and more words that can be attributed to him alone. We could approach this argument from a more balanced perspective that way, wouldn’t that make sense?No need to answer.
I have never read or seen anything like that which we find in these verses. We read the words of a human being, known to have existed, as he’s saying farewell to his friends and companions, as their god and as god almighty. He’s eloquent. Utterly human, but much more than human, obviously. He says things that people don’t say to one another, ever. In fact, he spent his ministry saying things that confounded the well educated. Who put those words in his mouth?
32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it[d] is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.” This apparent discrepancy has been resolved as have many other issues raised by textual criticism.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 16, 2014
I”m not completely sure what you’re asking. The author of the Gospel of John wrote those words. Or the source that he used wrote them. I can’t think of any alternative. They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus. The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.
 
 



prestonp  October 3, 2014
Besides the gospel of Thomas, which fails miserably on this score, imo, who or where else, specifically can we find someone who sounds just like Christ?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 3, 2014
I think the bigger question is how you know what Jesus sounded like. No one was recording his teachings at the time. The accounts of his words were weritten 40-60 years later. And the way he sounds in Mark is VERY different from the way he sounds in John (and in the Gospel of Thomas, or Philip, or Nicodemus, or Mary, or … take your pick)
 



prestonp  October 10, 2014
“I think the bigger question is how you know what Jesus sounded like. No one was recording his teachings at the time. The accounts of his words were weritten 40-60 years later. And the way he sounds in Mark is VERY different from the way he sounds in John (and in the Gospel of Thomas, or Philip, or Nicodemus, or Mary, or … take your pick)” Dr. Bart
I have read and reread what he said many, many, many times. I have studied the words attributed to him intensely. Reading is a passion of mine and I’m not altogether unfamiliar with how others express themselves verbally.
We have no credible evidence that his words were not written down soon after he spoke them. Ms. Hezser has written that well to do people of that time could afford to and did have such people writing down what was said immediately after it was spoken.
 

Bart

Bart  October 10, 2014
Yes, if you assume that the words in the Gospels are the words that Jesus really spoke, you don’t have much of a problem!
 



prestonp  October 12, 2014
“Yes, if you assume that the words in the Gospels are the words that Jesus really spoke, you don’t have much of a problem!” Dr. Bart
I made no such assumptions. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. It just wasn’t possible 1. that god existed. 2. that he had a kid. 3. that his kid visited planet earth. 4. that he loved us. 5 that he died to set me free from me. 6. that any kind of true record existed. 7. at best we had a santa claus nut running around back then. In fact there were many of them. that’s what I believed when I opened that book
COULD NOT BE TRUE.
 
 



prestonp  October 12, 2014
“As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love”
“There have been scores and scores of brilliant authors of deeply moving and powerful religious and philosophical works. I’d suggest you read them!” Dr. Bart
I have not found a single example of someone who spoke like this guy, nor have I seen anyone quoted who sounds anything like him, either. I don’t know what kind of scholarly discipline it is called, or even if there is one, but it is fascinating to come to understand that his words are indeed, “the unmatched expression” as an argument for his divinity.
 (“Divine non-criticism”, perhaps?)
 Not one of these many brilliant, powerful, deeply moving authors has produced anything like the gospel of John has he?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 13, 2014
It is important to notice that “he” doesn’t sound like this in Matthew, Mark, or Luke either. Also: you’ll notice that John the Baptist sounds just like “him” in the fourth Gospel. And so does the narrator. Why is that? They are not three different voices. They are all the voice of the author.
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“It is important to notice that “he” doesn’t sound like this in Matthew, Mark, or Luke either. Also: you’ll notice that John the Baptist sounds just like “him” in the fourth Gospel. And so does the narrator. Why is that? They are not three different voices. They are all the voice of the author.” Dr Bart
Dr Bart, would you cite some examples, please?
Imo, John was a melancholic or he had a melancholic personality, if that is more accurate. He viewed the world and everyone in it from that inborn perspective, He was very sensitive. He was a “feeling oriented” man who valued human relationships and interactions above all else.
Say General Schwarzkopf and Michelangelo lived 2,000 years ago and had gotten to know jesus, or of him, and set out to describe him. Can you see how differently their views of him might have been expressed?
 

Bart

Bart  October 15, 2014
The lines you cited from John do not sound anything like Jesus sounds in any of the other Gospels. You cited the examples yourself! As to the three sounding the same. Ask yourself: who is talking in John 3:13-15? Who is talking in John 3:16-18? How do you know? And consider JB’s words in John 1.
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
The brilliant, spiritually powerful and deeply moving authors to whom you refer did not emerge from that time and place, did they? None of them wrote about a godman sharing his life with others with radically different ideas like jesus, did he?
Off topic a bit: Somerset Maugham’s Of Human Bondage blew me away.
 
 
 
 



shakespeare66  August 18, 2014
You banter around with words that make no point. You assume the reader of your comments will discover the point in your verbal wanderings. Make a point.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 12, 2014
“My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.”
Dr. Bart The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old
At the beginning of every season, Jack Nicklaus took time out to return to the basics of the game and stayed there until he was confident in his grip, his stance, his set up routine, his putting, his turn, etc. Vince Lombardi ran the sweep in practice until Kramer, Thurston and Hornung consistently could go full speed and get their footing within one half inch of the route he designed for them to take. Over and over and over and again and again, repeatedly, and then again and again…It was their bread and butter. The play they relied upon to gain a chunk of yardage, no matter what. Off of it they built various formations and complex plays and passing schemes, even a few trick plays. In fact, Lombardi boasted that opponents might very well know what play the Packers would run next (some version of the sweep). Didn’t matter. They would simply run it perfectly. The point is we can grow, and we must grow, but we don’t have to shed the foundation.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 12, 2014
But if Jack Nicklaus played golf the way he did when he was sixteen, for his entire life, he never would have won a *single* golf tournament, let alone a major, let alone 18 majors! And if Lombardi coached when he was 40 the way he would have when he was 16, he never would have been the most awe-inspiring figure in football coaching history….
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 12, 2014
Ha! on a more serious note, Dr. Bart wasn’t delusional or susceptible to brain washing or hocus pocus magical thinking. How was the burden lifted? How did he connect in such a powerful fashion to the universe in a way never known to him? Why have multitudes proclaimed they too found the same kinds of things? “For me, at the time, it felt like an enormous relief, a lifting of burden, a sense of connecting with the universe in a way I never had before. Very powerful!” Dr. Bart to this day maintains this was a very real, very significant, true experience for him. Burden lifted. Enormous relief. A sense of connecting with the universe. How did it happen?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 13, 2014
There’s really no difficulty explaining religious experience psychologically. You may want to read some psychological literature, starting with William James!
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 13, 2014
I agree with James that many of us may experience a variety of special states of mind for different reasons. No doubt. That doesn’t disprove the born again experience. Dr. Bart, what happened to you? When you say you were born again, did god become real to you, or no?
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 15, 2014
Of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t have remained a Christian. But there really is no difficulty in explaining Christian conversion — or conversion to Judaism, or Islam or Krishna or to any other religious view/person on psychological grounds.
 



prestonp  August 22, 2014
Dr. Bart, what happened to you? When you say you were born again, did god become real to you, or no?
Bart Ehrman August 15, 2014
 Of course. Otherwise I wouldn’t have remained a Christian. But there really is no difficulty in explaining Christian conversion — or conversion to Judaism, or Islam or Krishna or to any other religious view/person on psychological grounds.
God became real to you, not something psychological. It wasn’t a conversion to christianity that became real to you. God, himself, revealed to you, Bart, that he was REAL, in the present tense. Experiencing God cannot be explained away on psychological grounds, or any other grounds, can he?
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 22, 2014
I think I’d rather that we focus principally on the historical study of early Christianity. I occasionally say things here about what I believe, or used to believe, but it’s not really the central feature of the blog.
 



prestonp  August 23, 2014
“Why Join Bart’s Blog?
 As a member, you will gain full access to read Bart’s thoughts and dialogue with him about his books, debates, beliefs and more! All membership fees will be used in full to aid the poor in the most difficult living conditions.”
Dr. Bart, If you prefer not to go in depth about your beliefs, that is ok. I have no desire to be a thorn in your side. I do think, in light of the promised benefits upon joining your blog, and your very warm and open, personal style of communicating, not sharing with your audience the details of your transformative shift from knowing god is real to denying that fact, is quite a let down.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 23, 2014
I have gone into considerable depth into my beliefs in my books and on the blog. I just don’t want to keep repeating the same things about it — with so many other issues that we could be addressing.
 
 
 
 
 



prestonp  August 12, 2014
Nicklaus won the Tri-State High School Championship (Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana) at the age of 14 with a round of 68, and also recorded his first hole-in-one in tournament play the same year. At 15, Nicklaus shot a 66 at Scioto Country Club, (Site of five Major Tournaments: 1926 U.S. Open. 1931 Ryder Cup. 1950 PGA Championship. 1968 U.S. Amateur. 1986 Senior Open.) which was the amateur course record, and qualified for his first U.S. Amateur. He won the Ohio Open in 1956 at age 16, highlighted by a phenomenal third round of 64, competing against professionals. In all, Nicklaus won 27 events in the Ohio area from age 10 to age 17.
Lombardi “went to church 365 days of the year. He never missed.” In fact, while he coached the Packers, he not only attended church every day, but also served as the altar boy (as an adult)… Lombardi often shared his beliefs with players and coaches….
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 13, 2014
I’m not sure what your point is. My point is that if you stay where you were as a sixteen year old, you will be a stunted adult.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 13, 2014
Nicklaus was a phenomenon before he was 16! I am approaching this lightheartedly. My point is this: I don’t have to become “sophisticated” and “more advanced” in every area of my life to prove that I’m a growing, fully-involved adult. To grow and to develop as a human being who follows him means that I will become more like him as I pass through young adulthood, midlife and old age. Initial contact with god is exhilarating for many. We are “high on Christ” some say. We are not meant to stay forever in that state of pure ecstasy. Nor do we need to deny the wonder of it to be able to move forward.
Dr., I am just saying that followers aren’t supposed to rot after conversion, but that doesn’t mean we have to study and interpret the new testament in a more “modern”, a more “sophisticated” fashion, necessarily. Truth is truth, wherever it originates and wherever it takes us. I may fear the outcome, but if god is god, can’t he lead me into more truth that confirms his presence and reality when I encountered him at first? If he is not the real deal, he wasn’t then and he cannot be now. If he was then, he is now. IMO, anyway. Dr. Bart, no one can or will interpret “the book” perfectly, imo, and we don’t have to, at least in terms of enjoying friendship with god. I think as we learn and grow, we find he is more interested in sharing life with us as a co-traveler, a co-creator, happy to be as intimate with us as we want to be. Don’t mean to preach. Trying to point out that we are designed to keep maturing, as you say, just in a different realm.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 14, 2014
“I’ve never, ever written a book that, in my opinion, is as important as this one, since the historical issues are of immense, almost incalculable importance, Ehrman said. “The assertion that Jesus is God is arguably the single most important development in Western civilization.”
Whose assertion? A multitude of anonymous scribes over 15 centuries who spun a ridiculous tale based on unreliable 50 to 70 year old oral traditions from the first century? How and why did their various assertions challenge anyone to do or to think anything of significance? I mean, how did they manage to pull off such a huge fraud? Their assertion arguably is the most important development in the history of the development of the West? (Not to mention the same assertions enormous impact on the East.) All kinds of nuts were running around back then claiming all kinds of things. For centuries, some have asserted that Santa is real. All kinds of myths have been perpetuated throughout the millennia. What makes Dr. Bart and many others believe this “assertion” about jesus rises to such an extraordinary level?
If you don’t believe in miracles, these unknown, non-professional scribes, who were biased and unrelated, these lying forgerers separated by thousands of years and concocted this absolute nonsense conning the western world, might make you think twice.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 15, 2014
The assertion that Jesus is God is made and has been made by most Christians from the first century down until today. I’m not completely sure what you’re objecting to.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 15, 2014
If you are correct, there’s no valid reason to believe that jesus was god. So, how did they con the world? How did they pull off a hoax that revolutionized the world? The written stories about jesus were embellished, modified, and altered repeatedly over the centuries and were the product of hear-say. So, how did they manage to fool so many for so long? If they had tried to do create a story that would have such phenomenal results, they couldn’t.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 16, 2014
No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God. I just disagree with them. My book is not about whether Jesus is God. It’s about how the idea that he is God arose and developed. Those are two very different things.
 



prestonp  August 16, 2014
Are you referring to the assertions we find in the new testament?
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 17, 2014
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. (When I get comments for moderatoin, they do not include the comments on which the comments are commenting on — so you need to make sure you explain what you’re referring to)
 



prestonp  August 17, 2014
Right from the start, one gets the impression Ehrman’s Jesus is a truncated version construed by a historical-critical scholar—and an unduly skeptical one at that. This isn’t only Ehrman the historian; it’s also Ehrman the ex-believer and notorious skeptic. [3]
From beginning to end Ehrman dichotomizes between faith and reason, history and theology, the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. [4] With such premises in place, the outcome of his historical research is predictable: Jesus never claimed to be God; he viewed himself as an apocalyptic prophet (echoes of Albert Schweitzer); and his followers never considered him to be God either. In customary fashion, Ehrman assigns the emergence of the notion of Jesus’ divinity to the latest possible date. He asserts ancient people frequently thought of a particular human as a god or of a god having become human, so there’s nothing unique about Christians’ claim that Jesus was divine. [5]
How Jesus Became God
Bart D. Ehrman | Review by: Andreas Köstenberger
While Dr. B. is unusually gracious and attempts to be fair to all sides, unfortunately Kostenberger is correct. His commitment to skepticism is as strong or stronger than any fundamentalist’s devotion. It is his religion and his god. Dr. B. is so smart (perhaps too smart) and articulate it is easy to ignore his weaknesses. One expects him to be practically perfect in everything he tackles as a scholar, to recognize his faults and to modify his positions accordingly.
He’s only human, after all, and though a remarkably talented one, he’s prone to all the weaknesses which challenge the rest of us. George Will uses a line that applies here. To accept Dr. B’s view, we have to overlook volumes of data and common sense.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 17, 2014
This seems to be mainly name-calling and branding to me. If there are substantive points that can refute my position, I’d rather deal with those.
 



prestonp  August 20, 2014
When we consider what you believe to be overwhelming evidence that the new testament is a farce, a forgery, a twisted batch of distortions based on unreliable 60 year old collections of hear-say, how can anyone assign any significance to it? After decades of research, you have proven it does not represent what most christians claim it does: a revelatory expression of god’s incarnation. Therefor, any assertion or claim that the new testament presents the case that Christ is divine must fail. It does no such thing. Isn’t that your position?
I am reading your books and related material. My questions remain.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 20, 2014
No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.
 
 



shakespeare66  August 17, 2014
The Christian world is doing the asserting that Jesus was God. Who else is making that assertion? Muslims? Jews? Hindus? Where is the proof that Jesus was God or the son of God? So what is your point?
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 24, 2014
What substantial reasons do christians have for believing in Christ according to Dr. Bart, do you know?
 
 
 
 



shakespeare66  August 17, 2014
I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with these arguments. The point is that as one investigates the truth of any matter, one’s mind changes over the course of that investigation. I used to think certain things about Shakespeare until I read a great deal more about his life and his work at the Globe.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 20, 2014
I cannot for the life of me understand where you are going with these arguments. The point is that as one investigates the truth of any matter, one’s mind changes over the course of that investigation. I used to think certain things about Shakespeare until I read a great deal more about his life and his work at the Globe.
As some investigate this matter, they become more certain that Christ is god.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  August 16, 2014
“I”m not completely sure what you’re asking. The author of the Gospel of John wrote those words. Or the source that he used wrote them. I can’t think of any alternative.” Dr. B.
The original account given in John was altered and added to and subtracted from depending on the scribes who copied it, in your opinion, I thought.
“They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus. The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. B.
What he said on that occasion, and every other time he opened his mouth, could have been written down at any moment after he spoke them. Maybe someone did take notes at the last supper. The “many” Luke refers to in chapter 1 may include some of those present at that meal. They were free to record everything they could remember, whenever and wherever they could. We have no reason to believe they would wait 60 years to begin jotting down their recollections of what was said and had occurred. Just the opposite. The earliest band of followers were supercharged to tell the world, everyone/anyone/all who would listen to them, or read what they wrote, concerning those things that had taken place in that obscure tiny dot on planet earth.
How much scripture did you memorize after your religious experience?
If you peer back in time and observe them (silently from the shadows) you can tell they were absolutely overwhelmed (smitten) by the reality of having spent many months hanging with the one they were certain was god, himself. They couldn’t help themselves. They engaged in every conceivable activity to inform others what they had just seen and heard and handled. 1 john 1: 1, even as you began telling everyone about what happened to you. Some were better at preaching, some organizing, some writing.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 17, 2014
I memorized a number of the shorter books of the NT.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 24, 2014
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart
Can you tell us what a few of those reasons Are? Thanks
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 25, 2014
Personal experience. Decision to stand within a certain faith tradition. Sense of the meaning of the world.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



shakespeare66  August 17, 2014
How is your certain account of these witnesses conceivable in a time when most people were illiterate? You sound like everyone walked around with notebook and pen and paper writing down comments. How silly. No one had that ability to do so. If you had taken the time to read many of Dr. Erhman’s books, one would find how this “story” of Christ emerged through a long litany of concocted stories.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 18, 2014
Bart Ehrman August 17, 2014
 This seems to be mainly name-calling and branding to me. If there are substantive points that can refute my position, I’d rather deal with those
I am sorry Dr. My errors.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
I was referring to your quotation, not to your views.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 18, 2014
The words spoken in John 14, 15, 16 and 17 were extraordinary. In all that has ever been written down, of which we are aware, what comes closest in content and meaning? What is the most similar example that you can recall or find? Anyone?
Dr. Bart, can a valid argument be made regarding the authenticity of certain words having been spoken by a particular individual from antiquity in part using the process of elimination?
Do we have any good reasons to believe the followers would (or could restrain themselves) for 60 years to begin jotting down their recollections of what was said and what had occurred?
“The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, at the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. B., how can we say that no one took notes or wrote down soon after the supper, what he said?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 20, 2014
Ehrman’s argument that Peter and John were illiterate based
 on the use of the word !”#$%%&Therefore'() to describe the two disciples in Acts 4:13
 is unconvincing. The word !”#$%%&'() is the opposite of “#&%%&’*+), which
 is used in the NT to denote a professional scribe. , !”#$%%&'() can
 simply mean to lack rabbinical training. 7 In the context of Acts 4, the Jewish
 council is described as “#&%%&’*,) (Acts 4:5), in contrast to Peter and John
 who are !”#$%%&'(-. It is evident that the contrast is between those who have
 formal rabbinical training (the Jewish council) and those who do not (Peter
 and John). In any case, as Carson asserts, “The astonishment of the authorities
 was in any case occasioned by the competence of Peter and John when
 they should have been (relatively) ignorant, not by their ignorance when they
 should have been more competent.” 8 Moreover, most Jewish boys did learn to
 read, and since John’s family was not poor (Luke 5:3 and Mark 1:20 indicate
 his family owned boats and employed others), it is highly probable that he
 received a better-than-average education. 9 Ben Witherington responds pointedly to Ehrman’s overall argument that the first disciples were mere illiterate peasants: First of all, fishermen are not peasants. They often made a good living from the Sea of Galilee, as can be seen from the famous and large fisherman’s house excavated in Bethsaida. Secondly, fishermen were businessmen and they had to either have a scribe or be able to read and write a bit to deal with tax collectors, toll collectors, and other business persons. Thirdly, if indeed Jesus had a Matthew/ Levi and others who were tax collectors as disciples, they were indeed literate, and again were not peasants. As the story of Zaccheus makes perfectly clear, they could indeed have considerable wealth, sometimes from bilking people out of their money. In other words, it is a caricature to suggest that all Jesus’ disciples were illiterate peasants.
 JETS 54.3 (September 2011) 449–65
 DISUNITY AND DIVERSITY:
 THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF BART EHRMAN
 Josh Chatraw
Dr., they could have asked others to take dictation, too. Many probably did. They were not proud. Christ had some wealthy women who supported his ministry as well. They were besides themselves with joy, preaching and sharing the good news with everyone in sight. They were overwhelmed by the same “religious experience” that meant so much to you and others you helped to find god.
Isn’t it “illogical” or against some debating rule to make a blanket statement about what others could or couldn’t do without knowing for sure? Just look how important writing about jesus is to you, and he isn’t your god. (Now, you’re brilliant, but you could write about many topics.)
I am convinced, in my own non-scholarly way, that it was jesus and none other, who spoke the words recorded in john 14-17. No human being thought up what was said there. It is not possible. It is a different language. The words are words we use yes, but on a different level, a different plane and from a different dimension. I don’t know how to speak that language. Nothing like it is spoken by mankind, as far as I know. At least, I have never seen anything or heard anything like it, anywhere, have you Dr.?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 20, 2014
If you’re interested in a full discussion of the dictation theory, I’d suggest you read my extended discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery. I show there why that can probalby not account for the books we have.
Most Jewish boys certainly did not learn how to read. Don’t take my word for it. The definitive study is Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine. She is quite clear and convincing on this point. On fishermen not being peasants — good grief. This is Romance, not History. I’d suggest you read up on what we know about the social context of rural Galilee.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 20, 2014
If you’re interested in a full discussion of the dictation theory, I’d suggest you read my extended discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery. I show there why that can probalby not account for the books we have.
Will do. Thanks for the reference. I just hope I get a passing grade when I’ve finished all the reading you’ve assigned to me!
Most Jewish boys certainly did not learn how to read. Don’t take my word for it. The definitive study is Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine. She is quite clear and convincing on this point.
Ok. As soon as I’ve finished my homework, remember the 37 volumes you gave me?
On fishermen not being peasants — good grief. This is Romance, not History. I’d suggest you read up on what we know about the social context of rural Galilee.
I will. Got to catch my breath
Dr. Bart, let’s say fisherman were illiterate, dictation is not an option and most jewish boys were illiterate. Among his followers were tax collectors, 2 members of the Sanhedrin, several wealthy women, etc.
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 21, 2014
A tax collector was not necessarily educated; he could simply be the guy who bangs on your door telling you to pay up. And tehre were no members of the Sanhedrin among Jesus’ followers.
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
“We shall obviously never know in a clear-cut numerical way how many people were literate, semi-literate, or illiterate in the Graeco-Roman world in general, or even in any particular …”
Catherine Hezser, Literacy in Roman Palestine.
 

Bart

Bart  October 13, 2014
That’s right — we will never be able to put a number on it.
 
 
 



prestonp  September 11, 2014
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
“Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
Dr. Bart, as a true scholar, (an amazing one at that) are you unaware that your statement here cannot be true? You do not Know they were illiterate. You Cannot know that, so you cannot make that an honest statement of fact, isn’t that true?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 11, 2014
History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. I have no trouble saying that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, even though it is only *probably* true.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 13, 2014
Bart Ehrman August 19, 2014
“Jesus’ own followers would not have been restraining themselves. They were illiterate. They couldn’t write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
“Dr. Bart, as a true scholar, (an amazing one at that) are you unaware that your statement here cannot be true? You do not Know they were illiterate. You Cannot know that, so you cannot make that an honest statement of fact, isn’t that true?” pp
“History is a matter of probabilities, not certainties. I have no trouble saying that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, even though it is only *probably* true.” Dr. Bart
Would this be a more acceptable statement from an intellectual such as yourself? “Jesus’ own followers may not have been restraining themselves. They may have been illiterate. They may not have been able to write down what Jesus said even if they desperately wanted to do so.”
Jesus’ followers may have been unable to refrain from writing all about him from the moment he called them. A few of them may have been literate. They certainly may have written down exactly what he said.
As a scholar, as a widely respected and even a beloved, true-blue, “peoples’ scholar”, you may not have given this particular matter enough purely objective analysis, imho.
It appears very probable that they wrote down what they heard and the world has never been the same. Their pronouncement that god dwelt among us, died and was resurrected was the most significant factor in the development of Western civilization. I agree. pp
Unrelated, have you watched old tapes of NASA test firing the Saturn 5 rockets on the net, from Huntsville, Alabama? Got to
 
 
 
 
 



prestonp  August 19, 2014
There’s really no difficulty explaining religious experience psychologically. You may want to read some psychological literature, starting with William James! Dr. B from above.
I cannot imagine You were somehow tricked into a psychological ruse–that you were the victim of a pseudo-spiritual experience, especially given the way you changed and the profound influence you describe it has had on your life. Some other people? Absolutely! You? Dr. Bart, that is tough to swallow. I bet most people who know even a little bit about you would say you would be the last person to be fooled by some kind of bull. “I told my friends, family, everyone about Christ,” he remembers now. “The study of the Bible was a religious experience. The more you studied the Bible, the more spiritual you were. I memorized large parts of it. It was a spiritual exercise, like meditation.” Some of those you reached out to continue to enjoy him and walk with him. Not, I expect, the kind of response we’d anticipate from normal, healthy people who rely on forged, misquoted, altered, added to, removed from, embellished and twisted words of biased boobs, primarily and originally built upon information that was 60 years old, which itself was mere hear-say and rumors– all about some obscure, uneducated, average appearing, jewish peasant who lived 2,000 years ago.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 19, 2014
“In fact, as I argue in the book, the followers of Jesus had no inkling that he was divine until after his death.” Dr. B. Huffington Post on “How Jesus Became God”
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
You really need to read my book.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 20, 2014
I’ve been reading your books, Dr. and they are great.
To say that his followers had no clue he was Christ before he was resurrected, when we have examples from the new testament that contradict that position, is a legitimate argument, I think. I am enjoying your books very much. haven’t found your explanation for this yet. I do think that your position that his followers were illiterate is not supported very well. To conclude that no one wrote down what he said for 60 years is a leap of faith and cannot be proven. Components of your arguments, I suggest, weaken its foundation.
Log in to Reply  
 
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
I don’t think psychology is a matter of being tricked into ruses. The psychology of religion is a profound and complicated field. Again, I’d suggest you do some reading to help inform your opinions.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 21, 2014
“Regarding Matt 24:36, although many witnesses record Jesus as speaking of his own prophetic ignorance (“But as for that day and hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father alone”), many others lack the words “nor the Son.” Whether “nor the Son” is authentic or not is disputed, but what is not disputed is the wording in the parallel in Mark 13:32—“But as for that day or hour no one knows it—neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son—except the Father.” Thus, there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of his own prophetic ignorance in the Olivet Discourse. Consequently, what doctrinal issues are really at stake here? One simply cannot maintain that the wording in Matt 24:36 changes one’s basic theological convictions about Jesus since the same sentiment is found in Mark.
 In other words, the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best. Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong.”
Review of
 Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005)
 by
 Daniel B. Wallace,
 Executive Director,
 Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 21, 2014
Yes, this is another instance in which Dan Wallace completely misunderstands my point, as I think you’ll see if you actually read my discussion of the problem.
Log in to Reply  
 



prestonp  August 21, 2014
“…over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise”.
Bruce Manning Metzger
 American biblical scholar
 and textual critic,
 professor at Princeton Theological Seminary
“Ehrman points to the fact that in Matthew’s version of the ignorance saying (cf. Mk. 13.32 to Mt. 24.36) as some sort of proof that Jesus should not be seen as divine, at least in Matthew’s Gospel. We can debate the textual variants, but even if we include ‘not even the Son’ here which is certainly present in Mk. 13.32 it in no way proves that Matthew presents a merely human Jesus. The Emmanuel (God with us Christology) which we find at the beginning and end of this Gospel rules that notion out all together, as do various other texts in Matthew where Jesus presents himself as the Wisdom of God come in the flesh…”
Daniel B. Wallace,
 Executive Director,
 Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)
Reading various points of view
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 21, 2014
Metzger was my teacher, and I agree with his statement. I agree with Wallace that Jesus is divine in Matthew, but not for the reasons he thinks.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 21, 2014
I know. Thought it was interesting that you and Metzger seemingly drifted far apart on some important issues.
While 85 to 90 percent of the population may have been illiterate where and when Christ grew up, and while Petaus and Ischyrion may have been barely literate, you apparently recognize that as little as 60 years after his death, at least a few, who wrote the new testament, were brilliant. Common sense mandates that very likely they would have insisted on using qualified scribes.
Don’t forget that something else factored in to the early minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years following the murder of jesus. He was loved.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 22, 2014
Loving someone is not a guarantee that you will remember his words and deeds accurately, as cognitive psychologists have demonstrated time and again.
Probalby 97% of Jesus’ world was illiterate. Those who could read and write were the very upper crust of the wealthy elite.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 22, 2014
Loving someone in this case means they were devoted to getting his message out to everyone, everywhere, and to ensure it was accurate. They didn’t love him hoping to get rich. If he was savagely murdered, so could they. They faced real danger being his devotees. Look at what Saul, on his own, was doing and later what Paul faced for his efforts to tell the world.
Remember, too, your own first love for him.
3% of 100,000 is 3,000.
 
 
 



prestonp  October 3, 2014
Doesn’t agreeing with Metzger regarding the “90%” contradict the pronouncements you’ve made that the mistakes and contradictions textual critics have found in the n.t. are major, numerous and profound?
“…over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine. It is at the very least disingenuous to suggest it does, if not deliberately provocative to say otherwise”.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 3, 2014
Nope. I think you need to read my views (and Metzger’s) more closely to see what they are. Metzger’s comment is unrelated to my discussions of discrepancies in the NT.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



prestonp  August 21, 2014
A tax collector was not necessarily educated; he could simply be the guy who bangs on your door telling you to pay up.
 He would have to handle and read receipts
And tehre were no members of the Sanhedrin among Jesus’ followers.
 Joe of Arimathea and Nicodemus were not members?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 22, 2014
Nicodemus is almost certainly a fictional character; Joseph may be as well. But in any event, neither of them (even inthe preserved stories) accompanied Jesus during his ministry.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 22, 2014
Wouldn’t it have been risky to name them as members when it was verifiable?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 23, 2014
Members of what? Remember, the Gospels were written decades later in a completely different part of the world, to people who for the most part were not alive when the events narrated took place.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 27, 2014
“Remember, the Gospels were written decades later…”
The gospels reveal words that were spoken and describe events that took place thousands of years ago. As these things unfolded, people began to write about them for their personal reasons, in their diaries, in letters to loved ones near and far. Children would tell their parents what they saw and heard, undoubtedly, which may have become part of the family’s written history. People are people. I cannot imagine that he wasn’t the topic of conversation wherever people gathered. They knew something special was taking place; even the highest ranking officials were familiar with his reputation and were eager to meet him. Why would his followers or anyone else hesitate to make an accurate accounting? Why would they wait? Most likely they didn’t. Repeatedly, they proclaim that what they had heard and seen and handled was the greatest experience known to mankind, their first hand encounter with the creator of all things. Not trying to preach. Trying to make clear that they were motivated, eager, in fact they were bursting to share the most precious thing they’d ever known. Just look at Dr. Bart’s actions as a young man and new believer. Immediately, he shared with those he loved and others what had become so meaningful to him.
 
 
 



prestonp  September 6, 2014
Even if they didn’t follow him on the ground, that wouldn’t disqualify them in any way from being true believers. Whoever wrote that they were members and followers was foolish if he was lying. They weren’t stupid back then. For the writer to say that herod was curious about him, if untrue, was a good way to get killed real quick.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  August 23, 2014
Dr. Bart, the names of the members of the Sanhedrin would be on record when Joe and Nick were mentioned as members and as disciples. Whoever included their names in the account we have would have taken a big risk if he lied because the Sanhedrin was viable and what he wrote would have been available.
If the authors of the accounts of Pilate were lying, even years later, they took a big risk. They could not be certain someone wouldn’t check other sources and they executed people back then for less.
Sharing the gospel was dangerous from the get go. The accounts we have of the birth of the church are filled with threats, imprisonment and death. They murdered him to rid their world of the threat of genuine spirituality. He said, expect the same.
They hated me. They will hate you.
There are too many texts that support this reality.
To say that none of his disciples was literate is impossible. We don’t know that. It may be a certain probability, fine. But, it cannot be established as a fact. When “criticism” is scrutinized with the same standards with which it examines the n.t. the culture, the politics and customs, etc. of that era, usually the best it can offer is probabilities of probabilities which decrease sharply the possibilities of 100% certainty. For example, 70% of 90% is only 63%.
“Criticism” should and must be evaluated in the same fashion it is used. It doesn’t hold up, imo.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 25, 2014
“I have no argument with them. My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.”
If everyone obeyed the unsophisticated, old fashioned, ancient 10 commandments presented by hebrews of antiquity, our civilization would be totally revolutionized, completely rejuvenated for the good.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 26, 2014
Much of what was written in the time frame of Christ’s first appearance could be cross-referenced with relatives and others close to those who were intimately involved in his mission.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 27, 2014
Does anyone care to explain/clarify what an, “infantile religious worldview” is?
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 29, 2014
And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gad’arenes.
 2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3 who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: 4 because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, and cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
We think Schwarzenegger is pretty strong. No contest! This guy had superhuman strength and he knows god when he sees him, even if the account is found in the gospel that doesn’t say jesus was divine.
Log in to Reply  



prestonp  August 29, 2014
Mark doesn’t seem to be trying to cover up christ’s divinity, does he?
“…she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague. 30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?” Magic?
“While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house certain which said, Thy daughter is dead; why troublest thou the Master any further? 36 As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe…And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Tal’itha cu’mi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, (I say unto thee,) arise. 42 And straightway the damsel arose, and walked; for she was of the age of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment.”
Was she still alive when this was written about her, or her sister or her children, etc. Additionally, all those who were astonsished knew people and many of them would have kids and grand kids, nephews, nieces and on and on. They could affirm the story or say it was hogwash. The writer had to be aware of that. These kinds of miracles fill the new testament. If criticism claims the synoptic gospels don’t promote his divinity, who was the guy doing all these miraculous deeds? How? Sleight of hand? If criticism uses the synoptic’s omission of his pre-incarnation divinity, it doesn’t take great reasoning skill to understand that by definition, god is eternal, and therefore he must have been divine forever.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 30, 2014
If you’ve read my recent book, you’ll know that I think Mark does understand Jesus to be divine.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  August 30, 2014
Thanks Dr. Bart. My understanding of your most recent thoughts on Mark is that he, jesus, doesn’t talk about himself much as divine, rather others make those claims about him. Also, Mark doesn’t establish that he was always divine, as john does, that is, from your point of view.
Your scholarship is absolutely incredible and much appreciated by many, many from all walks of life and all different beliefs. Amazing, truly amazing.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  September 3, 2014
Though a wet behind the ears novice, one thing textual criticism demonstrates to me is that a force outside of man was/is behind the formation of the n.t. In Romans 5, the difference between, “Let us have peace” and “We have peace” for example, is one way of conserving words and space. Rather than finding it troublesome, both meanings are true and applicable. I digress, in a sense. The point is this: the final product, the n.t., just as it is, thoroughly, completely, explains for his purposes, who Christ is, who we are, and the path to redemption.
Dr., Bart, Christ said, “Be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect”. Doesn’t he mean, be complete? Can’t we say the n.t. is “complete” in the same way, or no?
I do not think it is possible for human beings to have produced a volume of books and letters, as in the n.t., on our own. This “Volume” has inspired our greatest minds to devote their lives to study it, to analyze it, to dissect it and to devour all pertinent information about the culture, the politics, educational opportunities, the economic status, etc., of those who lived around the time it was written. Why? Who cares? What difference does it make? Folks, it is 2,00 years old! How tough can it be? We think of these ancients as a fairly primitive, unsophisticated bunch of knuckleheads, generally, don’t we? How is it then that they produced this work that is so unique, so convincing and intriguing and controversial and powerful that it has consumed the minds and lives, the energy, of thousands of brilliant men and women. By itself, that is absolutely amazing. No other “Volume” in recorded history is comparable.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 3, 2014
The difference in Romans 5:1 does not involve words and space. It’s a question of one word and it’s spelling — a long o or a short o.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 4, 2014
I meant to say both words are perfectly acceptable, imo. (Just as the n.t. doesn’t provide specific instructions on what we are to do in every particular circumstance we encounter, rather we can rely upon his teachings and him personally, to guide us, can’t we argue that the n.t. gives us everything one needs to engage in a completely mutually satisfying relationship with jesus?) Dr. Bart, I don’t know how to ask that question without sounding like I’m preaching or professing.
No need to address this next question. I’m still working on it. If people gave names to the various books of the n.t. to try to deceive folks into believing they were authoritative, that doesn’t make them forgeries, if the writers themselves didn’t participate in such a scheme, imo.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  September 8, 2014
–
 “Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).” Dr. Bart
 Dr, this was a slip, wasn’t it? “Jesus means…” Because, you believe, “They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus.”
 —
The following is confusing:
“No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.” Dr. Bart
“My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.” Dr. Bart
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart
“Can you tell us what a few of those reasons are? Thanks” pp
Dr. Bart, “Personal experience. Decision to stand within a certain faith tradition. Sense of the meaning of the world.”
 —
 “The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. Bart
How do we know Jesus had a last supper? Why would he?
–
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 8, 2014
Sorry — this string of comments and questions confuses me. Maybe ask one question at a time and I can address it.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  September 8, 2014
“Are you asking what “born again” means in the passage in John? There Jesus means that you have to be born from the heavenly realm in the spirit if you hope to see eternal life. The emphasis is not when (“again”) but where (“from above”).” Dr. Bart
Dr, this was a slip, wasn’t it? (“Jesus means…”) Because, you believe, “They almost certainly cannot be the actual words of Jesus.”
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 10, 2014
No, it wasn’t a slip. I meant “means” in this narrative context. I agree he means “where.” But the point is that Nicodemus thinks he means “when.” That confusion would not have happened if he were speaking Aramaic. And if Jesus were in jerusalem speaking with a another Jewish teacher, they would have been speaking in Aramaic (since that’s what Jesus spoke).
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 3, 2014
“No, it wasn’t a slip. I meant “means” in this narrative context. I agree he means “where.” But the point is that Nicodemus thinks he means “when.” That confusion would not have happened if he were speaking Aramaic. And if Jesus were in jerusalem speaking with a another Jewish teacher, they would have been speaking in Aramaic (since that’s what Jesus spoke).” Dr. Bart
Then, whom did nic ask? Who answered him?
Critics know this passage is phony because had jesus been speaking to a real jewish teacher in Jerusalem, the two would have spoken Aramaic and in that language a real jewish teacher couldn’t have been confused over the concept of being born-again?
 

Bart

Bart  October 3, 2014
I’m not sure what you mean by “phony.” That’s certainly not the category I have ever used for this passage. The problem is that the double meaning of the Greek word ANOTHEN, on which the entire conversatoin is based, cannot be replicated in Aramaic, the language in which they would have been speaking.
 



prestonp  October 13, 2014
Critics know this passage is phony because had jesus been speaking to a real jewish teacher in Jerusalem, the two would have spoken Aramaic and in that language a real jewish teacher couldn’t have been confused over the concept of being born-again?
“I’m not sure what you mean by “phony.” That’s certainly not the category I have ever used for this passage.” Dr. Bart
What it describes never happened so it is phony.
 

Bart

Bart  October 15, 2014
Well, maybe that’s your definition of phony. But I don’t use the term.
 



prestonp  October 17, 2014
Well, maybe that’s your definition of phony. But I don’t use the term.
What it describes never happened so it is phony.
it never happened. what describes it?
 

Bart

Bart  October 17, 2014
There are lots and lots of true stories that never happened.
 
 
 



prestonp  September 9, 2014
The Gospel was written 60 years after Jesus’ death. 60 years earlier, a the last supper Jesus had with his disciples, no one was tape-recording or even taking notes on what he said at the meal, so that after six decades someone else could write them down exactly as he said them.” Dr. Bart
How do we know Jesus had a last supper? Why would he?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 9, 2014
My view is that everyone who dies has had a last supper.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 3, 2014
I know, but he was preparing for his death at that particular meal which happened to be his last, which is exactly what he said, no?
“My view is that everyone who dies has had a last supper.” Dr. Bart
 
 
 
 
 



prestonp  September 8, 2014
Sorry for not making this clear and I appreciate the time you take to address the many questions asked of you.
On the one hand, christianity promotes an infantile world view. The n.t. is a forged, thoroughly debunked document. On the other hand, you say, “No, just the opposite. I maintain that the NT *does* present Christ as divine.” And, “My argument is with the intelligent Christian people who check their intelligence at the door when they enter the church, who think that it makes sense to have a sophisticated view of the world when it comes to their investments, their business practices, their politics, their medical preferences – but not when it comes to their religion.” Dr. Bart
You add,
“No, I completely disagree. Intelligent and thoughtful Christians have substantial reason for thinking Jesus is God.” Dr. Bart.
How can intelligent and thoughtful christians have substantial reasons for thinking jesus is god when they check their intelligence at the church’s door?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 9, 2014
You are misreading me. I have never said that Christianity presents an infantile world view. But some Christians do indeed hold an infantile Christian world view. You shouldn’t think that every Christian has the same views or the same level of sophistication.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 9, 2014
Richard Thrift June 2, 2014
“Child-like” faith is not limited to evangelicals. When I was a Lutheran minister (and a believer) I was oft disheartened in realizing that most (not all but certainly most) of my parishioners had the spiritual understanding of a 13-year-old. That’s the traditional age with most were confirmed…and it also marked the end of their Christian education.
Bart June 2, 2014
 Good point!
Log in to Reply  
 
 



prestonp  October 3, 2014
1 John 1:1-4 New International Version (NIV)
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
More than an hallucination, imo. Much, much more, imo. If we lived back during this episode of history with the exact same set of tools they had and nothing more, what would we have done differently to try to convince others that we had actually experienced god, god, himself, in a human body? They saw him. They heard him. They even touched him.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 17, 2014
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
how could they see, touch and hear god?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 17, 2014
For the Johannine community, Christ was a divine being who became human. This passage is opposing those who deny Christ’s humanity.
Log in to Reply  


prestonp  October 21, 2014
“For the Johannine community…” Dr Bart
 To reduce it to that is rewriting the passage.
“…Christ was a divine being who became human.” Dr Bart
 You are saying this passage was written with this concept in mind?
“This passage is opposing those who deny Christ’s humanity.” Dr. Bart
 And it is asserting that he is indeed god almighty incarnate. We saw him and heard him and even touched the guy! That’s how recent it has been since he was here. I, who write this to you, even me, am among those with firsthand knowledge of him!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/the-religion-of-a-sixteen-year-old/














Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogJesus’ Passion in the Movies (For Members) 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Jesus’ Passion in the Movies (For Members)



You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Jesus’ Passion in the Movies«
My Jesus Class and … Destroying Christianity? (For Members)»


17

OCT

2013

21
  
Comments
21  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Sblake1  October 17, 2013
Speaking of movie stars doing cameos – or even major parts – one of the things I love the best about “Jesus of Nazareth” is that it is a who’s who of great movie stars: Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, Stacy Keach, James Earl Jones (shortly before voicing Darth Vader) as Balthazar, Laurence Olivier, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quinn, Ralph Richardson, Michael York and my favorites: Peter Ustinov as Herod the Great explaining to the Romans about the Messiah craze, the testy Pilate of Rod Steiger and then way before he was Bilbo Baggins – Ian Holm as the scribe Zerah, who is not a Biblical character but who is used to hold the Passion Narrative together – brilliantly I think – all that and he is sort of the bad guy (I think he deserved an Oscar for that performance).
Log in to Reply  



nichael  October 17, 2013
One other candidate for the best off-the-wall cameo in a Jesus movie: Ernest Borgnine in the 1977 mini-series “Jesus of Nazareth” (Dr Ehrman, how many of your students remember “McHale’s Navy”?)
In any case Borgnine plays “The Centurion” with great line “…I tell that one ‘Go’ and he goes; and I tell this one ‘Come’ and he comes.”
(But to give Borgnine his due, I have to say that never quite “got” that line until I heard his rendition of it.)
Log in to Reply  



toddfrederick  October 17, 2013
I need to catch up on your last two blogs but have a question about this one, and then, in the context of “Killing Jesus” … about books for popular reading.
1. I think I asked this before but want to do so again since I don’t have an answer. There is considerable detailed material in all the Gospels concerning what Jesus said and what he did. Who was there, in each instance, to take notes and to retell accurately what he said and what happened? This is particularly significant regarding the trial and death of Jesus: he was arrested, he was taken to Jewish leaders, he was taken to Pilate, he was flogged, he was presented to the Jewish crowds, he was taken to the place of death and was executed. That is perhaps all we can say, if that. He may not have even been questioned by Pilate to the extent it is told in the Gospels.
At his arrest he was with his disciples and they fled. As far as I know from reading the Gospels, no one from his group was with him when he was questioned by the Jewish authorities or when he was questioned by Pilate. There was no one there to record the events of his carrying the cross or his execution, except perhaps the women of his group.
Who was there even to remember all that was said and done, and there was a lot that was said during the Passion event? That question has never been answered to my satisfaction. I’m not sure it ever will and I do not have an answer except: it was made up, perhaps from bits and pieces of “oral tradition” and nothing more, if that. It could have just come from the liturgical life of the early church based on hearsay.
What do you think? ***Where did the Gospel writers get their hard data?**** (especially regarding the Passion).
2. I like to read books that have solid historical and linguistic information about a non-fiction subject. I read “Zealot” and liked what I read (I thought it was a well presented point of view) but I won’t read “Killing Jesus” for the same reasons you gave….a waste of time and money.
However, I’m a sucker for “coffee table” Picture Books, even if the text is rather dismal (by this I mean that I like books with good photography or well presented reproductions of historical art regardless of the text)
I recently ordered, on trial, a new National Geographic book titled “In the Footsteps of Jesus.” The photographs and art reproductions are outstanding but I feared the worst regarding the text. I have skim-read much of the text and I am surprisingly pleased. The author, Jean-Pierre Isbouts (Whom I don’t know), does a good job presenting the story of Jesus objectively, the context within which he lived, the textual sources and contradictions quite well. He does not paint one picture of Jesus (blending the Gospels) but relates what all the authors say and presents them in a generalized “scholarly” way. If there is an issue regarding thorny subjects he will present the problem and will say that “This is an issue that biblical scholars debate.” In the “For Further Reading” he includes two of your books: “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet…” and Lost Christianities….” :D
I just hope the average churchgoer who buys this book will read it. You might want to look at it if you have a chance. At least the photography is good !!
I very recently
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Nope, no one was taking notes. These are *stories* invented in the process of telling and retelling.
Log in to Reply  
 



haoleboy26  October 17, 2013
I hope that you will similarly share your thoughts with us about the other films you discuss. I was 9 when Jesus Christ Superstar was released as a movie, and it deeply affected me. In many respects, Ted Neely is to me Jesus (saw him perform the role three times in the last 25 years); way better than Sebastian Bach.
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  October 18, 2013
You are right, I have never heard of “Jesus of Montreal.” I look forward to your comments about “Passion of the Christ.”
Log in to Reply  



JoeWallack  October 18, 2013
“As we watch the films I comment on them”
Ahh, Gospel Mysteries Theater. Of course the biggest discrepancy in the Resurrection narratives is between “Mark” and “Mark”. “Mark” has 16:9-20 which is a High Light reel of the other Gospels and Acts while “Mark” goes black after 16:8 just like The Sopranos ending.
Log in to Reply  



maxhirez  October 18, 2013
Ever considered throwing in “Godspell?” For my money it’s a more imaginative (if lower production value) execution of the material than the Weber musical. Also the music is so quintessentially hippie. I almost hate myself for loving it.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Yeah, I did it one year. But I simply don’t like it that well. Some period pieces — like Superstar — maintain their high quality over time; others, like Godspell, don’t (for me)….
Log in to Reply  
 



Scott F  October 18, 2013
How much can we take the approaches that movie directors take in dealing with multiple sources (or just one as Mark Goodacre points out was done in the movie entitled “The Gospel According to St. Matthew”) as a clue to to what the evangelists might have done?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Yup, everyone who writes his/her own Gospel does something kinda like that — even the oldest Gospel writers.
Log in to Reply  
 



donmax  October 18, 2013
Bart,
 Sorry for the interruption, but….I’ve been rereading your Self-Scrutiny posting this morning and would like to add my two-cents worth to the discussion. From what I can tell, member input has been very good, in some cases Five Star material. No doubt many of the suggestions will prove useful in winning your war against attrition.
So here’s what I think:
The operative word is WE. Jesus could not do it alone and neither can you.
If, as you say, membership goes up with broad interest-controversial postings, then give the customers what they want. Don’t just ask people to spread the word, make it worth their while. Give them discounts for making referrals and give the referred discounts, too. And by all means, give renewals *discounts.* In other words, create multi-level memberships, with options! Platinum Level comes to mind (from Dennis), Diamond Level, too, with perks. Even some advertising. (There’s all sorts of ways to accomplish this, by length of time at initial sign up, by family plans and other group packaging, by access to special features, or what have you.)
No need to worry about a lack of substance. You exude scholarly substance, so go with glitter.
Review and take advantage of the best of what’s available on line. Use/borrow from other blogs. I happen to like the Taborblog, ASOR, and Disquis, but there’s lots more to choose from, including things from Twitter and Facebook.
As I noted before, make your blog *our blog* by adding horizontal connections to the vertical.
You definitely need navigational tools to make the site more user friendly, with some sort of “indexing reservoir” for benign browsing and for topical focus – a smorgasbord of appetizing categories. To spice things up you might include an issues-orientated section with headings and questions for the more opinionated proselytizers among us.
Last of all, for now, I would suggest that you reread and carefully digest the input received from everyone who has taken the trouble to express what they like and don’t like. From what I can tell, these folks mean well and know whereof they speak. So give them your undivided attention and your feedback. It could pay dividends! 
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Interesting ideas. Thanks,
Log in to Reply  


donmax  October 19, 2013
Teaming up with other philanthropic organizations can be helpful to your cause. These are two of my personal favorites.
Don
Nonprofit Spotlight | Excellence in Philanthropy | The Philanthropy Roundtable
http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org
 Now in its thirteenth year, Birthright is coming of age.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs199/1112251554030/archive/1114710524318.html
 Blossoming Rose Monthly Newsletter
 archive.constantcontact.com
All Best,
 DCS
Log in to Reply  
 
 



FrankJay71  October 18, 2013
I hate to get off topic, but since you mentioned Jesus of Montreal I had to Wikipedia it. In their article they mention the notion of Jesus being the illegitimate offspring of a Roman soldier, and implied that it’s backed by legitimate “academics” and “research.” I’ve always assumed the story of the soldier Panderas fathering Jesus was just an anti Christian rumor. Is there any validity to this theory? Obviously you don’t believe in the virgin birth, but I don’t recall from any of your books, that I read, who you believe fathered Jesus.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Nope, it’s just a later attack on Jesus’ parentage. I may say something about it in a post.
Log in to Reply  
 



dennis  October 18, 2013
Bart , an idea that keeps surfacing in my aged brain as I read these posts is the discrepancies in the New Testament were simply not regarded as a problem during the 12 years of Catholic education my sainted parents paid for in my youth . Mathew and Luke’s Christmas narratives were both read at Christmas and Christmas Eve Mass and nobody batted an eye that they did not perfectly match . My Religion class instructors would sometimes say something like ” now Mathew reports this differently … ” and nobody ran screaming from the room . Maybe it”s the Sola Scriptorum insistence in some Protestant denominations that the Bible is , and ought to be , the only source of spiritual authority that leads to the brittleness of ” faith ” that I have witnessed over the years . If a parent’s 12 child is dying slowly from Cystic Fibrosis ( not a made up example ) and he decides this God stuff is all bullshit , that’s one thing ; I ( and I’m sure God ) can well understand , but to undergo a spiritual crisis because two Gospel authors can’t agree on where Jesus was taken after his birth ? Aw Com’on !
 year
Log in to Reply  



Alfred  October 19, 2013
Bart have you thought of adding ‘Jesus Christ: Superstar’ to your list?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 20, 2013
It’s there! Students love it (and oddly enough, don’t know the music!)
Log in to Reply  
 



Robertus  October 23, 2013
Maybe in a few hundred thousand years, when we’ve colonized Mars and Io, Jesus Christ Superstar will be added to the canon.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 23, 2013
It gets *my* vote….
Log in to Reply  
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-passion-movies-members/












Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogJesus’ Passion in the Movies (For Members) 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Jesus’ Passion in the Movies (For Members)



You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Jesus’ Passion in the Movies«
My Jesus Class and … Destroying Christianity? (For Members)»


17

OCT

2013

21
  
Comments
21  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Sblake1  October 17, 2013
Speaking of movie stars doing cameos – or even major parts – one of the things I love the best about “Jesus of Nazareth” is that it is a who’s who of great movie stars: Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, Stacy Keach, James Earl Jones (shortly before voicing Darth Vader) as Balthazar, Laurence Olivier, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quinn, Ralph Richardson, Michael York and my favorites: Peter Ustinov as Herod the Great explaining to the Romans about the Messiah craze, the testy Pilate of Rod Steiger and then way before he was Bilbo Baggins – Ian Holm as the scribe Zerah, who is not a Biblical character but who is used to hold the Passion Narrative together – brilliantly I think – all that and he is sort of the bad guy (I think he deserved an Oscar for that performance).
Log in to Reply  



nichael  October 17, 2013
One other candidate for the best off-the-wall cameo in a Jesus movie: Ernest Borgnine in the 1977 mini-series “Jesus of Nazareth” (Dr Ehrman, how many of your students remember “McHale’s Navy”?)
In any case Borgnine plays “The Centurion” with great line “…I tell that one ‘Go’ and he goes; and I tell this one ‘Come’ and he comes.”
(But to give Borgnine his due, I have to say that never quite “got” that line until I heard his rendition of it.)
Log in to Reply  



toddfrederick  October 17, 2013
I need to catch up on your last two blogs but have a question about this one, and then, in the context of “Killing Jesus” … about books for popular reading.
1. I think I asked this before but want to do so again since I don’t have an answer. There is considerable detailed material in all the Gospels concerning what Jesus said and what he did. Who was there, in each instance, to take notes and to retell accurately what he said and what happened? This is particularly significant regarding the trial and death of Jesus: he was arrested, he was taken to Jewish leaders, he was taken to Pilate, he was flogged, he was presented to the Jewish crowds, he was taken to the place of death and was executed. That is perhaps all we can say, if that. He may not have even been questioned by Pilate to the extent it is told in the Gospels.
At his arrest he was with his disciples and they fled. As far as I know from reading the Gospels, no one from his group was with him when he was questioned by the Jewish authorities or when he was questioned by Pilate. There was no one there to record the events of his carrying the cross or his execution, except perhaps the women of his group.
Who was there even to remember all that was said and done, and there was a lot that was said during the Passion event? That question has never been answered to my satisfaction. I’m not sure it ever will and I do not have an answer except: it was made up, perhaps from bits and pieces of “oral tradition” and nothing more, if that. It could have just come from the liturgical life of the early church based on hearsay.
What do you think? ***Where did the Gospel writers get their hard data?**** (especially regarding the Passion).
2. I like to read books that have solid historical and linguistic information about a non-fiction subject. I read “Zealot” and liked what I read (I thought it was a well presented point of view) but I won’t read “Killing Jesus” for the same reasons you gave….a waste of time and money.
However, I’m a sucker for “coffee table” Picture Books, even if the text is rather dismal (by this I mean that I like books with good photography or well presented reproductions of historical art regardless of the text)
I recently ordered, on trial, a new National Geographic book titled “In the Footsteps of Jesus.” The photographs and art reproductions are outstanding but I feared the worst regarding the text. I have skim-read much of the text and I am surprisingly pleased. The author, Jean-Pierre Isbouts (Whom I don’t know), does a good job presenting the story of Jesus objectively, the context within which he lived, the textual sources and contradictions quite well. He does not paint one picture of Jesus (blending the Gospels) but relates what all the authors say and presents them in a generalized “scholarly” way. If there is an issue regarding thorny subjects he will present the problem and will say that “This is an issue that biblical scholars debate.” In the “For Further Reading” he includes two of your books: “Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet…” and Lost Christianities….” :D
I just hope the average churchgoer who buys this book will read it. You might want to look at it if you have a chance. At least the photography is good !!
I very recently
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Nope, no one was taking notes. These are *stories* invented in the process of telling and retelling.
Log in to Reply  
 



haoleboy26  October 17, 2013
I hope that you will similarly share your thoughts with us about the other films you discuss. I was 9 when Jesus Christ Superstar was released as a movie, and it deeply affected me. In many respects, Ted Neely is to me Jesus (saw him perform the role three times in the last 25 years); way better than Sebastian Bach.
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  October 18, 2013
You are right, I have never heard of “Jesus of Montreal.” I look forward to your comments about “Passion of the Christ.”
Log in to Reply  



JoeWallack  October 18, 2013
“As we watch the films I comment on them”
Ahh, Gospel Mysteries Theater. Of course the biggest discrepancy in the Resurrection narratives is between “Mark” and “Mark”. “Mark” has 16:9-20 which is a High Light reel of the other Gospels and Acts while “Mark” goes black after 16:8 just like The Sopranos ending.
Log in to Reply  



maxhirez  October 18, 2013
Ever considered throwing in “Godspell?” For my money it’s a more imaginative (if lower production value) execution of the material than the Weber musical. Also the music is so quintessentially hippie. I almost hate myself for loving it.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Yeah, I did it one year. But I simply don’t like it that well. Some period pieces — like Superstar — maintain their high quality over time; others, like Godspell, don’t (for me)….
Log in to Reply  
 



Scott F  October 18, 2013
How much can we take the approaches that movie directors take in dealing with multiple sources (or just one as Mark Goodacre points out was done in the movie entitled “The Gospel According to St. Matthew”) as a clue to to what the evangelists might have done?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Yup, everyone who writes his/her own Gospel does something kinda like that — even the oldest Gospel writers.
Log in to Reply  
 



donmax  October 18, 2013
Bart,
 Sorry for the interruption, but….I’ve been rereading your Self-Scrutiny posting this morning and would like to add my two-cents worth to the discussion. From what I can tell, member input has been very good, in some cases Five Star material. No doubt many of the suggestions will prove useful in winning your war against attrition.
So here’s what I think:
The operative word is WE. Jesus could not do it alone and neither can you.
If, as you say, membership goes up with broad interest-controversial postings, then give the customers what they want. Don’t just ask people to spread the word, make it worth their while. Give them discounts for making referrals and give the referred discounts, too. And by all means, give renewals *discounts.* In other words, create multi-level memberships, with options! Platinum Level comes to mind (from Dennis), Diamond Level, too, with perks. Even some advertising. (There’s all sorts of ways to accomplish this, by length of time at initial sign up, by family plans and other group packaging, by access to special features, or what have you.)
No need to worry about a lack of substance. You exude scholarly substance, so go with glitter.
Review and take advantage of the best of what’s available on line. Use/borrow from other blogs. I happen to like the Taborblog, ASOR, and Disquis, but there’s lots more to choose from, including things from Twitter and Facebook.
As I noted before, make your blog *our blog* by adding horizontal connections to the vertical.
You definitely need navigational tools to make the site more user friendly, with some sort of “indexing reservoir” for benign browsing and for topical focus – a smorgasbord of appetizing categories. To spice things up you might include an issues-orientated section with headings and questions for the more opinionated proselytizers among us.
Last of all, for now, I would suggest that you reread and carefully digest the input received from everyone who has taken the trouble to express what they like and don’t like. From what I can tell, these folks mean well and know whereof they speak. So give them your undivided attention and your feedback. It could pay dividends! 
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Interesting ideas. Thanks,
Log in to Reply  


donmax  October 19, 2013
Teaming up with other philanthropic organizations can be helpful to your cause. These are two of my personal favorites.
Don
Nonprofit Spotlight | Excellence in Philanthropy | The Philanthropy Roundtable
http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org
 Now in its thirteenth year, Birthright is coming of age.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs199/1112251554030/archive/1114710524318.html
 Blossoming Rose Monthly Newsletter
 archive.constantcontact.com
All Best,
 DCS
Log in to Reply  
 
 



FrankJay71  October 18, 2013
I hate to get off topic, but since you mentioned Jesus of Montreal I had to Wikipedia it. In their article they mention the notion of Jesus being the illegitimate offspring of a Roman soldier, and implied that it’s backed by legitimate “academics” and “research.” I’ve always assumed the story of the soldier Panderas fathering Jesus was just an anti Christian rumor. Is there any validity to this theory? Obviously you don’t believe in the virgin birth, but I don’t recall from any of your books, that I read, who you believe fathered Jesus.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 18, 2013
Nope, it’s just a later attack on Jesus’ parentage. I may say something about it in a post.
Log in to Reply  
 



dennis  October 18, 2013
Bart , an idea that keeps surfacing in my aged brain as I read these posts is the discrepancies in the New Testament were simply not regarded as a problem during the 12 years of Catholic education my sainted parents paid for in my youth . Mathew and Luke’s Christmas narratives were both read at Christmas and Christmas Eve Mass and nobody batted an eye that they did not perfectly match . My Religion class instructors would sometimes say something like ” now Mathew reports this differently … ” and nobody ran screaming from the room . Maybe it”s the Sola Scriptorum insistence in some Protestant denominations that the Bible is , and ought to be , the only source of spiritual authority that leads to the brittleness of ” faith ” that I have witnessed over the years . If a parent’s 12 child is dying slowly from Cystic Fibrosis ( not a made up example ) and he decides this God stuff is all bullshit , that’s one thing ; I ( and I’m sure God ) can well understand , but to undergo a spiritual crisis because two Gospel authors can’t agree on where Jesus was taken after his birth ? Aw Com’on !
 year
Log in to Reply  



Alfred  October 19, 2013
Bart have you thought of adding ‘Jesus Christ: Superstar’ to your list?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 20, 2013
It’s there! Students love it (and oddly enough, don’t know the music!)
Log in to Reply  
 



Robertus  October 23, 2013
Maybe in a few hundred thousand years, when we’ve colonized Mars and Io, Jesus Christ Superstar will be added to the canon.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  October 23, 2013
It gets *my* vote….
Log in to Reply  
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-passion-movies-members/













Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogA Better Kind of Fundamentalist 
  
1 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 5 (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



A Better Kind of Fundamentalist

In today’s post I’d like to go back to that intriguing little article by Louis Markos in the journal First Things, which he entitled “Errant Ehrman.”   If you’ll recall from my post last week, Markos starts the article by indicating that he felt “great pity” for me because I was the wrong kind of fundamentalist back when I was a conservative Christian.   My problem, he indicates, is that I applied modern standards to decide whether the Bible was inerrant.  Here are his words:
He [Ehrman] was taught, rightly, that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but he was trained, quite falsely, to interpret the non-contradictory nature of the Bible in modern, scientific, post-Enlightenment terms. That is to say, he was encouraged to test the truth of the Bible against a verification system that has only existed for some 250 years…..
And so, as I pointed out last time, the right kind of true believer is obviously one who does not “test the truth of the Bible” by modern standards using modern criteria, but only by pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment ones.  I suppose I could live with this criticism if I had even the most remote sense that Markos really means it.   But I simply don’t think he does.   And not only for the reasons I pointed out last week.   Here’s another strange thing.  The prompt for this discussion of my pitiable state is a book by Craig Blomberg that Markos is reviewing for the journal (why he put my name in the title rather than the name of the author of the book is somewhat beyond me).   In this review he points out that, unlike me in my fundamentalist days, Blomberg has the right understanding of the Bible as having no contradictions or mistakes of any kind.   This is what Markos says:
Blomberg offers as his definition of inerrancy one penned by Paul Feinberg: “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.”
I have to say that I wonder if Markos really intends us to take him seriously.   On the one hand he wants to argue that we are not to evaluate the Bible on post-Enlightenment terms, and yet he also wants to argue that the Bible contains no contradictions with science.   Uh, how is that to work exactly?   Does he mean that the Bible does not contradict the scientific views of, say, 1000 BCE?  I suppose that’s true enough.  But technically speaking there were no “social, physical, or life sciences” then.  So he must be talking about modern science.  Does he really want to say that the Bible is not at odds with modern science??
It’s true that he presents a couple of caveats to protect himself.   (a) The books of the Bible is inerrant “only in their original autographs.”  That means that if you find a flat out contradiction, it is a contradiction only because scribes changed the original text to create a problem.  And how do we know that?  Well, truth be told, we don’t.  The opposite is actually the case.  Textual scholars have known for 300 years that scribes altered their text to get *rid* of contradictions, not to create them.   But there is also this:  (b) The books of the bible are inerrant only when they are “properly interpreted.”  So if you can’t resort to scribal mistake to account for contradictions, then you can simply always say that crazy agnostics find problems with the Bible simply because they don’t know what the text really means.  If they *did* know the real meaning of the text, they would see that there are no contradictions, no discrepancies, no conflicts with any of the modern sciences.
So, to reiterate my first point, I don’t see how Markos imagines a pre-Enlightenment understanding of the Bible is going to help us to see that the Bible does not contradict what the sciences tell us.   Doesn’t his definition of inerrancy presuppose a post-Enlightenment agenda and criterion of evaluation?
But the bigger problem is that I’m afraid what he says is simply not true.   It is oh so easy to show that the Bible contains discrepancies with science (in “what it affirms”) and flat-out contradictions.  This is shooting fish in a barrel.   Let’s just stick with the Hebrew Bible for a minute.  (If I feel inspired, I may continue this into the NT in a later post).   Here are a couple of “for instances” that any sophomore religious studies major could point out (and that major scholars who have devoted their lives to the task of interpreting the Bible have elaborated for many years):
A couple of scientific queries.   Let’s stick with Genesis 1-2.
1.Have you ever noticed that God creates “light” on earth before there was sun, moon, and stars in Genesis 1? (The reason it is taking place on earth is because that first day – it’s a real day, btw, not a geological age — consists of an “evening and a morning”).   That there was, in fact, water on earth before sun, moon, and stars?   That there was vegetation on earth before sun, moon, and stars?   This is not a far-out liberal reading of the text.  It’s what the text says.
2.Is it possible to interpret Genesis 2 in any way other than to say that it’s author believed that Adam and Eve were the first two humans who were created directly by God – Adam from the earth and Eve from his side – and not as descended from earlier forms of primate? (This does not contradict the “physical…sciences”??)
3.Is it not the case the Genesis 2:5-7 really does say that Adam (the first man) was created “when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up” – that is, before there was any vegetation on earth, let alone other animals (which are all created after Adam in order to see what he would name them).
Are we really to believe that when “correctly interpreted” in pre-Enlightenment ways, these .  problems are going to disappear?   Or consider discrepancies.  I’m about out of space, so here I’ll just mention two.  Let’s be generous and leave the creation stories behind, and move on to the book of Exodus.
1.Can Exodus 6:3 be right when it says, quite explicitly, that Yahweh was not known by his name Yahweh to the Patriarchs starting with Abraham in the book of Genesis, when Gen. 4;26 indicates that people were calling upon the “name of Yahweh” long before the Patriarchs, and Gen. 15:6- explicitly  says that Abraham believed Yahweh, and that Yahweh says to him “I am Yahweh” and Abraham then addresses him as “Yahweh”?
2.Or (one of my favorites) in the account of the ten plagues that Moses performed against the Egyptians to convince the Pharaoh to “let my people go,” if Exod. 9:6 is right that during the fifth plague “all of the livestock” of the Egyptians were killed, then how can 9:19-20, 25 also be right that shortly afterward, during the seventh plague, the hailstorm killed all of the “livestock” of the Egyptians in the fields? What livestock?
OK, I obviously could go on like this for days, weeks, and months.   These are issues well known to everyone who studies the Bible closely.   I do not think it is pitiable to think that the Bible has errors.   I should point out that, for what it’s worth, the definition of inerrancy that Markos sets forth, quoting Blomberg quoting Feinberg, is very, very close to the definition I myself would have given in the days of my fundamentalism.  It is not an improvement on what I thought.  It is what I thought.  I don’t think so any more.  At the end of the day, it’s for one simple reason: it ain’t true.   Maybe *that’s* the pity….
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Defending Myself«
Why I’m To Be Pitied for Having Been the Wrong Kind of Fundamentalist»


10

NOV

2014

33
  
Comments
33  Comments
0  Trackbacks




fishician  November 10, 2014
I just had a discussion today with a self-styled apologist (who claims to have had phone conversations with you but you refuse to attend his church and debate his views about the Greek texts!) and talking about contradictions in the Bible was absolutely frustrating. I pointed out several but of course in those instances you have to re-interpret the language to mean something other than it really says, or create a scenario that isn’t actually in the Bible, or speculate about some other circumstance that we just don’t know about – or the texts we’re using are flawed, unlike the “originals.” So, for a fundamentalist believer there is no way for them to see contradictions. The Bible is right, therefore our reading of it must be wrong. Of course, I point out that Muslims and Mormons have the same beliefs about their “inerrant” texts but that doesn’t seem to even register with them. Frustrating.
Log in to Reply  


Xmen  November 16, 2014
The Muslims believe that their text(oral form during this time in Arabia) was preserved entirely in just 20 years after the passing of Muhammad.
 Therefore they believe the room for error in preservation is minimal at best.
Did they get all of what was revealed to Muhammad?
Ask the fundamentalist Muslim scholar and he will of course say “Yes”
Ask a minority of Muslim Scholars and they will at least admit the possibility that some of what came to Muhammad did not make it into the Quran either by choice or it was lost.
Log in to Reply  
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  November 10, 2014
“Textual scholars have known for 300 years that scribes altered their text to get *rid* of contradictions, not to create them.”
Whoa! whoa! whoa! Is that some of that fancy post-Enlightenment thinking?
Log in to Reply  

Rosekeister

Rosekeister  November 10, 2014
You realize of course that for the life of this blog you could be raising further money by selling T-shirts and coffee mugs emblazoned with “The Wrong Kind of Fundamentalist.” You could wear the shirt to your debates with William Lane Craig.
Log in to Reply  



Yes  November 10, 2014
In your first example of a contradiction from the Hebrew Bible I wonder what Markos et al would consider the original autograph since the “contradiction” was created by editing the E and J sources together. Was the first ever merger the autograph? Or was the first time the E tradition written down the autograph (in which case there would be no internal contradiction within E, at least not at this point). But then you would have a parallel autograph from the J author which would say something different. Even thinking in terms of autographs when it comes to Genesis seems like the wrong terms. It’s more like asking for the original New York City. Which version of New York is the “original”? The question becomes nonsensical. You can only zoom in on a different layer of the history of a text like Genesis, and it as you zoom in and focus on a different layer of the history, but no matter what level you decide to focus on you never end up with anything like an autograph. In the beginning was the supplement.
Log in to Reply  

David

David  November 10, 2014
I am reminded once again of my Christian fundamentalist friend, with whom I have been debating these issues for many, many years. I have pointed out to him everything in your post (many times), and much, much more, to no avail. He either ignores the issue, changes the subject, goes into ad hominem attack mode, or else comes up with bizarre “explanations” that border on the absurd. But this is the condition of the fundamentalist mindset. They start with a conclusion, and then reinterpret, “spiritualize” and/or rearrange the facts in whatever way necessary to resolve the conflict, no matter how unlikely that arrangement.. For the fundamentalist, the alternative (that there may in fact be errors, contradictions and scientific and historical fallacies in the Bible) is simply not an option.
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  November 10, 2014
I still think you should put it altogether In one book entitled “is the Bible Really Inerrant?” discussing differing texts, contradictions, the making of the canon, the authorship of Bible books, the divine killing of humans and the divine ordering of the killing of humans, the Biblical approval of slavery, whether or not the Gospels were really written by eyewitnesses, etc., etc., etc. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is such a big problem influencing gay marriage, medically indicated abortions for problems like ectopic pregnancies, the subordination of women, and, in the past, slavery. The subject really needs a book. Moreover, the doctrine of inerrancy turns so many of us so off that we can’t take seriously anything else people have to say about Christianity. Hence, that doctrine needs to be changed for the good of Christianity.
Log in to Reply  


Steefen  November 12, 2014
Bart: OK, I obviously could go on like this for days, weeks, and months.
RonaldTaska: I still think you should put it altogether In one book entitled “is the Bible Really Inerrant?”
Steefen: This. I’m ready to buy this bestseller, now!
Log in to Reply  



simonelli  November 12, 2014
Yes Ronald, If only the preachers and clergy could use a little of their intelligence, and realise that 2Timothy 3:16, was meant to read. “All scripture inspired by God IS profitable for teaching, for reproof; for correction, for training in righteousness.”
Log in to Reply  
 



simonelli  November 10, 2014
Jesus spoke in parable, in other words He told a story to convey a moral point or highlight a life situation: “The prodigal son,” “The good Samaritan,” Just to mention a couple. The parable is an effective way to burn the moral point in people hearts. Therefore if the story in the parables doesn’t teach you anything; you must be spiritually dead. You must realise then that the fault lays with you and not with the story. for example the Jews believe that God gave them a piece of real estate, they could not be more wrong about the matter. Because all true Holy Spirit filled people have been made aware in the spirit that the real “Promised Land” is located in the heart of each individual and has to be conquered by our personal spiritual battles of repentance. Not making war with other people, like they are doing. Jewish people need to consider that more than four thousand years have passed since the promise was made. In view of that length of time, they should wisely come to one of these three simple conclusions: first, that God never made such a promise; second, that God is so weak that he cannot keep His promise: third, that God never meant the promise to be a piece of real estate. In the following lines there are some compelling reasons to convince those who are spiritually wise to consider that the third option is the correct one.
 Firstly, because if God so wished, He could have given that land to the Jews by simply prospering His people on that land, without resorting to a conquering armed campaign of death and destruction. Secondly, God-fearing people know that death and destruction are the Devil’s tools of trade. Therefore it is obvious that God never meant the “Promised Land” to be a piece of real estate which generations of Jews and non-Jews are still fighting over. Yes, it is true that the spiritual conquest of our hearts should reflect the brutality of the flesh, for our spiritual struggle of repentance requires that no quarter be given, for all evil occupying the believer’s heart has to die. For it is written in 1Peter 1:16: “you shall be Holy, for I am Holy.”
Another clear illustration of God’s spiritual meaning of the “Promised Land” is found in God’s dealing with Israel, for we know from the Old Testament that every time Israel sinned God caused them to be removed from the Promised Land, and when they repented God brought them back into the Promised Land. So we need to understand from these two clearly illustrated consequences, deriving from their good and bad behaviour, what God is telling us. That is, that sin causes us to move out from the grace of God, and repentance brings us back into the grace of God. In other words we can sincerely and confidently say: remain in the grace of God and we are dwelling in the “Promised Land.” Yes… even if we live on the inhabitable Continent of Antarctica.
Log in to Reply  

talitakum

talitakum  November 10, 2014
For some inexplicable reasons, words of ancient wisdom just crossed my mind:
“Never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it”
So said, I heartily wish that your next post will be “A Better Kind of Topic” to discuss :)
Log in to Reply  



cjcruz  November 10, 2014
One small thing: big bang theory actually does put light before the stars and celestial bodies. That and the fact that there “was a beginning” seem to be the only two things Genesis gets right. Though one thing isn’t clear to me which I’d love your opinion on: do you think Genesis speaks of a material beginning, i.e. “something from *nothing*”?
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  November 12, 2014
As I understand it, the universe born of “our” Big Bang (there may have been others) *was* initially dark. Light did *not* exist before there were stars to produce it. I’m remembering the explanation in the TV series “How the Universe Works,” which I recently rewatched on DVDs. The very first episode of Season 1 deals with the Big Bang.
I am confused on some points. Scientists say our universe emerged from “nothing.” But then, some of the same scientists speculate that the Big Bang was actually the *eruption* of a supermassive black hole in an older universe. If that was the case, it would seem to have come, not from “nothing,” but from a transformation of everything that had been swallowed up by that black hole. (And yes, I want to believe this is the way new universes are born,)
Log in to Reply  



Lee Palo  December 24, 2014
One of the problems I see is that the Genesis creation texts are constantly held up against science. This just doesn’t make sense to me. Until the Cokesbury Christian Bookstores were closed in 2013, I was the manager of the Seattle store, and every now and then someone would engage me in a discussion of some religious topic. One day there was a fundamentalist who came in to the store and talked with me, insisting that Genesis 1 must be seen as scientifically true. Now being a bookstore manager means it is not my place to engage in debate with customers. In this case I drew a quick diagram on a piece of scratch paper. The first column had days 1, 2, and 3. the second column had days 4, 5, and 6. I drew arrows going from the first three days to the second three days. I mentioned to the customer that the spaces created in the first three days are filled in the second three days. Day 1 is light/dark and day/night, while Day 4 is the sun, moon, and stars to fill the day/night. Day 2 has the sea and sky, while Day 5 has fish and birds to fill the sea and sky. …and the same is true for day 3’s relationship to day 6. I didn’t say anything else, but the customer asked if he could keep the diagram (which I let him do). What I wanted to ask him was, “how does that pattern look anything like a scientific account?” Does it not look much more like poetry, albeit one with theological content?
So my method is to reveal the literary conventions of the text, and in so doing, undermine fundamentalist interpretation. Fundamentalists expect you to use science against them (see Ken Ham). Rather, use the literary quality of the text itself against them!
Log in to Reply  
 

Matilda

Matilda  November 10, 2014
Here are a few possibilities: 1. These people (literalists) are charlatans and con men.
 2. They are somehow mentally unstable. 3. People are afraid and want easy answers. 4. Many smart people suffer from concrete thinking. 5. Many have been brainwashed and can not escape from it.
 Psychologists could probably tell you more.
 I just don’t understand it. I could at least allow for a metaphorical understanding of the Bible, but literal- seriously???
 Bart, when you were a fundamentalist how did you make yourself believe? How did you stop your mind from reason and science? Was it like being in a happy, loving, secure Jesus club?
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  November 10, 2014
Of course I agree with you. But I will point out that Feinberg tried to cover himself by saying “when all facts are known.” In other words…much of what scientists are telling us today is wrong, because they still don’t have all the “facts.” Hey, a thousand years from now, they’ll triumphantly prove water *did* exist on Earth before there was a Sun!
Log in to Reply  



silvertime  November 10, 2014
When discussing these issues with fundamentslists, all of their “proofs “of inerrancy and divine inspiration come from within the bible. That is in their view: the bible proves inself. If you do not accept this analysis, you are told that your faith is weak or that humans are not smart enough to understand the mysteries. It reminds me of an eposide of the Beverly Hillbillies, when two businessmen watching Jethro were impressed that Jethro had invented a new kind of math where 2 and 2 equals 3
Log in to Reply  



Jason  November 11, 2014
There’s a saying in southern Iowa:”Never ‘rastle (*wrestle) with a pig-you get dirty and the pig likes it.” It sounds like Markos is oinking at you.
Log in to Reply  



Steefen  November 11, 2014
Louis Markos is Professor in English at Houston Baptist University, where he holds the Robert H. Ray Chair in Humanities.
Craig L. Blomberg is a New Testament scholar. He is a Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado where he has been since 1986.
First Things (a journal of religion and public life) published by The Institute of Religion and Public Life, First Things is an educational institute aiming to advance a religiously informed public philosophy.
Log in to Reply  


Steefen  November 11, 2014
First Things has a circulation of approximately 30,000 subscribers. Ross Douthat wrote that, through First Things, Richard John Neuhaus demonstrated “that it was possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.”
Log in to Reply  
 



BrianUlrich  November 11, 2014
Might want to start planning your inevitable “Joseph and Asenath” post. =)
Log in to Reply  



gavriel  November 11, 2014
Do you think that you still carry some grains of your fundamentalist past within you? While in the youth you evangelized with great zeal for a strict and conservative Christian theology, you now do the same thing for the critical-historical approach to Christianity? No offense intended, I would like you to continue that way :)
Log in to Reply  



daveagain  November 11, 2014
I have read or reading many of your books including your scholarly works (e.g. Forgery and Counterforgery etc.) as well as viewed many of your lectures from the Great Courses. I also have your Fifth Edition The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Kruger has written a book attempting to undermine the Bauer-Ehrman ideas that you have presented regarding early Christianity. Also, there is the Ehrman Project which is primarily videos by Kruger. I looked at a couple of them and I find them wanting. His portrayal of what you present is simply not true. Also, he mentions a scholar Richard Bauckham who wrote a book regarding Jesus and the Eye Witnesses. Bauckham uses Papias as a reliable source. I can’t find Papias mentioned in any of your books but I am sure you are familiar with him. 2 questions: 1. Have you responded to anything Kruger has stated and is it on the blog? and 2: What about the reliability of Papias?
Log in to Reply  



Kevin Nelson  November 12, 2014
It is most definitely possible to interpret Genesis 1–2 as a highly metaphorical account of God’s creative power. That is how the Catholic Church interprets it. E.g., we might say that God only directly created the souls of Adam and Eve, while indirectly creating their bodies through some unspecified process, with the raw material coming ultimately from the earth. Maybe you disagree with that interpretation, but I don’t think you can deny a lot of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures are intended metaphorically.
It sounds to me like Markos is arguing some fundamentalists interpret the Bible TOO literally. That is, his own position is relatively liberal. If the intent of the Bible was always to convey moral and spiritual truths, then it doesn’t make scientific claims at all, and hence cannot be in conflict with modern science.
We can ask two different questions: 1) How should the Bible be interpreted? 2) After having interpreted it, how can we assess the accuracy of its assertions? I think it is important to distinguish those questions.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 12, 2014
Yes, if everything is a metaphor then there are fewer problems. But if narratives are said to be metaphorical, why not say the narrative of Jesus’ passion is metaphorical?
Log in to Reply  


FrankJay71  November 13, 2014
Prof. Ehrman, do you think the writers or the compilers of Genesis intended it to be taken as literal history? I’ve been of the opinion that they probably didn’t because many of the contradictions and other problems would have been to glaring. Even if someone were just “making it up” , they must have anticipated questions like, “who was Mrs. Cain?” Or, “who was Cain concerned would kill him, if God had not put a mark on him?” Or, “why was there light before there was a sun or moon?” Also the contradictions in order of the two creation accounts should have been apparent. It’s difficult to believe that the writers meant it to be taken as serious chronological history.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 14, 2014
I’m not sure these authors would know what a term like “literal history” would mean. But did they think that what they described is what happened? Yes, I think they did.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



JEffler  November 14, 2014
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Have you heard of Dr. Michael Kruger? If so, what are your thoughts on him? I know he has responded to you in several areas.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 14, 2014
Yes, he does not seem to like my historical-critical views. But at least it’s mutual! :-) (Though I’ve never felt the need to write against him, the way he seems to feel the need to write against me….)
Log in to Reply  


daveagain  November 14, 2014
Dr. Ehrman
 Correction about my previous post—You do have Papias listed in a couple of your books. Sorry about that.
The question I have is about Kruger. It’s not that he doesn’t like your historical-critical views (of course he doesn’t he represents a conservative view and he wrote a book against the Bauer-Ehrman theory) it is that he states that you mislead and intimidate people by stating that all the scholars agree with you on the issues you raise among other things. Of course, having watched enough youtube vides of you debating conservatives I know he is completely wrong. You always make sure people understand that “aside from the most conservative fundamentalist scholars” scholars agree with you. In any case, do you see the possibility of responding to some of his errors on this blog (it is not worthy of a book) or debating him sometime since you are a great debater. Thanks.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 15, 2014
Ha! I’m not sure whom I’ve particularly “intimidated” by indicating what critical scholars tend to believe and think. Of course, since he’s a committed evangelical absolutely committed to the divine inspiration of Scripture, he won’t share the views of more critical scholars. But it doesn’t mean they don’t have them, and readers should be aware that apart from those who have theological reasons for holding views like his, most others (without such a priori’s and assumptions) think this, that, or the other thing.
Log in to Reply  


daveagain  November 16, 2014
Dr. Ehrman
 Thanks for responding. This is the 5 minute video I was referencing (in case you are interested and haven’t heard it) by Michael Kruger, “What advice would you give to students taking Dr. Ehrman’s class?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8sxmklrHMY&list=PL56A66CB81EAAB1BC&index=3
 Again, thanks for responding. This is one of the best and most interesting blogs I have encountered.
 
 
 
 
 



vinnyrac  December 6, 2014
daveagain: thank for the video link. Would Kruger be so kind as to prove to the modern reader that any of the miracles did in fact occur? It’s impossible. That the top 10 percent of the accredited seminaries in the U.S. are evangelical doesn’t make what they teach correct, in fact, religious bias probably makes it incorrect. Lastly, I wish that those seminaries, so certain of their textural critical abilities, would be so kind as to explain to the common, earnest believer, why the things that Bart so expertly sets forth in his books (i.e. no autographs, variations in the manuscripts, dating of the manuscripts, contradictions among them, improbable authorship attributions etc. etc. etc.) WERE NOT EVER EXPLAINED TO SAID EARNEST BELIEVER THROUGHOUT THE MODERN CHURCH AGE BY THESE EVANGELICAL EXPERTS! That burns me. That’s manipulation. As they say in the old black and white crime movies: The Jig Is up.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/a-better-kind-of-fundamentalist/












Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogA Better Kind of Fundamentalist 
  
1 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 5 (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



A Better Kind of Fundamentalist

In today’s post I’d like to go back to that intriguing little article by Louis Markos in the journal First Things, which he entitled “Errant Ehrman.”   If you’ll recall from my post last week, Markos starts the article by indicating that he felt “great pity” for me because I was the wrong kind of fundamentalist back when I was a conservative Christian.   My problem, he indicates, is that I applied modern standards to decide whether the Bible was inerrant.  Here are his words:
He [Ehrman] was taught, rightly, that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but he was trained, quite falsely, to interpret the non-contradictory nature of the Bible in modern, scientific, post-Enlightenment terms. That is to say, he was encouraged to test the truth of the Bible against a verification system that has only existed for some 250 years…..
And so, as I pointed out last time, the right kind of true believer is obviously one who does not “test the truth of the Bible” by modern standards using modern criteria, but only by pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment ones.  I suppose I could live with this criticism if I had even the most remote sense that Markos really means it.   But I simply don’t think he does.   And not only for the reasons I pointed out last week.   Here’s another strange thing.  The prompt for this discussion of my pitiable state is a book by Craig Blomberg that Markos is reviewing for the journal (why he put my name in the title rather than the name of the author of the book is somewhat beyond me).   In this review he points out that, unlike me in my fundamentalist days, Blomberg has the right understanding of the Bible as having no contradictions or mistakes of any kind.   This is what Markos says:
Blomberg offers as his definition of inerrancy one penned by Paul Feinberg: “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.”
I have to say that I wonder if Markos really intends us to take him seriously.   On the one hand he wants to argue that we are not to evaluate the Bible on post-Enlightenment terms, and yet he also wants to argue that the Bible contains no contradictions with science.   Uh, how is that to work exactly?   Does he mean that the Bible does not contradict the scientific views of, say, 1000 BCE?  I suppose that’s true enough.  But technically speaking there were no “social, physical, or life sciences” then.  So he must be talking about modern science.  Does he really want to say that the Bible is not at odds with modern science??
It’s true that he presents a couple of caveats to protect himself.   (a) The books of the Bible is inerrant “only in their original autographs.”  That means that if you find a flat out contradiction, it is a contradiction only because scribes changed the original text to create a problem.  And how do we know that?  Well, truth be told, we don’t.  The opposite is actually the case.  Textual scholars have known for 300 years that scribes altered their text to get *rid* of contradictions, not to create them.   But there is also this:  (b) The books of the bible are inerrant only when they are “properly interpreted.”  So if you can’t resort to scribal mistake to account for contradictions, then you can simply always say that crazy agnostics find problems with the Bible simply because they don’t know what the text really means.  If they *did* know the real meaning of the text, they would see that there are no contradictions, no discrepancies, no conflicts with any of the modern sciences.
So, to reiterate my first point, I don’t see how Markos imagines a pre-Enlightenment understanding of the Bible is going to help us to see that the Bible does not contradict what the sciences tell us.   Doesn’t his definition of inerrancy presuppose a post-Enlightenment agenda and criterion of evaluation?
But the bigger problem is that I’m afraid what he says is simply not true.   It is oh so easy to show that the Bible contains discrepancies with science (in “what it affirms”) and flat-out contradictions.  This is shooting fish in a barrel.   Let’s just stick with the Hebrew Bible for a minute.  (If I feel inspired, I may continue this into the NT in a later post).   Here are a couple of “for instances” that any sophomore religious studies major could point out (and that major scholars who have devoted their lives to the task of interpreting the Bible have elaborated for many years):
A couple of scientific queries.   Let’s stick with Genesis 1-2.
1.Have you ever noticed that God creates “light” on earth before there was sun, moon, and stars in Genesis 1? (The reason it is taking place on earth is because that first day – it’s a real day, btw, not a geological age — consists of an “evening and a morning”).   That there was, in fact, water on earth before sun, moon, and stars?   That there was vegetation on earth before sun, moon, and stars?   This is not a far-out liberal reading of the text.  It’s what the text says.
2.Is it possible to interpret Genesis 2 in any way other than to say that it’s author believed that Adam and Eve were the first two humans who were created directly by God – Adam from the earth and Eve from his side – and not as descended from earlier forms of primate? (This does not contradict the “physical…sciences”??)
3.Is it not the case the Genesis 2:5-7 really does say that Adam (the first man) was created “when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up” – that is, before there was any vegetation on earth, let alone other animals (which are all created after Adam in order to see what he would name them).
Are we really to believe that when “correctly interpreted” in pre-Enlightenment ways, these .  problems are going to disappear?   Or consider discrepancies.  I’m about out of space, so here I’ll just mention two.  Let’s be generous and leave the creation stories behind, and move on to the book of Exodus.
1.Can Exodus 6:3 be right when it says, quite explicitly, that Yahweh was not known by his name Yahweh to the Patriarchs starting with Abraham in the book of Genesis, when Gen. 4;26 indicates that people were calling upon the “name of Yahweh” long before the Patriarchs, and Gen. 15:6- explicitly  says that Abraham believed Yahweh, and that Yahweh says to him “I am Yahweh” and Abraham then addresses him as “Yahweh”?
2.Or (one of my favorites) in the account of the ten plagues that Moses performed against the Egyptians to convince the Pharaoh to “let my people go,” if Exod. 9:6 is right that during the fifth plague “all of the livestock” of the Egyptians were killed, then how can 9:19-20, 25 also be right that shortly afterward, during the seventh plague, the hailstorm killed all of the “livestock” of the Egyptians in the fields? What livestock?
OK, I obviously could go on like this for days, weeks, and months.   These are issues well known to everyone who studies the Bible closely.   I do not think it is pitiable to think that the Bible has errors.   I should point out that, for what it’s worth, the definition of inerrancy that Markos sets forth, quoting Blomberg quoting Feinberg, is very, very close to the definition I myself would have given in the days of my fundamentalism.  It is not an improvement on what I thought.  It is what I thought.  I don’t think so any more.  At the end of the day, it’s for one simple reason: it ain’t true.   Maybe *that’s* the pity….
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Defending Myself«
Why I’m To Be Pitied for Having Been the Wrong Kind of Fundamentalist»


10

NOV

2014

33
  
Comments
33  Comments
0  Trackbacks




fishician  November 10, 2014
I just had a discussion today with a self-styled apologist (who claims to have had phone conversations with you but you refuse to attend his church and debate his views about the Greek texts!) and talking about contradictions in the Bible was absolutely frustrating. I pointed out several but of course in those instances you have to re-interpret the language to mean something other than it really says, or create a scenario that isn’t actually in the Bible, or speculate about some other circumstance that we just don’t know about – or the texts we’re using are flawed, unlike the “originals.” So, for a fundamentalist believer there is no way for them to see contradictions. The Bible is right, therefore our reading of it must be wrong. Of course, I point out that Muslims and Mormons have the same beliefs about their “inerrant” texts but that doesn’t seem to even register with them. Frustrating.
Log in to Reply  


Xmen  November 16, 2014
The Muslims believe that their text(oral form during this time in Arabia) was preserved entirely in just 20 years after the passing of Muhammad.
 Therefore they believe the room for error in preservation is minimal at best.
Did they get all of what was revealed to Muhammad?
Ask the fundamentalist Muslim scholar and he will of course say “Yes”
Ask a minority of Muslim Scholars and they will at least admit the possibility that some of what came to Muhammad did not make it into the Quran either by choice or it was lost.
Log in to Reply  
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  November 10, 2014
“Textual scholars have known for 300 years that scribes altered their text to get *rid* of contradictions, not to create them.”
Whoa! whoa! whoa! Is that some of that fancy post-Enlightenment thinking?
Log in to Reply  

Rosekeister

Rosekeister  November 10, 2014
You realize of course that for the life of this blog you could be raising further money by selling T-shirts and coffee mugs emblazoned with “The Wrong Kind of Fundamentalist.” You could wear the shirt to your debates with William Lane Craig.
Log in to Reply  



Yes  November 10, 2014
In your first example of a contradiction from the Hebrew Bible I wonder what Markos et al would consider the original autograph since the “contradiction” was created by editing the E and J sources together. Was the first ever merger the autograph? Or was the first time the E tradition written down the autograph (in which case there would be no internal contradiction within E, at least not at this point). But then you would have a parallel autograph from the J author which would say something different. Even thinking in terms of autographs when it comes to Genesis seems like the wrong terms. It’s more like asking for the original New York City. Which version of New York is the “original”? The question becomes nonsensical. You can only zoom in on a different layer of the history of a text like Genesis, and it as you zoom in and focus on a different layer of the history, but no matter what level you decide to focus on you never end up with anything like an autograph. In the beginning was the supplement.
Log in to Reply  

David

David  November 10, 2014
I am reminded once again of my Christian fundamentalist friend, with whom I have been debating these issues for many, many years. I have pointed out to him everything in your post (many times), and much, much more, to no avail. He either ignores the issue, changes the subject, goes into ad hominem attack mode, or else comes up with bizarre “explanations” that border on the absurd. But this is the condition of the fundamentalist mindset. They start with a conclusion, and then reinterpret, “spiritualize” and/or rearrange the facts in whatever way necessary to resolve the conflict, no matter how unlikely that arrangement.. For the fundamentalist, the alternative (that there may in fact be errors, contradictions and scientific and historical fallacies in the Bible) is simply not an option.
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  November 10, 2014
I still think you should put it altogether In one book entitled “is the Bible Really Inerrant?” discussing differing texts, contradictions, the making of the canon, the authorship of Bible books, the divine killing of humans and the divine ordering of the killing of humans, the Biblical approval of slavery, whether or not the Gospels were really written by eyewitnesses, etc., etc., etc. The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is such a big problem influencing gay marriage, medically indicated abortions for problems like ectopic pregnancies, the subordination of women, and, in the past, slavery. The subject really needs a book. Moreover, the doctrine of inerrancy turns so many of us so off that we can’t take seriously anything else people have to say about Christianity. Hence, that doctrine needs to be changed for the good of Christianity.
Log in to Reply  


Steefen  November 12, 2014
Bart: OK, I obviously could go on like this for days, weeks, and months.
RonaldTaska: I still think you should put it altogether In one book entitled “is the Bible Really Inerrant?”
Steefen: This. I’m ready to buy this bestseller, now!
Log in to Reply  



simonelli  November 12, 2014
Yes Ronald, If only the preachers and clergy could use a little of their intelligence, and realise that 2Timothy 3:16, was meant to read. “All scripture inspired by God IS profitable for teaching, for reproof; for correction, for training in righteousness.”
Log in to Reply  
 



simonelli  November 10, 2014
Jesus spoke in parable, in other words He told a story to convey a moral point or highlight a life situation: “The prodigal son,” “The good Samaritan,” Just to mention a couple. The parable is an effective way to burn the moral point in people hearts. Therefore if the story in the parables doesn’t teach you anything; you must be spiritually dead. You must realise then that the fault lays with you and not with the story. for example the Jews believe that God gave them a piece of real estate, they could not be more wrong about the matter. Because all true Holy Spirit filled people have been made aware in the spirit that the real “Promised Land” is located in the heart of each individual and has to be conquered by our personal spiritual battles of repentance. Not making war with other people, like they are doing. Jewish people need to consider that more than four thousand years have passed since the promise was made. In view of that length of time, they should wisely come to one of these three simple conclusions: first, that God never made such a promise; second, that God is so weak that he cannot keep His promise: third, that God never meant the promise to be a piece of real estate. In the following lines there are some compelling reasons to convince those who are spiritually wise to consider that the third option is the correct one.
 Firstly, because if God so wished, He could have given that land to the Jews by simply prospering His people on that land, without resorting to a conquering armed campaign of death and destruction. Secondly, God-fearing people know that death and destruction are the Devil’s tools of trade. Therefore it is obvious that God never meant the “Promised Land” to be a piece of real estate which generations of Jews and non-Jews are still fighting over. Yes, it is true that the spiritual conquest of our hearts should reflect the brutality of the flesh, for our spiritual struggle of repentance requires that no quarter be given, for all evil occupying the believer’s heart has to die. For it is written in 1Peter 1:16: “you shall be Holy, for I am Holy.”
Another clear illustration of God’s spiritual meaning of the “Promised Land” is found in God’s dealing with Israel, for we know from the Old Testament that every time Israel sinned God caused them to be removed from the Promised Land, and when they repented God brought them back into the Promised Land. So we need to understand from these two clearly illustrated consequences, deriving from their good and bad behaviour, what God is telling us. That is, that sin causes us to move out from the grace of God, and repentance brings us back into the grace of God. In other words we can sincerely and confidently say: remain in the grace of God and we are dwelling in the “Promised Land.” Yes… even if we live on the inhabitable Continent of Antarctica.
Log in to Reply  

talitakum

talitakum  November 10, 2014
For some inexplicable reasons, words of ancient wisdom just crossed my mind:
“Never wrestle with a pig, you’ll both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it”
So said, I heartily wish that your next post will be “A Better Kind of Topic” to discuss :)
Log in to Reply  



cjcruz  November 10, 2014
One small thing: big bang theory actually does put light before the stars and celestial bodies. That and the fact that there “was a beginning” seem to be the only two things Genesis gets right. Though one thing isn’t clear to me which I’d love your opinion on: do you think Genesis speaks of a material beginning, i.e. “something from *nothing*”?
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  November 12, 2014
As I understand it, the universe born of “our” Big Bang (there may have been others) *was* initially dark. Light did *not* exist before there were stars to produce it. I’m remembering the explanation in the TV series “How the Universe Works,” which I recently rewatched on DVDs. The very first episode of Season 1 deals with the Big Bang.
I am confused on some points. Scientists say our universe emerged from “nothing.” But then, some of the same scientists speculate that the Big Bang was actually the *eruption* of a supermassive black hole in an older universe. If that was the case, it would seem to have come, not from “nothing,” but from a transformation of everything that had been swallowed up by that black hole. (And yes, I want to believe this is the way new universes are born,)
Log in to Reply  



Lee Palo  December 24, 2014
One of the problems I see is that the Genesis creation texts are constantly held up against science. This just doesn’t make sense to me. Until the Cokesbury Christian Bookstores were closed in 2013, I was the manager of the Seattle store, and every now and then someone would engage me in a discussion of some religious topic. One day there was a fundamentalist who came in to the store and talked with me, insisting that Genesis 1 must be seen as scientifically true. Now being a bookstore manager means it is not my place to engage in debate with customers. In this case I drew a quick diagram on a piece of scratch paper. The first column had days 1, 2, and 3. the second column had days 4, 5, and 6. I drew arrows going from the first three days to the second three days. I mentioned to the customer that the spaces created in the first three days are filled in the second three days. Day 1 is light/dark and day/night, while Day 4 is the sun, moon, and stars to fill the day/night. Day 2 has the sea and sky, while Day 5 has fish and birds to fill the sea and sky. …and the same is true for day 3’s relationship to day 6. I didn’t say anything else, but the customer asked if he could keep the diagram (which I let him do). What I wanted to ask him was, “how does that pattern look anything like a scientific account?” Does it not look much more like poetry, albeit one with theological content?
So my method is to reveal the literary conventions of the text, and in so doing, undermine fundamentalist interpretation. Fundamentalists expect you to use science against them (see Ken Ham). Rather, use the literary quality of the text itself against them!
Log in to Reply  
 

Matilda

Matilda  November 10, 2014
Here are a few possibilities: 1. These people (literalists) are charlatans and con men.
 2. They are somehow mentally unstable. 3. People are afraid and want easy answers. 4. Many smart people suffer from concrete thinking. 5. Many have been brainwashed and can not escape from it.
 Psychologists could probably tell you more.
 I just don’t understand it. I could at least allow for a metaphorical understanding of the Bible, but literal- seriously???
 Bart, when you were a fundamentalist how did you make yourself believe? How did you stop your mind from reason and science? Was it like being in a happy, loving, secure Jesus club?
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  November 10, 2014
Of course I agree with you. But I will point out that Feinberg tried to cover himself by saying “when all facts are known.” In other words…much of what scientists are telling us today is wrong, because they still don’t have all the “facts.” Hey, a thousand years from now, they’ll triumphantly prove water *did* exist on Earth before there was a Sun!
Log in to Reply  



silvertime  November 10, 2014
When discussing these issues with fundamentslists, all of their “proofs “of inerrancy and divine inspiration come from within the bible. That is in their view: the bible proves inself. If you do not accept this analysis, you are told that your faith is weak or that humans are not smart enough to understand the mysteries. It reminds me of an eposide of the Beverly Hillbillies, when two businessmen watching Jethro were impressed that Jethro had invented a new kind of math where 2 and 2 equals 3
Log in to Reply  



Jason  November 11, 2014
There’s a saying in southern Iowa:”Never ‘rastle (*wrestle) with a pig-you get dirty and the pig likes it.” It sounds like Markos is oinking at you.
Log in to Reply  



Steefen  November 11, 2014
Louis Markos is Professor in English at Houston Baptist University, where he holds the Robert H. Ray Chair in Humanities.
Craig L. Blomberg is a New Testament scholar. He is a Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado where he has been since 1986.
First Things (a journal of religion and public life) published by The Institute of Religion and Public Life, First Things is an educational institute aiming to advance a religiously informed public philosophy.
Log in to Reply  


Steefen  November 11, 2014
First Things has a circulation of approximately 30,000 subscribers. Ross Douthat wrote that, through First Things, Richard John Neuhaus demonstrated “that it was possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.”
Log in to Reply  
 



BrianUlrich  November 11, 2014
Might want to start planning your inevitable “Joseph and Asenath” post. =)
Log in to Reply  



gavriel  November 11, 2014
Do you think that you still carry some grains of your fundamentalist past within you? While in the youth you evangelized with great zeal for a strict and conservative Christian theology, you now do the same thing for the critical-historical approach to Christianity? No offense intended, I would like you to continue that way :)
Log in to Reply  



daveagain  November 11, 2014
I have read or reading many of your books including your scholarly works (e.g. Forgery and Counterforgery etc.) as well as viewed many of your lectures from the Great Courses. I also have your Fifth Edition The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Kruger has written a book attempting to undermine the Bauer-Ehrman ideas that you have presented regarding early Christianity. Also, there is the Ehrman Project which is primarily videos by Kruger. I looked at a couple of them and I find them wanting. His portrayal of what you present is simply not true. Also, he mentions a scholar Richard Bauckham who wrote a book regarding Jesus and the Eye Witnesses. Bauckham uses Papias as a reliable source. I can’t find Papias mentioned in any of your books but I am sure you are familiar with him. 2 questions: 1. Have you responded to anything Kruger has stated and is it on the blog? and 2: What about the reliability of Papias?
Log in to Reply  



Kevin Nelson  November 12, 2014
It is most definitely possible to interpret Genesis 1–2 as a highly metaphorical account of God’s creative power. That is how the Catholic Church interprets it. E.g., we might say that God only directly created the souls of Adam and Eve, while indirectly creating their bodies through some unspecified process, with the raw material coming ultimately from the earth. Maybe you disagree with that interpretation, but I don’t think you can deny a lot of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures are intended metaphorically.
It sounds to me like Markos is arguing some fundamentalists interpret the Bible TOO literally. That is, his own position is relatively liberal. If the intent of the Bible was always to convey moral and spiritual truths, then it doesn’t make scientific claims at all, and hence cannot be in conflict with modern science.
We can ask two different questions: 1) How should the Bible be interpreted? 2) After having interpreted it, how can we assess the accuracy of its assertions? I think it is important to distinguish those questions.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 12, 2014
Yes, if everything is a metaphor then there are fewer problems. But if narratives are said to be metaphorical, why not say the narrative of Jesus’ passion is metaphorical?
Log in to Reply  


FrankJay71  November 13, 2014
Prof. Ehrman, do you think the writers or the compilers of Genesis intended it to be taken as literal history? I’ve been of the opinion that they probably didn’t because many of the contradictions and other problems would have been to glaring. Even if someone were just “making it up” , they must have anticipated questions like, “who was Mrs. Cain?” Or, “who was Cain concerned would kill him, if God had not put a mark on him?” Or, “why was there light before there was a sun or moon?” Also the contradictions in order of the two creation accounts should have been apparent. It’s difficult to believe that the writers meant it to be taken as serious chronological history.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 14, 2014
I’m not sure these authors would know what a term like “literal history” would mean. But did they think that what they described is what happened? Yes, I think they did.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



JEffler  November 14, 2014
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Have you heard of Dr. Michael Kruger? If so, what are your thoughts on him? I know he has responded to you in several areas.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 14, 2014
Yes, he does not seem to like my historical-critical views. But at least it’s mutual! :-) (Though I’ve never felt the need to write against him, the way he seems to feel the need to write against me….)
Log in to Reply  


daveagain  November 14, 2014
Dr. Ehrman
 Correction about my previous post—You do have Papias listed in a couple of your books. Sorry about that.
The question I have is about Kruger. It’s not that he doesn’t like your historical-critical views (of course he doesn’t he represents a conservative view and he wrote a book against the Bauer-Ehrman theory) it is that he states that you mislead and intimidate people by stating that all the scholars agree with you on the issues you raise among other things. Of course, having watched enough youtube vides of you debating conservatives I know he is completely wrong. You always make sure people understand that “aside from the most conservative fundamentalist scholars” scholars agree with you. In any case, do you see the possibility of responding to some of his errors on this blog (it is not worthy of a book) or debating him sometime since you are a great debater. Thanks.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 15, 2014
Ha! I’m not sure whom I’ve particularly “intimidated” by indicating what critical scholars tend to believe and think. Of course, since he’s a committed evangelical absolutely committed to the divine inspiration of Scripture, he won’t share the views of more critical scholars. But it doesn’t mean they don’t have them, and readers should be aware that apart from those who have theological reasons for holding views like his, most others (without such a priori’s and assumptions) think this, that, or the other thing.
Log in to Reply  


daveagain  November 16, 2014
Dr. Ehrman
 Thanks for responding. This is the 5 minute video I was referencing (in case you are interested and haven’t heard it) by Michael Kruger, “What advice would you give to students taking Dr. Ehrman’s class?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8sxmklrHMY&list=PL56A66CB81EAAB1BC&index=3
 Again, thanks for responding. This is one of the best and most interesting blogs I have encountered.
 
 
 
 
 



vinnyrac  December 6, 2014
daveagain: thank for the video link. Would Kruger be so kind as to prove to the modern reader that any of the miracles did in fact occur? It’s impossible. That the top 10 percent of the accredited seminaries in the U.S. are evangelical doesn’t make what they teach correct, in fact, religious bias probably makes it incorrect. Lastly, I wish that those seminaries, so certain of their textural critical abilities, would be so kind as to explain to the common, earnest believer, why the things that Bart so expertly sets forth in his books (i.e. no autographs, variations in the manuscripts, dating of the manuscripts, contradictions among them, improbable authorship attributions etc. etc. etc.) WERE NOT EVER EXPLAINED TO SAID EARNEST BELIEVER THROUGHOUT THE MODERN CHURCH AGE BY THESE EVANGELICAL EXPERTS! That burns me. That’s manipulation. As they say in the old black and white crime movies: The Jig Is up.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/a-better-kind-of-fundamentalist/










Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogChrist as an Angel in Paul 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Christ as an Angel in Paul

This will be my final set of comments on the evaluation of How Jesus Became God by Larry Hurtado, on his blog.   His review consisted of a set of positive comments, of things that he appreciated (for which I’m grateful); several misreadings of my positions, in which Larry indicates that my book was asserting a view that, in fact, it was not (he corrected those after our back and forth in a subsequent post); one assertion that I was motivated by an anti-Christian agenda and wanted to convince readers that Jesus’ followers had hallucinations (I dealt with that assertion yesterday; I do not think that it is a generous reading of my discussion – especially since I explicitly stated on repeated occasions that I was *not* arguing for a non-Christian or anti-Christian view); and, well, this one point that I’ll discuss here, on which we have a genuine disagreement.   The point has to do with whether the apostle Paul understood Christ, in his pre-existent state, to have been an angelic being.   Larry devotes two paragraphs to the issue; the second one I find more problematic than the first, although I disagree with the first as well (but not as strongly):
As a final criticism, Ehrman posits that the key to Paul’s Christology is that he thought of Jesus as an (or the) angel (of God/the Lord).  That, says Ehrman, explains how Paul could ascribe “pre-existence” to Jesus, and how, as a devout Jew, he could countenance worshipping Jesus.  As the key basis for this notion, Ehrman invokes a peculiar reading of Galatians 4:14, where Paul says that in his initial visit the Galatians received him “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.”  Ehrman insists that this is to be read as a flat appositive construction, in which “an angel of God” = “Christ Jesus.”   But this isn’t actually as compelling a claim as he thinks.  Even Gieschen (on whose work Ehrman relies here) presents this reading of the construction as only a distinct “possibility.”  And most scholars (myself included) don’t think it really works.  The grammar certainly doesn’t require it, and it seems more reasonable to take it as a kind of stair-step statement, “angel of God” and “Christ Jesus” as ascending categories.
I did indeed find Gieschen’s argument that Paul understood Jesus as an angel prior to becoming human extremely provocative and convincing.  His arguments are supported and advanced in a very interesting discussion of Susan R. Garrett in her book.  No Ordinary Angel.
When Gieschen uses the term angel, he defines it as “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms” (p. 27).  He shows that a large number of early Christians understood Jesus to be that kind of being; and he argues that the reluctance of NT scholars to see this kind of angel-Christology in our early sources is because they have been influenced by the views that later triumphed in the fourth century that insisted that Christ is much more than an angel.  That is, they are reading later views into earlier texts.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log into your membership account.  If you are not yet a member, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Membership content continues:


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







My Debate on Suffering with Philosopher Richard Swinburne«
Why I (Actually) Discuss Hallucinations»


7

JUN

2014

46
  
Comments
46  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Scott F  June 7, 2014
Does the conflict here stem from the use of the term “angel” such that images of white robes and wings are conjured in the minds of readers, including scholarly ones? Jesus had a beard and sandals, not wings and a harp! I thought that this term might get in the way for some people while I was reading your book. I kind of wished that you had used a less evocative term like “pre-existent being” but that would be awkward. Was “angel” the most appropriate term you had at hand or is it possible that you were trying to make the point that modern hang-ups about angels get in the way of understanding Paul’s views?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 8, 2014
Yeah, it’s a problem — but “angel” is the word used by the ancient Christian sources, and we don’t have a better one for the being that is described, even if modern people can’t help but htink of wings and halos….
Log in to Reply  
 



gavriel  June 7, 2014
Does data-mining on a passing comment from Paul carry much weight? Should we assume that Paul never used sloppy language? May be he had no coherent ideas on the pre-incarnate Jesus and simply circulated stuff from authoritative sources, like the Philippians Hymn and the opening of Romans to show he was one of “them”?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 8, 2014
Yes, of course Paul might have been sloppy. But if you can’t base your sense of what someone means on the words that he uses, then I think you have to give up on the idea of knowing what anyone means….
Log in to Reply  


nichael  June 8, 2014
Thank you gavriel. I have to admit that this was the first question that leapt to my mind when I read this passage in the book.
I certainly appreciate the epistemological(?) issue the Dr Ehrman raises (i.e. “If we can’t trust the words he uses…”) but the question still remains, is it _always_ a valid assumption to assume that an author is always _absolutely_ precise in his use of those words. Especially in a case like this where it “just” a letter. By that I mean two things:
First, we know that even in a more formal, presumably better thought-out work, –such as a Gospel– the author, and their later editors, have repeatedly introduced inconsistencies and outright contradictions (especially when blending multiple sources). Dr Ehrman has provided many examples of this on the blog.
Second, we all have suffered the frustration of seeing half a sentence written in passing pulled out of a piece of writing and had it used to give a meaning to our views that we never intended.
The current series of articles would seem to provide an excellent example of exactly this problem. Here we have two highly trained scholars each of whom are excellent writers who are known to use language with a high degree of precision. But still, as we’ve seen, there are several examples in which specific, carefully crafted sentences and phrases have been open to misinterpretation –or, at the very least, possibly amenable to an interpretation that the original author did not mean.
Here, the difference, of course, is that the parties could communicate, virtually immediately, and clarify any such confusion over the intended meaning (even when they don’t come to agreement on a given underlying issue).
I think all wish we could ask Paul some of our questions…
Log in to Reply  



gavriel  June 9, 2014
That was my point. Since possibly sloppy wording in a passing comment does not carry much weight, we are left mostly with two contradicting creeds of possible non-Pauline origin. Since he is so confusing in his models of salvation, it is no wonder that he is equally confusing in his christology. Even his eschatology is confusing: He both anticipates the end of this world in a collective up-in-the -air scenario as well as his individual enter into heaven (Phil 1:23). To me it seems that Paul was a religious mystic , and not a systematic philosopher.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 10, 2014
I don’t find him to be confusing in his christology at all — it seems all to tie together. Not so with his eschatology!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



greenbuttonuplift  June 8, 2014
I am a very visual learner Bart – do you have any creative students that can present these fascinating insights and understandings in mind map form. even a flow chart/hierarchies would suffice. Side by side Christologies many of us could grasp the gestalt!
 Brilliant stuff. These blogs are inspiring.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 8, 2014
Interesting idea. I’ll have to think about it.
Log in to Reply  
 



Robertus  June 8, 2014
Personally, I think Paul and the Galatians are merely thinking of Paul and Jesus as a messenger of God and I see no reason to mine this phrase for more christological significance. Messengers could be either human or angelic or neither, ie, without any consideration of their specific ontological status.
But, if we assume that Paul was speaking of a heavenly messenger here, as he does most frequently elsewhere, I don’t think we should say that the idea of a staircase movement of greater intensification is less probable, at least not from a comparison with the other Pauline passages. In 1 Cor 3,1, who’s to say that Paul did not intend ‘babes’ as an intensification of being fleshly, ie, not just fleshly, but newly born flesh? Perhaps more obviously, in 2 Cor 2,17, Paul is speaking not just sincerely, but as sincerely as one speaking by means of Christ before God himself. Is that not an intensification of sincerity?
ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με, ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.
ἀλλ᾿ ὡς σαρκίνοις, ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ.
ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν.
I’m not saying that the staircase intensification is more probable, but that this exegetical argument is weak at best. Nor am I opposed to an angel christology. I think it is a fine idea. Personally, I would find it more interesting to discuss Peter’s confession of Jesus as a righteous angel/messenger in the gospel of Thomas.
Log in to Reply  



SJB  June 8, 2014
Prof Ehrman
Is it possible that Paul’s controversies with James and Peter and the Jerusalem church might have had its origin not just in their attitude towards the conversion of gentiles but with conflicting Christologies? If you believe that Jesus was a pious Jew exalted to divine status because of his piety aren’t you going to have a much higher view of the system of belief through which he expressed his piety, i.e., Judaism, than you would if you believed that Jesus was a pre-existent divine figure who in some sense transcended that system of belief? Perhaps for James & Peter Jesus’ Jewishness would be the whole point. For Paul Jesus’ Jewishness was a bridge to get somewhere else?
thx
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 8, 2014
It’s *possible* — but as with every historical hypothesis, it needs to have some evidence behind it — and I just don’t know of any…. (Paul doesn’t say anything about their Christological differences.)
Log in to Reply  
talitakum

talitakum  June 9, 2014
Thank you for this post, which helps a lot to understand your view on the matter!
 Regarding Christological debates between Paul and Jerusalem church, there is in fact no evidence in our sources. We can’t infer by this that they were in agreement, though (this would be a typical argumentum ex silentio, usually quite slippery).
 However, might be interesting to note that James and others were killed by Jewish authorities with a “blitz”, for some unknown reasons: I assume that people weren’t put to death simply because they believed that a dead Jewish leader was the Messiah, so do you think that James’ religious faith/belief in a “divine” Jesus could be the reason for such death sentence?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 10, 2014
James apparently was — but it was for breaking Torah, not for his belief in Jesus (according to Josephus, our oldest source).
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



RonaldTaska  June 9, 2014
Sounds complicated and somewhat esoteric as do Dr. Hurtado;s other criticisms. Is he focusing on a few trees rather than the whole forest? I do think your new book is more complicated and nuanced than your other trade books and I am now in the process of reading it a second time and I have never had to do that with your other trade books. It’s not the writing. You always write clearly. It’s just a complicated, but very important subject. Hang in there! I probably would have just documented, as you do, that ancient people were a superstitious people who tended to make their leaders into gods and Christians probably did likewise making Jesus into God. End of subject.
 I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to Dr. Hurtado’s criticisms because I did not really grasp his criticisms the first time I read them. I also deeply respect your ducking a couple of his more personal attacks on you. I would not have been as kind.
Log in to Reply  



JEffler  June 9, 2014
Dr. Ehrman,
In light of the grammatical interpretation of Jesus being an angel and whatnot, what about in Romans 9:5 where Paul directly calls Jesus “God”?
“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 10, 2014
You should read my book! The grammar of the verse is hotly debated, but I do indeed think too that it calls Jesus God. God the Father *made* him God at the resurrection (Phil. 2:6-11)
Log in to Reply  


JEffler  June 10, 2014
I found your debate with Simon Gathercole on the “Unbelievable?” radio show very intriguing. I particularly enjoyed the second part because you guys dove into Pauline theology.
Now, I thought Simon Gathercole brought up some interesting points in regards to Paul in Romans 1:25 where he distinguishes between creator and created in the context of idolatry. Wouldn’t it seem contradictory of Paul to think of Jesus as a divine being held to divine status if he wasn’t divine at birth, since it would seemingly place himself into contradicting himself? I say this because in Philippians 2:6-7 Paul says that Jesus did not consider deity to be “held onto” or “grasped” as Gathercole stated. Wouldn’t that imply a previous status of divinity by lowering himself? Further, in verse 7 it says “he made himself nothing”. Doesn’t “made himself nothing” also imply that he had a previous state before actually “making himself nothing”, thereby claiming to be preexistent? I found that part of the debate very intriguing!
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 11, 2014
I give a lengthy discussion of the passage in How Jesus Became God, that you may find useful.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  June 10, 2014
Does the OT contain any of these grammatical constructs like Paul uses in this angel verse? I could have sworn there were similar style wordings in the OT where a statement is made and then repeated again with different wording. I had heard of this construct before you brought it up on the blog last year, but maybe it was just in reference to Paul’s use of it.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 11, 2014
I don’t know! The argument has to do with an author’s specific style of writing. But it would be interesting to see how other authors to it.
Log in to Reply  
 



Steefen  June 12, 2014
Paul and Justin Martyr believe Jesus Christ was an angel?
The identity of this Hebrew angel, Christ, is short on history.
What are the conditions for calling an entity an angel? We have conditions for calling a human spirit a saint (canonization).
We want to be sure Paul isn’t making something up, for him to later protest: I’m telling the truth.
Do any Gnostics call Jesus an angel?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 13, 2014
Gnostics: not that I know of. Not sure what you mean by “conditions”: it depends on how you define “angel.” And I’m not sure what you mean by short on history: I’m not arguing that, historically, Jesus really did start out as an angel.
Log in to Reply  
 



Ethereal  June 18, 2014
Good Point gmatthews- I was thinking something similar– Like a synonymous parallelism– I.e. Amos 5:24:
“But let judgment run down as waters,
 and righteousness as a mighty stream.”
Where the 2nd hemistich validates the 1st; & often ratifies the 1st through a different analogue, perspective, by illuminating another feature or dimension. Like 2 sides to the same coin maybe. Or what about in the climatic sense I.e. the way “Jacob” is often paired with “Israel”– one transcends the other.
Frequently prevalent in Numbers 23:19 for ex:
“G+d is not a man who lies, or a son of man who changes His mind. Does He speak & not act, or promise not fulfill?… He considers no disaster for Jacob; He sees no trouble for Israel… There is no magic curse against Jacob and no divination against Israel. It will now be said about Jacob and Israel, what Great Things G+d has done!'”
Log in to Reply  


Ethereal  June 18, 2014
I.e. Jacob & Israel- Same person- different position or character. Jacob wrestling with life’s struggles- the divine & man; & Israel- transcendental Princely state– when G+d prevails in him. Like Yeshua- an Angel before- transcends to G+D’s right hand?
 1 question Bart- Is this not very similar to what Jehovah’s witness have in mind when they conflate Jesus with the Arc Angel Michael- from Isaiah 63:8-9- & Daniel 12:1- (“the tzar of your people”).
Log in to Reply  
 



hwl  June 19, 2014
I started reading “How Jesus became God”.
In connection with this topic, here is an interesting article:
“Nepal’s living goddess who still has to do homework”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27885141
 Westerners from Christianized cultures who have difficulty comprehending how an ancient society could plausibly believe a living person (e.g. emperor or general or religious teacher) is divine, should look at polytheistic Asian cultures like that in Nepal and India. As with Roman culture, Hindu cultures do not maintain a sharp distinction between humanity and divinity.
Log in to Reply  



Ethereal  June 24, 2014
So these ideas are not novelties, from what you have expressed before. If you will Bart, may you distinguish the difference between Paul’s Angel Christology & Jehovah’s witness Angel Theology. Thank You!
If you will, will you distinguish the ambiguous interpretation in the Gospel of John (definite article or indefinite?): “…The word was God…” OR “…The Word was a god..” I Understand the Wisdom figure of Proverbs 8– but can ratify this grammar for me a bit?? ‘New World translation’ gets alotta criticism from conservatives, despite consistency & modest attempt at lexical fidelity. What do you feel real quick? Thank You!
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 24, 2014
I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the Jehovah’s witnesses to be able to say. On John 1:1, since λογος has the article it is not necessary for θεος to have as well, or so it’s usually argued by NT grammarians!
Log in to Reply  


Alethinon61  August 15, 2014
Hi Bart,
You said:
“On John 1:1, since λογος has the article it is not necessary for θεος to have as well, or so it’s usually argued by NT grammarians!”
How familiar are you with the embarrassing history vis a vis the reasons given for taking QEOS at John 1:1c as a definite noun? Your mentor, Bruce Metzger, claimed that Colwell’s rule settled the matter, yet he was mistaken, as were William Barclay, F.F. Bruce, and various others. Colwell’s rule states (paraphrasing) that definite predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite, and Metzgar and many others assumed that therefore anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite. They were mistaken, as was shown by folks like Paul Dixon and P.B. Harner in the early 70s, and as any second year student of Greek can see by simply opening a GNT and observing the many occurrences of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns that aren’t definite! Indeed, the NRSV, a later translation to which your mentor contributed, itself renders over half of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns in John with the indefinite article.
I don’t claim to know whether John meant to say “the Word was God” or “the Word was a god”, but the grammar clearly allows either rendering, even though orthodox scholars and grammarians are shy to admit as much. The biggest problem with the interpretation of this verse, IMO, is that the various assertions aren’t properly vetted. Scholars embraced the converse of Colwell’s rule for over 40 years because they thought he settled the question in the way they assumed had to be correct anyway. Sadly, when the new solution was proposed, i.e. “qualitative” count nouns, history repeated itself, as Harner’s and Dixon’s proposals were also embraced without proper vetting. Why? Dixon himself clues us in:
“The importance of this theses is clearly seen in the above example (John 1:1) where the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are at stake. For, if the Word was ‘a god,’ then by implication there are other gods of which Jesus is one. On the other hand, if QEOS is just as definite as the articular construction following the verb because, ‘the dropping of the article…is simply a matter of word order,’ then the doctrine of the Trinity is denied.’” (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John), p. 2
If you read Dixon’s thesis you’ll find that he was so driven to massage the statistics in his favor so as to rule out an indefinite rendering at John 1:1c that he managed to find only one solitary indefinite predicate noun in all of John’s gospel!!! This isn’t scholarship; it’s apologetics masquerading as grammatical analysis.
~Sean
Log in to Reply  


Alethinon61  August 16, 2014
I had said:
” Colwell’s rule states (paraphrasing) that definite predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite, and Metzgar and many others assumed that therefore anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite.”
Forgive the faux pass; I guess I need to hold off on submitting posts until I’ve slapped on some aftershave!
I meant to say:
“Colwell’s rule states (paraphrasing) that definite predicate nouns that precede the verb normally lack the article, and Metzgar and many others assumed that therefore anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite.”
~Sean Garrigan
Log in to Reply  

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 16, 2014
Thanks. That’s very interesting. Apart from Metzger’s invocation of Colwell (whom he knew personally, of course), and the (very many!) crticial commentaries on John based on the Greek text, I do not know the history of the debate. Who are Paul Dixon and P. B. Harner? I’m afraid I’ve never heard of them. Are they independent Greek grammarians, or are they defenders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses tradition? And can you give me a handful of examples of instances in which pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns are clearly definite? (Unlike traditional Christian exegetes, I don’t really have a dog in this fight)
Log in to Reply  


Alethinon61  August 16, 2014
“Thanks. That’s very interesting. Apart from Metzger’s invocation of Colwell (whom he knew personally, of course), and the (very many!) crticial commentaries on John based on the Greek text, I do not know the history of the debate.”
And to be fair to Metzger, Colwell himself thought that his rule made “the Word was God” more likely. As he puts it in his article:
“Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the article…The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. [KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS] looks much more like ‘And the Word was God’ than ‘And the Word was divine’ when viewed with reference to this rule.” (A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testiment, JBL, Vol. 52, 1933), p. 21
My problem with Metzger isn’t that he (and many others) participated in a logical blunder that began with Colwell himself; my problem is that he and others failed to scrutinize Colwell’s findings with the sort of objectivity and critical eye that one has a right to expect from those who offer themselves as authorities. It seems to me that they probably embraced Colwell’s blunder with alacrity because he told them what they were happy to hear.
“Who are Paul Dixon and P. B. Harner? I’m afraid I’ve never heard of them. Are they independent Greek grammarians, or are they defenders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses tradition?”
No, neither of them have been defenders of Jehovah’s Witnesses. P.B. Harner was Associate Professor of Religion at Heidelberg College in Ohio at one time. His most oft quoted works, at least in relation to the research I’ve done, are “The ‘I Am’ of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Johannine Usage and Thought” (Fortress Press, 1970) and “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1″ (JBL, Volume 92, No. 1, March 1973), pp. 75-87. He was a Trinitarian Christian, whereas Witnesses believe that the supreme being of the Bible, YHWH, is the Father alone.
Paul Dixon was a student of Dallas Theological Seminary, and the faculty there seem a bit obsessed with the Witnesses. (This stems from their dedication to Trinitarianism. Students and faculty are required to affirm the Trinity as the first in a series of “essentials” [see: http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/. Did you have to affirm the Trinity at Moody?). For example, Daniel Wallace offers what he considers refutation of the Witnesses’ understanding of John 1:1c and John 8:58 in his “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”. Donald Hartley from DTS entered into an extended debate with a Witness named Greg Stafford about John 1:1c, particularly as it relates to Hartley’s thesis, entitled “Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns With a Special View to Understanding the Colwell Construction” (M.Th thesis; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996). Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti from DTS argue against the Witnesses’ understanding of John 1:1 in an article entitled “FROM ‘GOD’ (QEOS) TO ‘GOD’ (NOYTE): A NEW DISCUSSION AND PROPOSAL REGARDING JOHN 1:1C AND THE SAHIDIC COPTIC VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT” (JTS, Vol. 62, Pt 2, Oct 2011). This article was really motivated by a perceived need to do damage control, because Witnesses pointed out that the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c reads neunoute (literally = “was a god”). The article contains some of the most tortured reasoning I’ve ever seen in print. I’ll submit a follow-up post pointing out a few of the most glaring flaws.
Paul Dixon’s thesis (the one I mentioned previously) was written, at least in part, as a response to the indefinite rendering of QEOS John 1:1c (“a god”) that one finds in the NWT (New World Translation). We know that Dixon had the NWT in mind because he specifically addresses that version in his thesis as an example of one of the two understandings he sought to refute for theological reasons:
“There has been much confusion and disagreement over the significance of the anarthrous predicate nominative, especially as it occurs in the Gospel of John. In the appendix of the New World Translation [1950 edition] the editors argue that [QEOS] in John 1:1c is indefinite on the basis that ‘our English translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun at John 4:19; 4:24; 6:70; 9:24, 25; 10;33, 12:6.” (ibid, p. 1)
I don’t own a copy of the 1950 edition of the NWT, so I can’t really speak to what may have appeared in the appendix. However, those who are familiar with the debate know that the Witnesses understand QEOS to be indefinite, not solely because the word is anarthrous, but also because the LOGOS is said to be “with God.” Since this particular contextual feature is precisely why Dixon felt compelled to avoid understanding QEOS at 1:1c to be definite, he can hardly complain when someone uses the same contextual feature to inform their own understanding of what John meant. Harner also objected to understanding QEOS definitely, and for the same reason but put differently, i.e. because “clause B should not be assimilated to clause A”. In other words, if the QEOS of clause c is definite, then this would make the LOGOS one and the same as the Father, which most believe (mistakenly, IMO) would necessarily result in Sabellianism.
“And can you give me a handful of examples of instances in which pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns are clearly definite? (Unlike traditional Christian exegetes, I don’t really have a dog in this fight)”
Sure. When I looked at the anarthrous predicate nouns in John’s Gospel, I found that slightly over 50% were indefinite nouns. Dixon considers them “qualitative”, but, again, his view and Harner’s have not received proper scrutiny by experts in language who are not motivated by theological commitments that compel them to secure one and only one allowable meaning. Below are the anarthrous predicate nouns that I consider indefinite, followed by those that I consider definite, though in some cases a bit tentatively. I focused on bounded (count) nouns because that’s what QEOS is. I excluded unbounded (mass/abstract) nouns from the lists.
Indefinite bounded anarthrous predicate nominatives in John:
1. John 4:19
 PROFHTHS EI SU
 a prophet you are
2. John 6:70
 DIABOLOS ESTIN
 a devil is
3. John 8:34
 DOULOS ESTIN
 a slave is
4. John 8:44
 ANQRWPOKTONOS HN
 a manslayer was
5. John 8:44
 YEUSTHS ESTIN
 a liar he is
6. John 8:48
 SAMARITHS EI SU
 a Samaritan are you
7. John 9:17
 PROFHTHS ESTIN
 a prophet he is
8. John 9:24
 hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
 a sinner is
9. John 9:25
 hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
 a sinner he is
10. John 10:1 [see footnote to John 10:1]
 KLEPTHS ESTIN
 a thief is
11. John 10:13
 MISQWTOS ESTIN
 a hired hand he is
12. John 12:6
 KLEPTHS HN
 a thief he was
13. John 18:35
 EGO IOUDAIOS EIMI
 I a Jew am
14. John 18:37a
 BASILEUS EI SU
 a king are you?
15. John 18:37b
 BASILEUS EIMI
 a king I am
Definite bounded anarthrous predicate nominatives in John:
1. John 1:49
 SU BASILEUS EI TOU ISRAHL
 You the King are of the Israel
2. John 3:29:
 NUMFIOS ESTIN
 the bridegroom is
3. John 5:10:
 SABBATON ESTIN
 the Sabbath is
4. John 5:27:
 hUIOS ANQRWPOU ESTIN
 the Son of Man he is
5. John 8:33:
 SPERMA ABRAAM ESMEN
 the seed of Abraham we are
6. John 8:37:
 SPERMA ABRAAM ESTE
 the seed of Abraham you are
7. John 8:42:
 EI O QEOS PATHR UMWN HN
 If God the Father of you was
8. John 8:54:
 QEOS HMWN ESTIN
 the God of you is
9. John 10:2:
 POIMHN ESTIN
 the shepherd is
10. John 10:36:
 hUIOS TOU QEOU EIMI
 the Son of the God I am
11. John 19:21:
 BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN EIMI
 the King of the Jews I am
Note: At John 10:1, notice that there’s no difference between how KLEPTHS (=thief) is handled, which occurs before the verb, and LHiSTHS (=robber) is handled, which occurs after the verb.
~Sean Garrigan
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 17, 2014
None of these counter examples involves what I thought Colwell’s rule did — namely *two* substantives (that could be substantivized), the anarthrous predicate and the subject with the article, connected with a form of EIMI. I thought the rule was that in that case, the definite nature of the subject was transferred over, by implication, to the predicate.
 



Alethinon61  August 16, 2014
As I promised in my previous post, here are a few examples of the flawed, even tortured reasoning offered by Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti in their JTS article, entilted “From ‘God’ (ΘΕΟΣ) to ‘God’ (ΝΟΥΤΕ): A New Discussion and Proposal Regarding John 1:1C and the Sahidic Coptic Version of the New Testament”.
To begin, the reason the Sahidic Coptic Version is potentially important vis a vis a proper understanding of John 1:1c is because it is the first language into which the NT was translated that had both a definite and an indefinite article. The Coptic of John 1:1c reads (transliterated) “Auw neunoute pe pshaje”; an interlinear rendering would be, “And was a god is the word”; and a literal English translation is, “And the word was a god”. Though the use of the indefinite article is broader in Coptic than it is in English (it even appears before mass nouns), its presence before ΝΟUΤΕ in clause c would seem to suggest that the traditional translation (“the Word was God”) is not supported by this ancient text. When Witnesses drew attention to this folks at DTS apparently felt a need to do some damage control, and so the two aforementioned authors had their “research” published in JTS.
Firstly, their approach was methodologically flawed in that they focused on the use of the article in Coptic in reference to ΝΟUΤΕ/QEOS. Their readers would have been better served if they had taken a broader approach and attempted to determine how the articles in Coptic are generally used when included in their translations of bounded nouns that originated in PNVS, SVPN, and other types of Greek clauses. I suspect that there’s a very good reason that they took such a narrow approach: Had they included other bounded nouns in their sampling then they would have reached very different results, and their apologetic would have fallen apart. The God of the Bible is the “one God, the Father” and so it is not surprising that most occurrences of QEOS refer to Him, and are typically definite.
Secondly, as I mentioned, their reasoning at times is downright tortured. Here’s one example:
“Our small sample size is itself a clue to the Copts’ use of the indefinite article, or their neglect of it altogether. Of the 25 instances of the AnNS [QEOS], the vast majority are reflected in the Sahidic Coptic version with the definite article (21/25; 84%). Of these, the vast majority are also in reference to `the God of the Bible’ (20/25; 80%). It is no exaggeration to suggest, then, that the Coptic translators were disinclined to use anything other than the definite article when translating [QEOS]. If the Coptic translators were so reluctant to use the indefinite article with [NOUTE], our question must not be `what uniformly required the translators to use the indefinite article?’ but instead `what individual circumstances required the use of a disfavoured construction?'” (p. 502)
Did you catch what their attempting to do? The “point” they seem desperate to massage from the data simply doesn’t follow. Let me restate the pertinent data:
1. “Of the 25 instances of the AnNS [QEOS], the vast majority are reflected in the Sahidic Coptic version with the definite article (21/25; 84%).”
2. “Of these, the vast majority are also in reference to the God of the Bible’ (20/25; 80%).”
Wright and Ricchuiti are actually suggesting that the Coptic use of the definite article in contexts where NOUTE is a definite noun implies that the use of the indefinite article with NOUTE should be considered a “disfavored construction”! This is ridiculous. The only valid inference that we can make from the data is the rather obvious point that the Copts wouldn’t be inclined to render definite nouns with the indefinite article. But then, who would?
Here’s another example of their apologetically sloppy thinking:
“The same category applies to John 1:1c. This qualitative/descriptive understanding makes the best sense within John’s prologue. The Copts understood John to be saying that `theWord’ has the same qualities as `the God of the Bible’. On the other hand, if one disagrees with our arguments above, the only other viable interpretations given the other usages would suggest that the Copts understood `the Word’ to be either a `god of the pagans’ (cf. Acts 28:6) or some `usurper god’ (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). Yet, this leaves one with much wider problems.” (ibid, p. 509).
Contextually, it’s literally impossible to infer that the LOGOS is either a “god of the pagans” or a “usurper god”, regardless which translation one prefers, because he is used by God the Father to create all things, and has a special place at His bosom!
This isn’t serious scholarship, but instead it’s a rather flaccid attempt to bring the Coptic of John 1:1c into harmony with orthodox Christology over against the NWT, which Wright and Ricchuiti oppose as part of their anti-“cult” apologetic. That we find this sort of thing coming from people associated with Dallas Theological Seminary is not particularly surprising. That Oxford allowed this to be published in their Journal without first requiring that the tortured reasoning be replaced with sound reasoning is unfortunate.
~Sean Garrigan
 



Alethinon61  August 18, 2014
“None of these counter examples involves what I thought Colwell’s rule did — namely *two* substantives (that could be substantivized), the anarthrous predicate and the subject with the article, connected with a form of EIMI. I thought the rule was that in that case, the definite nature of the subject was transferred over, by implication, to the predicate.”
I wasn’t sure what you meant, but then a friend suggested that you may be thinking of Sharp’s rule, which deals with situations where two nouns are joined by KAI (and) where the first noun has the article and the second does not, yet one person is in view. There are certain restrictions that apply, e.g. if one of the nouns is a proper name, then Sharp’s rule would not apply. Wallace describes this rule here:
https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule#_ftn13
Unlike the rather tortured arguments offered for understanding QEOS to be “qualitative”, Wallace’s arguments for understanding 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 to be applying the term QEOS to Christ are thoughtfully conceived and may be correct. Wallace deals with this subject in great depth in his book “Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance”, which is a first-rate piece of work. It’s available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Granville-Sharps-Canon-Its-Kin/dp/082043342X
~Sean
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
Sorry — in my rush I got things mixed up. But I thought Metzger invoked Sharp’s rule?
 



Alethinon61  August 18, 2014
I wanted to clarify that while I think Wallace’s work dealing with Sharp’s rule is first rate, that doesn’t mean I completely agree with him. For example, if memory serves, Wallace excludes translation Greek such as we find in the LXX, perhaps because of the exception or exceptions there (I know there’s at least one), though that wouldn’t be his stated reason. I find this move a bit arbitrary and therefore questionable. Also, I think that Eph. 5:5 is an exception to Sharp’s rule, yet it doesn’t have a proper name, but has Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ (Christ and God). I don’t recall how Wallace handles this text, but if one is to argue that this verse is an exception because Χριστοῦ functions here as quasi proper name, then I’m not sure why Σωτῆρος (savior) or Θεοῦ (God) couldn’t do so at Titus 2:13 as well.
In the end, I think that any rule that is formulated for the sole purpose of shoring up belief in Christ’s deity has to be approached with a tentative, critical eye. I question the value of such approaches because, in the end, as you so eloquently demonstrate in your book, divine names and titles could be applied to agents of God like Moses, judges, kings, angels, etc, and so what do we really establish by demonstrating that such titles were also applied to Christ? I mentioned this question on my blog (http://kazesland.blogspot.com/), where I noted that:
“…divine titles could be applied to agents of God in pretty much all forms of Jewish literature that existed at the time the New Testament was written. One often finds a strange disconnect in the writings of so many scholars and religious commentators in that while they often discuss the uncontroversial application of divine titles to agents of God in the Bible and in the literature of the period, they fail to recognize that it is precisely because Jesus is God’s agent — his living, breathing power-of-attorney — that we find divine titles applied to him. Once we recognize (a) the flexible use of such divine titles in the biblical period among monotheistic Jews, and (b) the contexts in which such applications were considered appropriate, then we come to realize something we might not have expected: Not only is it not surprising to find divine titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament, but it in light of his unique status as God’s agent par excellence, it would be downright shocking to find that such titles were not applied to him!”
~Sean
 



Alethinon61  August 20, 2014
“Sorry — in my rush I got things mixed up. But I thought Metzger invoked Sharp’s rule?”
He actually invoked both Colwell’s rule and Sharp’s rule. In his article entitled “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal” (Theology Today, 10.1, April, 1953), he invokes Colwell’s rule with respect to John 1:1c, and Sharp’s rule with respect to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
He invokes Colwell as follows:
“Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering ‘…and the Word was a god,’…It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists…As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, ‘…and the Word was God.’ Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadmen Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, ‘A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of the predicate as a definite noun.”
Notice Metzger’s rhetoric, i.e. “as a matter of solid fact”, “frightful mistranslation”, “necessitates the rendering, ‘…and the Word was God.'” Well, Metzger’s “solid fact” turned out to be based on a logical blunder, not a “fact” at all. Moreover, since over 50% of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns in John are clearly NOT definite, as the list I provided shows, Colwell’s rule isn’t even a very good fallacy. It was just a dumb mistake.
Notice also Metzger’s assertion that if Jehovah’s Witnesses take the “a god” rendering seriously, they are “polytheists”. Does that mean that the OT Jews were polytheists when they called Moses, judges, kings, and angels “God” or “gods”? Were those who translated the NT into Coptic polytheists for rendering John 1:1c “a god”? This is the strange disconnect I mentioned in my previous post, i.e. pretty much everyone whose studies these issues knows that divine titles could be applied to agents of God without resulting in polytheism, yet apply divine titles to Jesus, God’s supreme agent, and you must either be a Trinitarian or you’re a polytheist? I don’t buy it.
Moving on to Sharp’s rule, Metzger appeals to it on pages 78 and 79 as follows:
“In still another crucial verse the New World Translation has garbled the meaning of the original so as to avoid referring to Jesus Christ as God. In Titus 2:13 it reads, ‘We wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus.’ This rendering, by separating ‘the great God’ from ‘our Savior Christ Jesus,’ overlooks a principle of Greek grammar which was detected and formulated in a rule by Granville Sharp in 1798. This rule, in brief, is that when a copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, if the article precedes the first noun and is not repeated before the second noun, the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun.”
I don’t really have much of a complaint against Metzger here, except to say that his presentation is extremely one-sided. He fails to mention that some well respected, knowledgeable Trinitarians have themselves disagreed with applying Sharp’s rule to Titus 2:13, and some to 2 Peter 1:1. I don’t have a dogmatic opinion about this issue one way or the other, but I would point out that there are exceptions to Sharp’s rule, and so it’s actually an overstatement to say that “…the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun.” In any case, Titus 2:13 may indeed refer to Jesus as “the great god”, or it may refer to the Father as “the great god”; I can’t be certain one way or the other, and I doubt that anyone else can either, dogmatic declarations such as Metzger makes notwithstanding.
~Sean
 
 
 
 
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  July 29, 2014
Just checking various blogs before bed and I see that Larry Hurtado posted yesterday that his formal review of your book was printed in Christian Century. I’ll read it tomorrow, but just curious if you’ve noted whether or not he modified his original review based on your comments to him (or maybe you haven’t read it yet, if not he links to an online version of his review here: http://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2014-07/lord-and-god).
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  July 29, 2014
I’m afraid I haven’t read it! I’ll obviously need to take a look.
Log in to Reply  
 



Alethinon61  August 17, 2014
I had said:
“Dixon considers them “qualitative”, but, again, his view and Harner’s have not received proper scrutiny by experts in language who are not motivated by theological commitments that compel them to secure one and only one allowable meaning.”
When I re-read this I realized that it could be misleading. I should have said this:
“Dixon considers them “qualitative”, but, again, his view and Harner’s have not received proper scrutiny by experts in language who are not motivated by theological commitments that compel them to find reasons to avoid the two most natural readings of the text, i.e. ‘the Word was God’ (definite Θεός) and ‘the Word was a god’ (indefinite Θεός).”
I’m not the only one who has observed that either a definite or an indefinite understanding are the two most natural ways of understanding the Greek in the light of the grammar used. J. Gwyn Griffiths noted essentially the same thing when he argued against rendering Θεός as “divine” (i.e. the “qualitative” proposal of the previous generation) in clause c:
“Dr. Strachan’s statement is if special interest in that it seeks to give an explicit philological foundation to the translation ‘divine.’ Greek lexicons do not generally admit an adjectival meaning for Θεός…Dr. Strachan, however, thinks that the omission of the article before Θεός gives it the force of an adjective, whereas Dr. Temple derives the same force (or a force ‘not far from adjectival’) from the predicative use of the word. It may be suggested that neither of these statements is confirmed by general usage in classical or Hellenistic Greek. Nouns which shed their articles do not thereby become adjectives; nor is it easy to see how the predicative use of a noun, in which the omission of the article is normal, tends to give the noun adjectival force….Taken by itself, the sentence καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος could admittedly bear either of two meanings: (I) ‘and the Word was (the) God’ or (2) ‘and the Word was (a) God.’ Since, however, the expression πρὸς τὸν Θεόν has occurred immediately before this clause, the natural inference is that Θεὸς now bears the same meaning and reference, the article having disappeared according to regular custom.” (The Expository Times, Vol. 62, October 1950 — September 1951), p. 315
I agree with Griffiths to the extent that there doesn’t really appear to be any reason to think that nouns that shed their articles change meaning, i.e. they don’t become “adjectival” (yesteryear’s preferred term) or “qualitative” (today’s preferred term). Nor — I would add — does there appear to be any reason to think that placing a noun before the verb changes its meaning to one of “qualitativeness”. I therefore agree that the two most natural readings are (a) “the Word was God” or (b) “the Word was a god”. Griffiths favored the former (=a) because of πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, whereas I favor the later (=b) for the same reason, and for others, e.g. the traditional rendering yields a paradox that I don’t think the author of John’s gospel could have said without experiencing congnative dissonance for himself and his readers. Historically speaking, Trinitarianism didn’t exist yet as a conceptual grid into which such a paradoxical statement could be placed to avoid cognitive dissonance, and so if his readers understood him to be saying that the LOGOS was both “God” and “with God”, then they either would have understood that Θεὸς was being used representationally, in harmony with the shaliah principle (meaning something like “the Word represented God”), or they would have required explication.
I have an interesting question for you, Bart. Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that Harner, Dixon, and others are correct in arguing that Θεὸς is “qualitative” at John 1:1c. In his JBL article, Harner asserted that “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” (ibid, p. 75). In his DTS thesis, Dixon said that “Technically, any noun which is not definite is indefinite” (ibid, p. 9). Now, in which of the following translations does Θεὸς look like a “qualitative” noun that is “technically indefinite”?
(a) The Word was God
 (b) The Word was a god
Anyone who chooses “a” gets a booby prize;-)
Log in to Reply  



Alethinon61  August 30, 2014
Good morning Bart,
I was just wondering whether you’ve contemplated someday developing your argument that Jesus was considered an angel by at least some of the early Christians more fully? As you can see from the responses you’ve received, the fact that there’s an alternative interpretation of Gal. 4:14, however questionable it’s merits may be, is a stumbling block for many, causing them to offer anything from skepticism to rejection of your view based on this text. It seems that it’s going to take more work for that part of your argument (with which I agree, though perhaps with qualifications) to win over your peers.
Perhaps the view can be further buttressed by way of a more inferential approach? I had offered this old gem on Larry Hurtado’s blog:
“The Angel-Christology, as a peculiar combination of Christologies of exaltation and pre-existence, is the key to the whole situation of Paul’s Christology and it solves every difficulty…In what way should one conceive of a heavenly being, who was indeed like God, but was subordinate to Him, who could experience an elevation of rank and also surrender it again? Such a being could only be an angelic-being.” (F. Scheidweiler, found in Novation und die Engelchristologie, in Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, Bd. 66, Heft I/II, pp. 126-139, as quoted in The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, Harper & Brothers: New York, translated and abridged by S. G. F. Brandon, M.A. , D.D.), p. 130
Hurtado responded by pointing out that Werner’s work was shown to be inadequate years ago, which is why it never gained a significant following. Well, perhaps Werner’s work was inadequate, or perhaps people were simply more satisfied with that which was offered by the opposition because that quarter offered what they were more inclined to accept. The point Hurtado offered against understanding Jesus to be an angel seems pretty weak to me:
“The claim of Werner (and the works he cited, such Scheidweller) have long ago been shown to be simplistic. They fail to reckon with the evidence that Paul (and other NT texts) in fact draw sharp distinctions between the exalted Jesus and angels, even principal-angel figures. See my own discussion in my book, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (1988; 1998).”
As I said in response to this:
Quote-Self
 To an Arian, sharp distinctions between Jesus and the angels are no more problematic than sharp distinctions between Jesus and his God and Father are to a Trinitarian. Logically speaking, Jesus could both be an angel and also superior to the angels just as many feel that he could be both God and also distinct from and subordinate to God. Presbyterian William Kinkade put it well during the Trinitarian/Unitarian debates of yesteryear when addressing the argument that Jesus couldn’t have been an angel in light of Hebrews, Ch 1. His comments are such that they can’t be abbreviated sufficiently for a blog post, but you can find them on page 155 of his “The Bible Doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit”, which can be read here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/psza6yq
 End Quote-Self
While it may be true that Werner’s work was inadequate, that doesn’t necessarily mean that his thesis was incorrect. Some of his arguments may have simply needed fuller development. John Reumann notes something close to this in an article he wrote about Werner’s work:
“The three areas of evidence examined above show how tenuous Werner’s material is in places. However, it is unfair to judge his argument on isolated passages without looking at the mass of documentation he provides; his total point of view must be considered, not just individual items. After any examination, lengthy or brief, one may agree with Turner’s earlier appraisal that Werner’s book is “brilliant, learned, and perverse.”[1] But certainly some of the suggestions presented are worthy of more attention than they have received thus far by scholars in the English-speaking world.” (Martin Werner and “Angel Christology”, The Lutheran Quarterly 8, [1956]), p. 327 and 358.
You might be interested to know (though you may already) that John Ashton, former lecturer in New Testament Studies at Wolfson College, Oxford, has also indicated that Christ was an angel “tout court”. He offers the following:
At this point I must acknowledge a debt to what is, in my opinion, one of the best but at the same time least regarded studies of John’s Gospel to have appeared in the last twenty years: Jan-Adolf Buhner’s thesis, Der Gesandte un sein Weg (1977). Buhner’s central interest is in tracing the link between the angel-motif and the prophet-motif in the tradition; and he goes so far as to say that ‘the fusion or blending (Verbingdung) of prophet and angel will prove to be the real key to answering the history-of-religions question concerning Johannine christology.’ What I wish to propose instead is that the key to any understanding of what lies behind the claim or charge of ditheism in the Gospel is what amounts to an angel christology (i)tout court(/i). This proposal, though related and indebted to the observations of other scholars, has never, to my knowledge, been put forward so directly. Shying away, for some four decades, from the rather extreme views of Martin Werner, Christian scholars have only recently begun once again to admit the importance of the ‘Christ as angel’ motif in the post-apostolic period, from the Shepherd of Hermas to Cyprian, from Justin to Origen. No one, apparently, has thought that it might shed light on the fierce christological debates in the Fourth Gospel.” (Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel), p. 75
If you’ve never read Buhner’s book, Der Gesandte un sein Weg, then, based on the glowing testimony of others, and various English renderings of parts of Buhner’s work offered by John Ashton, I would highly recommend that you consider doing so. I own a copy and would be happy to send it to you if you can’t find one locally. You just have to promise to return it when you’re done:-) You might even consider temporarily assuming the role of S.G.F. Brandon, M.A., D.D., i.e. translate Buhner’s book into English so that those of us who can’t read German can fully benefit from his insights, which were apparently significant! Indeed, if you find the principle of agency discussed in a book about the Gospel of John, you are almost sure to find Buhner’s book listed as a reference.
A. E. Harvey wrote an article in which he expresses gratitude to Buhner for shining the light on how Jesus’ relationship with God is developed in John’s Gospel in light of the agency paradigm:
“This book [ibid] is the first major study to have been devoted to the Jewish law of agency in relation to the New Testament, and in my opinion it makes a conclusive case for understanding much of the language used of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel as drawn from juridical practice. Jesus is ‘sent’ by the Father under conditions which clearly imply his authorization; the sphere of his authorized activity on behalf of his Father is clearly defined (that is, those activities, such as creation and judgement, which are peculiarly God’s sphere); his activity conforms to the maxim that ‘a man’s agent is like himself’, and also to the (lesser known) maxim that an agent cannot work to his principal’s disadvantage; and he returns (as an agent must) to his Father-principal at the discharge of his agency. Again and again the Johannine Father-Son terminology is illumined by this agent-model; in particular, the ‘oneness’ predicated of the Father-Son relationship is convincingly (in my view) explained in terms of a functional identify of authority rather than of a personal or mystical relationship…” (Christ as Agent, found in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird), p. 241
I suspect that if one were to engage in a threefold approach (or primarily threefold), then one could probably develop a sophisticated argument in favor of an early angel Christology that wouldn’t be so easy for folks to reject. First, one could conduct a detailed study of the fine works that have shown us how the concept of agency illuminates Jesus’ relationship with his Father, his authoritative actions, and the reactions to them by his opponents. Second, one could study or study anew the various works dealing with angelomorphic Christology (e.g. Geischen’s book, which you’ve already read), and the original historical writings referenced in these works. Third, one could bring into the mix your findings supporting the proposition that the divine realm wasn’t conceived as it is today, but it had layers, and allowed divine titles and categories to be imputed to beings who weren’t God himself, but divine in some sense that was not considered inappropriate. It’s interesting to consider what possibilities might emerge if we set aside the perceived need to shore up orthodox Christology and then proceed to bring together these three primary observations to form a unified whole and rethink Christology anew in light of them, again:
a) Christ is God’s agent, and much of what has formerly been interpreted in ontological categories lies quite comfortably in functional/agent-principal categories.
b) Angelomorphic language is used of Christ, which could implicitly suggest that this is an appropriate category for interpreting his person and his work.
c) As you demonstrated in your book, the sharp line that many theologians have drawn which seed God on one side and everything else on the other does not reflect the thought categories extant at the time of Jesus.
About “b”, note what is provided on the Best Commentaries site as a description of Peter Carrell’s book “Jesus and the Angels”:
“This study is an examination of the influence of angelology on the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. In the Apocalypse, Jesus appears in glorious form reminiscent of angels in Jewish and Christian literature. Dr. Carrell asks what significance this has for the Christology of the Apocalypse. He concludes that, although he has the form and function of an angel, Jesus is clearly portrayed as divine, and that through this portrayal, the Apocalypse both upholds monotheism while providing a means for Jesus to be presented in visible, glorious form to his Church.”
So Carrell acknowledges that the language and symbolism used in Jewish writings to describe angels is used in the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ. Carrell notes that Jesus “has the form and function of an angel”, but then qualifies this by saying that “Jesus is clearly portrayed as divine” (presumably in contrast to angels). However, again, as you’ve shown in your book, the modern line between God and everything else does not perfectly reflect what was understood during the period during which the book of Revelation was written, and so even if Jesus is in fact presented as “divine” that doesn’t necessitate that he’s not an angelic being!
What do you think? I’m a layperson, so I’m sure I left out important detail that would also have to be incorporated into the project, but it may be worth undertaking, no?
~Sean Garrigan
[1] Patterns in Christian Truth, p. 20.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 31, 2014
I can’t respond to long comments/questions like this. But I will say that I’m never impressed by scholars who tell me that a particular view was “shown to be inadequate long ago.” Either engage with the issues or not, but don’t rely on the fact that a number of scholars don’t like an argument! (I’m not speaking to you, of course)
Log in to Reply  


Alethinon61  September 1, 2014
Sorry about that, Bart. I’ll try to control my verbosity in the future, and shoot for the sort of concision that would make the late William Strunk, Jr. proud:-)
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 1, 2014
Strunk and White — worth memorizing!!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Blackie  October 22, 2014
Just wondering about honourific titles. I worked for 19 years as a caretaker at a synagogue. As a tribute the rabbi, donated a leaf of their “tree of life” plaque. I was shocked to see that he called me “The Angel of Temple Shalom”. I could not belief the epithet that he conferred on me but he stated angels walk amongst us and I deserve the tribute. So many members of the congregation to my surprized agreed. At my retirement dinner many hugged me and repeated this salutation. If a lowly figure like myself gets this overblown title. Christ is way beyond my scope deserves at least this and more exemplary tribute by his followers and admirers. Not meaning to be boastful but it was a precious gift to an unworthy person.. There are so many who deserve our attention and praise and should be recognized!
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/christ-as-an-angel-in-paul-2/










Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogChrist as an Angel in Paul 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Christ as an Angel in Paul

This will be my final set of comments on the evaluation of How Jesus Became God by Larry Hurtado, on his blog.   His review consisted of a set of positive comments, of things that he appreciated (for which I’m grateful); several misreadings of my positions, in which Larry indicates that my book was asserting a view that, in fact, it was not (he corrected those after our back and forth in a subsequent post); one assertion that I was motivated by an anti-Christian agenda and wanted to convince readers that Jesus’ followers had hallucinations (I dealt with that assertion yesterday; I do not think that it is a generous reading of my discussion – especially since I explicitly stated on repeated occasions that I was *not* arguing for a non-Christian or anti-Christian view); and, well, this one point that I’ll discuss here, on which we have a genuine disagreement.   The point has to do with whether the apostle Paul understood Christ, in his pre-existent state, to have been an angelic being.   Larry devotes two paragraphs to the issue; the second one I find more problematic than the first, although I disagree with the first as well (but not as strongly):
As a final criticism, Ehrman posits that the key to Paul’s Christology is that he thought of Jesus as an (or the) angel (of God/the Lord).  That, says Ehrman, explains how Paul could ascribe “pre-existence” to Jesus, and how, as a devout Jew, he could countenance worshipping Jesus.  As the key basis for this notion, Ehrman invokes a peculiar reading of Galatians 4:14, where Paul says that in his initial visit the Galatians received him “as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.”  Ehrman insists that this is to be read as a flat appositive construction, in which “an angel of God” = “Christ Jesus.”   But this isn’t actually as compelling a claim as he thinks.  Even Gieschen (on whose work Ehrman relies here) presents this reading of the construction as only a distinct “possibility.”  And most scholars (myself included) don’t think it really works.  The grammar certainly doesn’t require it, and it seems more reasonable to take it as a kind of stair-step statement, “angel of God” and “Christ Jesus” as ascending categories.
I did indeed find Gieschen’s argument that Paul understood Jesus as an angel prior to becoming human extremely provocative and convincing.  His arguments are supported and advanced in a very interesting discussion of Susan R. Garrett in her book.  No Ordinary Angel.
When Gieschen uses the term angel, he defines it as “a spirit or heavenly being who mediates between the human and divine realms” (p. 27).  He shows that a large number of early Christians understood Jesus to be that kind of being; and he argues that the reluctance of NT scholars to see this kind of angel-Christology in our early sources is because they have been influenced by the views that later triumphed in the fourth century that insisted that Christ is much more than an angel.  That is, they are reading later views into earlier texts.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log into your membership account.  If you are not yet a member, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!!
Membership content continues:


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







My Debate on Suffering with Philosopher Richard Swinburne«
Why I (Actually) Discuss Hallucinations»


7

JUN

2014

46
  
Comments
46  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Scott F  June 7, 2014
Does the conflict here stem from the use of the term “angel” such that images of white robes and wings are conjured in the minds of readers, including scholarly ones? Jesus had a beard and sandals, not wings and a harp! I thought that this term might get in the way for some people while I was reading your book. I kind of wished that you had used a less evocative term like “pre-existent being” but that would be awkward. Was “angel” the most appropriate term you had at hand or is it possible that you were trying to make the point that modern hang-ups about angels get in the way of understanding Paul’s views?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 8, 2014
Yeah, it’s a problem — but “angel” is the word used by the ancient Christian sources, and we don’t have a better one for the being that is described, even if modern people can’t help but htink of wings and halos….
Log in to Reply  
 



gavriel  June 7, 2014
Does data-mining on a passing comment from Paul carry much weight? Should we assume that Paul never used sloppy language? May be he had no coherent ideas on the pre-incarnate Jesus and simply circulated stuff from authoritative sources, like the Philippians Hymn and the opening of Romans to show he was one of “them”?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 8, 2014
Yes, of course Paul might have been sloppy. But if you can’t base your sense of what someone means on the words that he uses, then I think you have to give up on the idea of knowing what anyone means….
Log in to Reply  


nichael  June 8, 2014
Thank you gavriel. I have to admit that this was the first question that leapt to my mind when I read this passage in the book.
I certainly appreciate the epistemological(?) issue the Dr Ehrman raises (i.e. “If we can’t trust the words he uses…”) but the question still remains, is it _always_ a valid assumption to assume that an author is always _absolutely_ precise in his use of those words. Especially in a case like this where it “just” a letter. By that I mean two things:
First, we know that even in a more formal, presumably better thought-out work, –such as a Gospel– the author, and their later editors, have repeatedly introduced inconsistencies and outright contradictions (especially when blending multiple sources). Dr Ehrman has provided many examples of this on the blog.
Second, we all have suffered the frustration of seeing half a sentence written in passing pulled out of a piece of writing and had it used to give a meaning to our views that we never intended.
The current series of articles would seem to provide an excellent example of exactly this problem. Here we have two highly trained scholars each of whom are excellent writers who are known to use language with a high degree of precision. But still, as we’ve seen, there are several examples in which specific, carefully crafted sentences and phrases have been open to misinterpretation –or, at the very least, possibly amenable to an interpretation that the original author did not mean.
Here, the difference, of course, is that the parties could communicate, virtually immediately, and clarify any such confusion over the intended meaning (even when they don’t come to agreement on a given underlying issue).
I think all wish we could ask Paul some of our questions…
Log in to Reply  



gavriel  June 9, 2014
That was my point. Since possibly sloppy wording in a passing comment does not carry much weight, we are left mostly with two contradicting creeds of possible non-Pauline origin. Since he is so confusing in his models of salvation, it is no wonder that he is equally confusing in his christology. Even his eschatology is confusing: He both anticipates the end of this world in a collective up-in-the -air scenario as well as his individual enter into heaven (Phil 1:23). To me it seems that Paul was a religious mystic , and not a systematic philosopher.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 10, 2014
I don’t find him to be confusing in his christology at all — it seems all to tie together. Not so with his eschatology!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



greenbuttonuplift  June 8, 2014
I am a very visual learner Bart – do you have any creative students that can present these fascinating insights and understandings in mind map form. even a flow chart/hierarchies would suffice. Side by side Christologies many of us could grasp the gestalt!
 Brilliant stuff. These blogs are inspiring.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 8, 2014
Interesting idea. I’ll have to think about it.
Log in to Reply  
 



Robertus  June 8, 2014
Personally, I think Paul and the Galatians are merely thinking of Paul and Jesus as a messenger of God and I see no reason to mine this phrase for more christological significance. Messengers could be either human or angelic or neither, ie, without any consideration of their specific ontological status.
But, if we assume that Paul was speaking of a heavenly messenger here, as he does most frequently elsewhere, I don’t think we should say that the idea of a staircase movement of greater intensification is less probable, at least not from a comparison with the other Pauline passages. In 1 Cor 3,1, who’s to say that Paul did not intend ‘babes’ as an intensification of being fleshly, ie, not just fleshly, but newly born flesh? Perhaps more obviously, in 2 Cor 2,17, Paul is speaking not just sincerely, but as sincerely as one speaking by means of Christ before God himself. Is that not an intensification of sincerity?
ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με, ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.
ἀλλ᾿ ὡς σαρκίνοις, ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ.
ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ κατέναντι θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν.
I’m not saying that the staircase intensification is more probable, but that this exegetical argument is weak at best. Nor am I opposed to an angel christology. I think it is a fine idea. Personally, I would find it more interesting to discuss Peter’s confession of Jesus as a righteous angel/messenger in the gospel of Thomas.
Log in to Reply  



SJB  June 8, 2014
Prof Ehrman
Is it possible that Paul’s controversies with James and Peter and the Jerusalem church might have had its origin not just in their attitude towards the conversion of gentiles but with conflicting Christologies? If you believe that Jesus was a pious Jew exalted to divine status because of his piety aren’t you going to have a much higher view of the system of belief through which he expressed his piety, i.e., Judaism, than you would if you believed that Jesus was a pre-existent divine figure who in some sense transcended that system of belief? Perhaps for James & Peter Jesus’ Jewishness would be the whole point. For Paul Jesus’ Jewishness was a bridge to get somewhere else?
thx
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 8, 2014
It’s *possible* — but as with every historical hypothesis, it needs to have some evidence behind it — and I just don’t know of any…. (Paul doesn’t say anything about their Christological differences.)
Log in to Reply  
talitakum

talitakum  June 9, 2014
Thank you for this post, which helps a lot to understand your view on the matter!
 Regarding Christological debates between Paul and Jerusalem church, there is in fact no evidence in our sources. We can’t infer by this that they were in agreement, though (this would be a typical argumentum ex silentio, usually quite slippery).
 However, might be interesting to note that James and others were killed by Jewish authorities with a “blitz”, for some unknown reasons: I assume that people weren’t put to death simply because they believed that a dead Jewish leader was the Messiah, so do you think that James’ religious faith/belief in a “divine” Jesus could be the reason for such death sentence?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 10, 2014
James apparently was — but it was for breaking Torah, not for his belief in Jesus (according to Josephus, our oldest source).
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



RonaldTaska  June 9, 2014
Sounds complicated and somewhat esoteric as do Dr. Hurtado;s other criticisms. Is he focusing on a few trees rather than the whole forest? I do think your new book is more complicated and nuanced than your other trade books and I am now in the process of reading it a second time and I have never had to do that with your other trade books. It’s not the writing. You always write clearly. It’s just a complicated, but very important subject. Hang in there! I probably would have just documented, as you do, that ancient people were a superstitious people who tended to make their leaders into gods and Christians probably did likewise making Jesus into God. End of subject.
 I do appreciate your taking the time to respond to Dr. Hurtado’s criticisms because I did not really grasp his criticisms the first time I read them. I also deeply respect your ducking a couple of his more personal attacks on you. I would not have been as kind.
Log in to Reply  



JEffler  June 9, 2014
Dr. Ehrman,
In light of the grammatical interpretation of Jesus being an angel and whatnot, what about in Romans 9:5 where Paul directly calls Jesus “God”?
“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 10, 2014
You should read my book! The grammar of the verse is hotly debated, but I do indeed think too that it calls Jesus God. God the Father *made* him God at the resurrection (Phil. 2:6-11)
Log in to Reply  


JEffler  June 10, 2014
I found your debate with Simon Gathercole on the “Unbelievable?” radio show very intriguing. I particularly enjoyed the second part because you guys dove into Pauline theology.
Now, I thought Simon Gathercole brought up some interesting points in regards to Paul in Romans 1:25 where he distinguishes between creator and created in the context of idolatry. Wouldn’t it seem contradictory of Paul to think of Jesus as a divine being held to divine status if he wasn’t divine at birth, since it would seemingly place himself into contradicting himself? I say this because in Philippians 2:6-7 Paul says that Jesus did not consider deity to be “held onto” or “grasped” as Gathercole stated. Wouldn’t that imply a previous status of divinity by lowering himself? Further, in verse 7 it says “he made himself nothing”. Doesn’t “made himself nothing” also imply that he had a previous state before actually “making himself nothing”, thereby claiming to be preexistent? I found that part of the debate very intriguing!
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 11, 2014
I give a lengthy discussion of the passage in How Jesus Became God, that you may find useful.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  June 10, 2014
Does the OT contain any of these grammatical constructs like Paul uses in this angel verse? I could have sworn there were similar style wordings in the OT where a statement is made and then repeated again with different wording. I had heard of this construct before you brought it up on the blog last year, but maybe it was just in reference to Paul’s use of it.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 11, 2014
I don’t know! The argument has to do with an author’s specific style of writing. But it would be interesting to see how other authors to it.
Log in to Reply  
 



Steefen  June 12, 2014
Paul and Justin Martyr believe Jesus Christ was an angel?
The identity of this Hebrew angel, Christ, is short on history.
What are the conditions for calling an entity an angel? We have conditions for calling a human spirit a saint (canonization).
We want to be sure Paul isn’t making something up, for him to later protest: I’m telling the truth.
Do any Gnostics call Jesus an angel?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 13, 2014
Gnostics: not that I know of. Not sure what you mean by “conditions”: it depends on how you define “angel.” And I’m not sure what you mean by short on history: I’m not arguing that, historically, Jesus really did start out as an angel.
Log in to Reply  
 



Ethereal  June 18, 2014
Good Point gmatthews- I was thinking something similar– Like a synonymous parallelism– I.e. Amos 5:24:
“But let judgment run down as waters,
 and righteousness as a mighty stream.”
Where the 2nd hemistich validates the 1st; & often ratifies the 1st through a different analogue, perspective, by illuminating another feature or dimension. Like 2 sides to the same coin maybe. Or what about in the climatic sense I.e. the way “Jacob” is often paired with “Israel”– one transcends the other.
Frequently prevalent in Numbers 23:19 for ex:
“G+d is not a man who lies, or a son of man who changes His mind. Does He speak & not act, or promise not fulfill?… He considers no disaster for Jacob; He sees no trouble for Israel… There is no magic curse against Jacob and no divination against Israel. It will now be said about Jacob and Israel, what Great Things G+d has done!'”
Log in to Reply  


Ethereal  June 18, 2014
I.e. Jacob & Israel- Same person- different position or character. Jacob wrestling with life’s struggles- the divine & man; & Israel- transcendental Princely state– when G+d prevails in him. Like Yeshua- an Angel before- transcends to G+D’s right hand?
 1 question Bart- Is this not very similar to what Jehovah’s witness have in mind when they conflate Jesus with the Arc Angel Michael- from Isaiah 63:8-9- & Daniel 12:1- (“the tzar of your people”).
Log in to Reply  
 



hwl  June 19, 2014
I started reading “How Jesus became God”.
In connection with this topic, here is an interesting article:
“Nepal’s living goddess who still has to do homework”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27885141
 Westerners from Christianized cultures who have difficulty comprehending how an ancient society could plausibly believe a living person (e.g. emperor or general or religious teacher) is divine, should look at polytheistic Asian cultures like that in Nepal and India. As with Roman culture, Hindu cultures do not maintain a sharp distinction between humanity and divinity.
Log in to Reply  



Ethereal  June 24, 2014
So these ideas are not novelties, from what you have expressed before. If you will Bart, may you distinguish the difference between Paul’s Angel Christology & Jehovah’s witness Angel Theology. Thank You!
If you will, will you distinguish the ambiguous interpretation in the Gospel of John (definite article or indefinite?): “…The word was God…” OR “…The Word was a god..” I Understand the Wisdom figure of Proverbs 8– but can ratify this grammar for me a bit?? ‘New World translation’ gets alotta criticism from conservatives, despite consistency & modest attempt at lexical fidelity. What do you feel real quick? Thank You!
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  June 24, 2014
I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the Jehovah’s witnesses to be able to say. On John 1:1, since λογος has the article it is not necessary for θεος to have as well, or so it’s usually argued by NT grammarians!
Log in to Reply  


Alethinon61  August 15, 2014
Hi Bart,
You said:
“On John 1:1, since λογος has the article it is not necessary for θεος to have as well, or so it’s usually argued by NT grammarians!”
How familiar are you with the embarrassing history vis a vis the reasons given for taking QEOS at John 1:1c as a definite noun? Your mentor, Bruce Metzger, claimed that Colwell’s rule settled the matter, yet he was mistaken, as were William Barclay, F.F. Bruce, and various others. Colwell’s rule states (paraphrasing) that definite predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite, and Metzgar and many others assumed that therefore anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite. They were mistaken, as was shown by folks like Paul Dixon and P.B. Harner in the early 70s, and as any second year student of Greek can see by simply opening a GNT and observing the many occurrences of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns that aren’t definite! Indeed, the NRSV, a later translation to which your mentor contributed, itself renders over half of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns in John with the indefinite article.
I don’t claim to know whether John meant to say “the Word was God” or “the Word was a god”, but the grammar clearly allows either rendering, even though orthodox scholars and grammarians are shy to admit as much. The biggest problem with the interpretation of this verse, IMO, is that the various assertions aren’t properly vetted. Scholars embraced the converse of Colwell’s rule for over 40 years because they thought he settled the question in the way they assumed had to be correct anyway. Sadly, when the new solution was proposed, i.e. “qualitative” count nouns, history repeated itself, as Harner’s and Dixon’s proposals were also embraced without proper vetting. Why? Dixon himself clues us in:
“The importance of this theses is clearly seen in the above example (John 1:1) where the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are at stake. For, if the Word was ‘a god,’ then by implication there are other gods of which Jesus is one. On the other hand, if QEOS is just as definite as the articular construction following the verb because, ‘the dropping of the article…is simply a matter of word order,’ then the doctrine of the Trinity is denied.’” (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John), p. 2
If you read Dixon’s thesis you’ll find that he was so driven to massage the statistics in his favor so as to rule out an indefinite rendering at John 1:1c that he managed to find only one solitary indefinite predicate noun in all of John’s gospel!!! This isn’t scholarship; it’s apologetics masquerading as grammatical analysis.
~Sean
Log in to Reply  


Alethinon61  August 16, 2014
I had said:
” Colwell’s rule states (paraphrasing) that definite predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite, and Metzgar and many others assumed that therefore anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite.”
Forgive the faux pass; I guess I need to hold off on submitting posts until I’ve slapped on some aftershave!
I meant to say:
“Colwell’s rule states (paraphrasing) that definite predicate nouns that precede the verb normally lack the article, and Metzgar and many others assumed that therefore anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite.”
~Sean Garrigan
Log in to Reply  

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 16, 2014
Thanks. That’s very interesting. Apart from Metzger’s invocation of Colwell (whom he knew personally, of course), and the (very many!) crticial commentaries on John based on the Greek text, I do not know the history of the debate. Who are Paul Dixon and P. B. Harner? I’m afraid I’ve never heard of them. Are they independent Greek grammarians, or are they defenders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses tradition? And can you give me a handful of examples of instances in which pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns are clearly definite? (Unlike traditional Christian exegetes, I don’t really have a dog in this fight)
Log in to Reply  


Alethinon61  August 16, 2014
“Thanks. That’s very interesting. Apart from Metzger’s invocation of Colwell (whom he knew personally, of course), and the (very many!) crticial commentaries on John based on the Greek text, I do not know the history of the debate.”
And to be fair to Metzger, Colwell himself thought that his rule made “the Word was God” more likely. As he puts it in his article:
“Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the article…The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. [KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS] looks much more like ‘And the Word was God’ than ‘And the Word was divine’ when viewed with reference to this rule.” (A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testiment, JBL, Vol. 52, 1933), p. 21
My problem with Metzger isn’t that he (and many others) participated in a logical blunder that began with Colwell himself; my problem is that he and others failed to scrutinize Colwell’s findings with the sort of objectivity and critical eye that one has a right to expect from those who offer themselves as authorities. It seems to me that they probably embraced Colwell’s blunder with alacrity because he told them what they were happy to hear.
“Who are Paul Dixon and P. B. Harner? I’m afraid I’ve never heard of them. Are they independent Greek grammarians, or are they defenders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses tradition?”
No, neither of them have been defenders of Jehovah’s Witnesses. P.B. Harner was Associate Professor of Religion at Heidelberg College in Ohio at one time. His most oft quoted works, at least in relation to the research I’ve done, are “The ‘I Am’ of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Johannine Usage and Thought” (Fortress Press, 1970) and “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1″ (JBL, Volume 92, No. 1, March 1973), pp. 75-87. He was a Trinitarian Christian, whereas Witnesses believe that the supreme being of the Bible, YHWH, is the Father alone.
Paul Dixon was a student of Dallas Theological Seminary, and the faculty there seem a bit obsessed with the Witnesses. (This stems from their dedication to Trinitarianism. Students and faculty are required to affirm the Trinity as the first in a series of “essentials” [see: http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/. Did you have to affirm the Trinity at Moody?). For example, Daniel Wallace offers what he considers refutation of the Witnesses’ understanding of John 1:1c and John 8:58 in his “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”. Donald Hartley from DTS entered into an extended debate with a Witness named Greg Stafford about John 1:1c, particularly as it relates to Hartley’s thesis, entitled “Criteria for Determining Qualitative Nouns With a Special View to Understanding the Colwell Construction” (M.Th thesis; Dallas Theological Seminary, 1996). Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti from DTS argue against the Witnesses’ understanding of John 1:1 in an article entitled “FROM ‘GOD’ (QEOS) TO ‘GOD’ (NOYTE): A NEW DISCUSSION AND PROPOSAL REGARDING JOHN 1:1C AND THE SAHIDIC COPTIC VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT” (JTS, Vol. 62, Pt 2, Oct 2011). This article was really motivated by a perceived need to do damage control, because Witnesses pointed out that the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c reads neunoute (literally = “was a god”). The article contains some of the most tortured reasoning I’ve ever seen in print. I’ll submit a follow-up post pointing out a few of the most glaring flaws.
Paul Dixon’s thesis (the one I mentioned previously) was written, at least in part, as a response to the indefinite rendering of QEOS John 1:1c (“a god”) that one finds in the NWT (New World Translation). We know that Dixon had the NWT in mind because he specifically addresses that version in his thesis as an example of one of the two understandings he sought to refute for theological reasons:
“There has been much confusion and disagreement over the significance of the anarthrous predicate nominative, especially as it occurs in the Gospel of John. In the appendix of the New World Translation [1950 edition] the editors argue that [QEOS] in John 1:1c is indefinite on the basis that ‘our English translators insert the indefinite article “a” before the predicate noun at John 4:19; 4:24; 6:70; 9:24, 25; 10;33, 12:6.” (ibid, p. 1)
I don’t own a copy of the 1950 edition of the NWT, so I can’t really speak to what may have appeared in the appendix. However, those who are familiar with the debate know that the Witnesses understand QEOS to be indefinite, not solely because the word is anarthrous, but also because the LOGOS is said to be “with God.” Since this particular contextual feature is precisely why Dixon felt compelled to avoid understanding QEOS at 1:1c to be definite, he can hardly complain when someone uses the same contextual feature to inform their own understanding of what John meant. Harner also objected to understanding QEOS definitely, and for the same reason but put differently, i.e. because “clause B should not be assimilated to clause A”. In other words, if the QEOS of clause c is definite, then this would make the LOGOS one and the same as the Father, which most believe (mistakenly, IMO) would necessarily result in Sabellianism.
“And can you give me a handful of examples of instances in which pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns are clearly definite? (Unlike traditional Christian exegetes, I don’t really have a dog in this fight)”
Sure. When I looked at the anarthrous predicate nouns in John’s Gospel, I found that slightly over 50% were indefinite nouns. Dixon considers them “qualitative”, but, again, his view and Harner’s have not received proper scrutiny by experts in language who are not motivated by theological commitments that compel them to secure one and only one allowable meaning. Below are the anarthrous predicate nouns that I consider indefinite, followed by those that I consider definite, though in some cases a bit tentatively. I focused on bounded (count) nouns because that’s what QEOS is. I excluded unbounded (mass/abstract) nouns from the lists.
Indefinite bounded anarthrous predicate nominatives in John:
1. John 4:19
 PROFHTHS EI SU
 a prophet you are
2. John 6:70
 DIABOLOS ESTIN
 a devil is
3. John 8:34
 DOULOS ESTIN
 a slave is
4. John 8:44
 ANQRWPOKTONOS HN
 a manslayer was
5. John 8:44
 YEUSTHS ESTIN
 a liar he is
6. John 8:48
 SAMARITHS EI SU
 a Samaritan are you
7. John 9:17
 PROFHTHS ESTIN
 a prophet he is
8. John 9:24
 hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
 a sinner is
9. John 9:25
 hAMARTWLOS ESTIN
 a sinner he is
10. John 10:1 [see footnote to John 10:1]
 KLEPTHS ESTIN
 a thief is
11. John 10:13
 MISQWTOS ESTIN
 a hired hand he is
12. John 12:6
 KLEPTHS HN
 a thief he was
13. John 18:35
 EGO IOUDAIOS EIMI
 I a Jew am
14. John 18:37a
 BASILEUS EI SU
 a king are you?
15. John 18:37b
 BASILEUS EIMI
 a king I am
Definite bounded anarthrous predicate nominatives in John:
1. John 1:49
 SU BASILEUS EI TOU ISRAHL
 You the King are of the Israel
2. John 3:29:
 NUMFIOS ESTIN
 the bridegroom is
3. John 5:10:
 SABBATON ESTIN
 the Sabbath is
4. John 5:27:
 hUIOS ANQRWPOU ESTIN
 the Son of Man he is
5. John 8:33:
 SPERMA ABRAAM ESMEN
 the seed of Abraham we are
6. John 8:37:
 SPERMA ABRAAM ESTE
 the seed of Abraham you are
7. John 8:42:
 EI O QEOS PATHR UMWN HN
 If God the Father of you was
8. John 8:54:
 QEOS HMWN ESTIN
 the God of you is
9. John 10:2:
 POIMHN ESTIN
 the shepherd is
10. John 10:36:
 hUIOS TOU QEOU EIMI
 the Son of the God I am
11. John 19:21:
 BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN EIMI
 the King of the Jews I am
Note: At John 10:1, notice that there’s no difference between how KLEPTHS (=thief) is handled, which occurs before the verb, and LHiSTHS (=robber) is handled, which occurs after the verb.
~Sean Garrigan
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 17, 2014
None of these counter examples involves what I thought Colwell’s rule did — namely *two* substantives (that could be substantivized), the anarthrous predicate and the subject with the article, connected with a form of EIMI. I thought the rule was that in that case, the definite nature of the subject was transferred over, by implication, to the predicate.
 



Alethinon61  August 16, 2014
As I promised in my previous post, here are a few examples of the flawed, even tortured reasoning offered by Brian J. Wright and Tim Ricchuiti in their JTS article, entilted “From ‘God’ (ΘΕΟΣ) to ‘God’ (ΝΟΥΤΕ): A New Discussion and Proposal Regarding John 1:1C and the Sahidic Coptic Version of the New Testament”.
To begin, the reason the Sahidic Coptic Version is potentially important vis a vis a proper understanding of John 1:1c is because it is the first language into which the NT was translated that had both a definite and an indefinite article. The Coptic of John 1:1c reads (transliterated) “Auw neunoute pe pshaje”; an interlinear rendering would be, “And was a god is the word”; and a literal English translation is, “And the word was a god”. Though the use of the indefinite article is broader in Coptic than it is in English (it even appears before mass nouns), its presence before ΝΟUΤΕ in clause c would seem to suggest that the traditional translation (“the Word was God”) is not supported by this ancient text. When Witnesses drew attention to this folks at DTS apparently felt a need to do some damage control, and so the two aforementioned authors had their “research” published in JTS.
Firstly, their approach was methodologically flawed in that they focused on the use of the article in Coptic in reference to ΝΟUΤΕ/QEOS. Their readers would have been better served if they had taken a broader approach and attempted to determine how the articles in Coptic are generally used when included in their translations of bounded nouns that originated in PNVS, SVPN, and other types of Greek clauses. I suspect that there’s a very good reason that they took such a narrow approach: Had they included other bounded nouns in their sampling then they would have reached very different results, and their apologetic would have fallen apart. The God of the Bible is the “one God, the Father” and so it is not surprising that most occurrences of QEOS refer to Him, and are typically definite.
Secondly, as I mentioned, their reasoning at times is downright tortured. Here’s one example:
“Our small sample size is itself a clue to the Copts’ use of the indefinite article, or their neglect of it altogether. Of the 25 instances of the AnNS [QEOS], the vast majority are reflected in the Sahidic Coptic version with the definite article (21/25; 84%). Of these, the vast majority are also in reference to `the God of the Bible’ (20/25; 80%). It is no exaggeration to suggest, then, that the Coptic translators were disinclined to use anything other than the definite article when translating [QEOS]. If the Coptic translators were so reluctant to use the indefinite article with [NOUTE], our question must not be `what uniformly required the translators to use the indefinite article?’ but instead `what individual circumstances required the use of a disfavoured construction?'” (p. 502)
Did you catch what their attempting to do? The “point” they seem desperate to massage from the data simply doesn’t follow. Let me restate the pertinent data:
1. “Of the 25 instances of the AnNS [QEOS], the vast majority are reflected in the Sahidic Coptic version with the definite article (21/25; 84%).”
2. “Of these, the vast majority are also in reference to the God of the Bible’ (20/25; 80%).”
Wright and Ricchuiti are actually suggesting that the Coptic use of the definite article in contexts where NOUTE is a definite noun implies that the use of the indefinite article with NOUTE should be considered a “disfavored construction”! This is ridiculous. The only valid inference that we can make from the data is the rather obvious point that the Copts wouldn’t be inclined to render definite nouns with the indefinite article. But then, who would?
Here’s another example of their apologetically sloppy thinking:
“The same category applies to John 1:1c. This qualitative/descriptive understanding makes the best sense within John’s prologue. The Copts understood John to be saying that `theWord’ has the same qualities as `the God of the Bible’. On the other hand, if one disagrees with our arguments above, the only other viable interpretations given the other usages would suggest that the Copts understood `the Word’ to be either a `god of the pagans’ (cf. Acts 28:6) or some `usurper god’ (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). Yet, this leaves one with much wider problems.” (ibid, p. 509).
Contextually, it’s literally impossible to infer that the LOGOS is either a “god of the pagans” or a “usurper god”, regardless which translation one prefers, because he is used by God the Father to create all things, and has a special place at His bosom!
This isn’t serious scholarship, but instead it’s a rather flaccid attempt to bring the Coptic of John 1:1c into harmony with orthodox Christology over against the NWT, which Wright and Ricchuiti oppose as part of their anti-“cult” apologetic. That we find this sort of thing coming from people associated with Dallas Theological Seminary is not particularly surprising. That Oxford allowed this to be published in their Journal without first requiring that the tortured reasoning be replaced with sound reasoning is unfortunate.
~Sean Garrigan
 



Alethinon61  August 18, 2014
“None of these counter examples involves what I thought Colwell’s rule did — namely *two* substantives (that could be substantivized), the anarthrous predicate and the subject with the article, connected with a form of EIMI. I thought the rule was that in that case, the definite nature of the subject was transferred over, by implication, to the predicate.”
I wasn’t sure what you meant, but then a friend suggested that you may be thinking of Sharp’s rule, which deals with situations where two nouns are joined by KAI (and) where the first noun has the article and the second does not, yet one person is in view. There are certain restrictions that apply, e.g. if one of the nouns is a proper name, then Sharp’s rule would not apply. Wallace describes this rule here:
https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule#_ftn13
Unlike the rather tortured arguments offered for understanding QEOS to be “qualitative”, Wallace’s arguments for understanding 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 to be applying the term QEOS to Christ are thoughtfully conceived and may be correct. Wallace deals with this subject in great depth in his book “Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance”, which is a first-rate piece of work. It’s available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Granville-Sharps-Canon-Its-Kin/dp/082043342X
~Sean
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 19, 2014
Sorry — in my rush I got things mixed up. But I thought Metzger invoked Sharp’s rule?
 



Alethinon61  August 18, 2014
I wanted to clarify that while I think Wallace’s work dealing with Sharp’s rule is first rate, that doesn’t mean I completely agree with him. For example, if memory serves, Wallace excludes translation Greek such as we find in the LXX, perhaps because of the exception or exceptions there (I know there’s at least one), though that wouldn’t be his stated reason. I find this move a bit arbitrary and therefore questionable. Also, I think that Eph. 5:5 is an exception to Sharp’s rule, yet it doesn’t have a proper name, but has Χριστοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ (Christ and God). I don’t recall how Wallace handles this text, but if one is to argue that this verse is an exception because Χριστοῦ functions here as quasi proper name, then I’m not sure why Σωτῆρος (savior) or Θεοῦ (God) couldn’t do so at Titus 2:13 as well.
In the end, I think that any rule that is formulated for the sole purpose of shoring up belief in Christ’s deity has to be approached with a tentative, critical eye. I question the value of such approaches because, in the end, as you so eloquently demonstrate in your book, divine names and titles could be applied to agents of God like Moses, judges, kings, angels, etc, and so what do we really establish by demonstrating that such titles were also applied to Christ? I mentioned this question on my blog (http://kazesland.blogspot.com/), where I noted that:
“…divine titles could be applied to agents of God in pretty much all forms of Jewish literature that existed at the time the New Testament was written. One often finds a strange disconnect in the writings of so many scholars and religious commentators in that while they often discuss the uncontroversial application of divine titles to agents of God in the Bible and in the literature of the period, they fail to recognize that it is precisely because Jesus is God’s agent — his living, breathing power-of-attorney — that we find divine titles applied to him. Once we recognize (a) the flexible use of such divine titles in the biblical period among monotheistic Jews, and (b) the contexts in which such applications were considered appropriate, then we come to realize something we might not have expected: Not only is it not surprising to find divine titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament, but it in light of his unique status as God’s agent par excellence, it would be downright shocking to find that such titles were not applied to him!”
~Sean
 



Alethinon61  August 20, 2014
“Sorry — in my rush I got things mixed up. But I thought Metzger invoked Sharp’s rule?”
He actually invoked both Colwell’s rule and Sharp’s rule. In his article entitled “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal” (Theology Today, 10.1, April, 1953), he invokes Colwell’s rule with respect to John 1:1c, and Sharp’s rule with respect to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1.
He invokes Colwell as follows:
“Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering ‘…and the Word was a god,’…It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists…As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, ‘…and the Word was God.’ Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadmen Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, ‘A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb…The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of the predicate as a definite noun.”
Notice Metzger’s rhetoric, i.e. “as a matter of solid fact”, “frightful mistranslation”, “necessitates the rendering, ‘…and the Word was God.'” Well, Metzger’s “solid fact” turned out to be based on a logical blunder, not a “fact” at all. Moreover, since over 50% of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nouns in John are clearly NOT definite, as the list I provided shows, Colwell’s rule isn’t even a very good fallacy. It was just a dumb mistake.
Notice also Metzger’s assertion that if Jehovah’s Witnesses take the “a god” rendering seriously, they are “polytheists”. Does that mean that the OT Jews were polytheists when they called Moses, judges, kings, and angels “God” or “gods”? Were those who translated the NT into Coptic polytheists for rendering John 1:1c “a god”? This is the strange disconnect I mentioned in my previous post, i.e. pretty much everyone whose studies these issues knows that divine titles could be applied to agents of God without resulting in polytheism, yet apply divine titles to Jesus, God’s supreme agent, and you must either be a Trinitarian or you’re a polytheist? I don’t buy it.
Moving on to Sharp’s rule, Metzger appeals to it on pages 78 and 79 as follows:
“In still another crucial verse the New World Translation has garbled the meaning of the original so as to avoid referring to Jesus Christ as God. In Titus 2:13 it reads, ‘We wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus.’ This rendering, by separating ‘the great God’ from ‘our Savior Christ Jesus,’ overlooks a principle of Greek grammar which was detected and formulated in a rule by Granville Sharp in 1798. This rule, in brief, is that when a copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, if the article precedes the first noun and is not repeated before the second noun, the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun.”
I don’t really have much of a complaint against Metzger here, except to say that his presentation is extremely one-sided. He fails to mention that some well respected, knowledgeable Trinitarians have themselves disagreed with applying Sharp’s rule to Titus 2:13, and some to 2 Peter 1:1. I don’t have a dogmatic opinion about this issue one way or the other, but I would point out that there are exceptions to Sharp’s rule, and so it’s actually an overstatement to say that “…the latter always refers to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun.” In any case, Titus 2:13 may indeed refer to Jesus as “the great god”, or it may refer to the Father as “the great god”; I can’t be certain one way or the other, and I doubt that anyone else can either, dogmatic declarations such as Metzger makes notwithstanding.
~Sean
 
 
 
 
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  July 29, 2014
Just checking various blogs before bed and I see that Larry Hurtado posted yesterday that his formal review of your book was printed in Christian Century. I’ll read it tomorrow, but just curious if you’ve noted whether or not he modified his original review based on your comments to him (or maybe you haven’t read it yet, if not he links to an online version of his review here: http://www.christiancentury.org/reviews/2014-07/lord-and-god).
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  July 29, 2014
I’m afraid I haven’t read it! I’ll obviously need to take a look.
Log in to Reply  
 



Alethinon61  August 17, 2014
I had said:
“Dixon considers them “qualitative”, but, again, his view and Harner’s have not received proper scrutiny by experts in language who are not motivated by theological commitments that compel them to secure one and only one allowable meaning.”
When I re-read this I realized that it could be misleading. I should have said this:
“Dixon considers them “qualitative”, but, again, his view and Harner’s have not received proper scrutiny by experts in language who are not motivated by theological commitments that compel them to find reasons to avoid the two most natural readings of the text, i.e. ‘the Word was God’ (definite Θεός) and ‘the Word was a god’ (indefinite Θεός).”
I’m not the only one who has observed that either a definite or an indefinite understanding are the two most natural ways of understanding the Greek in the light of the grammar used. J. Gwyn Griffiths noted essentially the same thing when he argued against rendering Θεός as “divine” (i.e. the “qualitative” proposal of the previous generation) in clause c:
“Dr. Strachan’s statement is if special interest in that it seeks to give an explicit philological foundation to the translation ‘divine.’ Greek lexicons do not generally admit an adjectival meaning for Θεός…Dr. Strachan, however, thinks that the omission of the article before Θεός gives it the force of an adjective, whereas Dr. Temple derives the same force (or a force ‘not far from adjectival’) from the predicative use of the word. It may be suggested that neither of these statements is confirmed by general usage in classical or Hellenistic Greek. Nouns which shed their articles do not thereby become adjectives; nor is it easy to see how the predicative use of a noun, in which the omission of the article is normal, tends to give the noun adjectival force….Taken by itself, the sentence καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος could admittedly bear either of two meanings: (I) ‘and the Word was (the) God’ or (2) ‘and the Word was (a) God.’ Since, however, the expression πρὸς τὸν Θεόν has occurred immediately before this clause, the natural inference is that Θεὸς now bears the same meaning and reference, the article having disappeared according to regular custom.” (The Expository Times, Vol. 62, October 1950 — September 1951), p. 315
I agree with Griffiths to the extent that there doesn’t really appear to be any reason to think that nouns that shed their articles change meaning, i.e. they don’t become “adjectival” (yesteryear’s preferred term) or “qualitative” (today’s preferred term). Nor — I would add — does there appear to be any reason to think that placing a noun before the verb changes its meaning to one of “qualitativeness”. I therefore agree that the two most natural readings are (a) “the Word was God” or (b) “the Word was a god”. Griffiths favored the former (=a) because of πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, whereas I favor the later (=b) for the same reason, and for others, e.g. the traditional rendering yields a paradox that I don’t think the author of John’s gospel could have said without experiencing congnative dissonance for himself and his readers. Historically speaking, Trinitarianism didn’t exist yet as a conceptual grid into which such a paradoxical statement could be placed to avoid cognitive dissonance, and so if his readers understood him to be saying that the LOGOS was both “God” and “with God”, then they either would have understood that Θεὸς was being used representationally, in harmony with the shaliah principle (meaning something like “the Word represented God”), or they would have required explication.
I have an interesting question for you, Bart. Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that Harner, Dixon, and others are correct in arguing that Θεὸς is “qualitative” at John 1:1c. In his JBL article, Harner asserted that “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” (ibid, p. 75). In his DTS thesis, Dixon said that “Technically, any noun which is not definite is indefinite” (ibid, p. 9). Now, in which of the following translations does Θεὸς look like a “qualitative” noun that is “technically indefinite”?
(a) The Word was God
 (b) The Word was a god
Anyone who chooses “a” gets a booby prize;-)
Log in to Reply  



Alethinon61  August 30, 2014
Good morning Bart,
I was just wondering whether you’ve contemplated someday developing your argument that Jesus was considered an angel by at least some of the early Christians more fully? As you can see from the responses you’ve received, the fact that there’s an alternative interpretation of Gal. 4:14, however questionable it’s merits may be, is a stumbling block for many, causing them to offer anything from skepticism to rejection of your view based on this text. It seems that it’s going to take more work for that part of your argument (with which I agree, though perhaps with qualifications) to win over your peers.
Perhaps the view can be further buttressed by way of a more inferential approach? I had offered this old gem on Larry Hurtado’s blog:
“The Angel-Christology, as a peculiar combination of Christologies of exaltation and pre-existence, is the key to the whole situation of Paul’s Christology and it solves every difficulty…In what way should one conceive of a heavenly being, who was indeed like God, but was subordinate to Him, who could experience an elevation of rank and also surrender it again? Such a being could only be an angelic-being.” (F. Scheidweiler, found in Novation und die Engelchristologie, in Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, Bd. 66, Heft I/II, pp. 126-139, as quoted in The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, Harper & Brothers: New York, translated and abridged by S. G. F. Brandon, M.A. , D.D.), p. 130
Hurtado responded by pointing out that Werner’s work was shown to be inadequate years ago, which is why it never gained a significant following. Well, perhaps Werner’s work was inadequate, or perhaps people were simply more satisfied with that which was offered by the opposition because that quarter offered what they were more inclined to accept. The point Hurtado offered against understanding Jesus to be an angel seems pretty weak to me:
“The claim of Werner (and the works he cited, such Scheidweller) have long ago been shown to be simplistic. They fail to reckon with the evidence that Paul (and other NT texts) in fact draw sharp distinctions between the exalted Jesus and angels, even principal-angel figures. See my own discussion in my book, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (1988; 1998).”
As I said in response to this:
Quote-Self
 To an Arian, sharp distinctions between Jesus and the angels are no more problematic than sharp distinctions between Jesus and his God and Father are to a Trinitarian. Logically speaking, Jesus could both be an angel and also superior to the angels just as many feel that he could be both God and also distinct from and subordinate to God. Presbyterian William Kinkade put it well during the Trinitarian/Unitarian debates of yesteryear when addressing the argument that Jesus couldn’t have been an angel in light of Hebrews, Ch 1. His comments are such that they can’t be abbreviated sufficiently for a blog post, but you can find them on page 155 of his “The Bible Doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit”, which can be read here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/psza6yq
 End Quote-Self
While it may be true that Werner’s work was inadequate, that doesn’t necessarily mean that his thesis was incorrect. Some of his arguments may have simply needed fuller development. John Reumann notes something close to this in an article he wrote about Werner’s work:
“The three areas of evidence examined above show how tenuous Werner’s material is in places. However, it is unfair to judge his argument on isolated passages without looking at the mass of documentation he provides; his total point of view must be considered, not just individual items. After any examination, lengthy or brief, one may agree with Turner’s earlier appraisal that Werner’s book is “brilliant, learned, and perverse.”[1] But certainly some of the suggestions presented are worthy of more attention than they have received thus far by scholars in the English-speaking world.” (Martin Werner and “Angel Christology”, The Lutheran Quarterly 8, [1956]), p. 327 and 358.
You might be interested to know (though you may already) that John Ashton, former lecturer in New Testament Studies at Wolfson College, Oxford, has also indicated that Christ was an angel “tout court”. He offers the following:
At this point I must acknowledge a debt to what is, in my opinion, one of the best but at the same time least regarded studies of John’s Gospel to have appeared in the last twenty years: Jan-Adolf Buhner’s thesis, Der Gesandte un sein Weg (1977). Buhner’s central interest is in tracing the link between the angel-motif and the prophet-motif in the tradition; and he goes so far as to say that ‘the fusion or blending (Verbingdung) of prophet and angel will prove to be the real key to answering the history-of-religions question concerning Johannine christology.’ What I wish to propose instead is that the key to any understanding of what lies behind the claim or charge of ditheism in the Gospel is what amounts to an angel christology (i)tout court(/i). This proposal, though related and indebted to the observations of other scholars, has never, to my knowledge, been put forward so directly. Shying away, for some four decades, from the rather extreme views of Martin Werner, Christian scholars have only recently begun once again to admit the importance of the ‘Christ as angel’ motif in the post-apostolic period, from the Shepherd of Hermas to Cyprian, from Justin to Origen. No one, apparently, has thought that it might shed light on the fierce christological debates in the Fourth Gospel.” (Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel), p. 75
If you’ve never read Buhner’s book, Der Gesandte un sein Weg, then, based on the glowing testimony of others, and various English renderings of parts of Buhner’s work offered by John Ashton, I would highly recommend that you consider doing so. I own a copy and would be happy to send it to you if you can’t find one locally. You just have to promise to return it when you’re done:-) You might even consider temporarily assuming the role of S.G.F. Brandon, M.A., D.D., i.e. translate Buhner’s book into English so that those of us who can’t read German can fully benefit from his insights, which were apparently significant! Indeed, if you find the principle of agency discussed in a book about the Gospel of John, you are almost sure to find Buhner’s book listed as a reference.
A. E. Harvey wrote an article in which he expresses gratitude to Buhner for shining the light on how Jesus’ relationship with God is developed in John’s Gospel in light of the agency paradigm:
“This book [ibid] is the first major study to have been devoted to the Jewish law of agency in relation to the New Testament, and in my opinion it makes a conclusive case for understanding much of the language used of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel as drawn from juridical practice. Jesus is ‘sent’ by the Father under conditions which clearly imply his authorization; the sphere of his authorized activity on behalf of his Father is clearly defined (that is, those activities, such as creation and judgement, which are peculiarly God’s sphere); his activity conforms to the maxim that ‘a man’s agent is like himself’, and also to the (lesser known) maxim that an agent cannot work to his principal’s disadvantage; and he returns (as an agent must) to his Father-principal at the discharge of his agency. Again and again the Johannine Father-Son terminology is illumined by this agent-model; in particular, the ‘oneness’ predicated of the Father-Son relationship is convincingly (in my view) explained in terms of a functional identify of authority rather than of a personal or mystical relationship…” (Christ as Agent, found in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George Bradford Caird), p. 241
I suspect that if one were to engage in a threefold approach (or primarily threefold), then one could probably develop a sophisticated argument in favor of an early angel Christology that wouldn’t be so easy for folks to reject. First, one could conduct a detailed study of the fine works that have shown us how the concept of agency illuminates Jesus’ relationship with his Father, his authoritative actions, and the reactions to them by his opponents. Second, one could study or study anew the various works dealing with angelomorphic Christology (e.g. Geischen’s book, which you’ve already read), and the original historical writings referenced in these works. Third, one could bring into the mix your findings supporting the proposition that the divine realm wasn’t conceived as it is today, but it had layers, and allowed divine titles and categories to be imputed to beings who weren’t God himself, but divine in some sense that was not considered inappropriate. It’s interesting to consider what possibilities might emerge if we set aside the perceived need to shore up orthodox Christology and then proceed to bring together these three primary observations to form a unified whole and rethink Christology anew in light of them, again:
a) Christ is God’s agent, and much of what has formerly been interpreted in ontological categories lies quite comfortably in functional/agent-principal categories.
b) Angelomorphic language is used of Christ, which could implicitly suggest that this is an appropriate category for interpreting his person and his work.
c) As you demonstrated in your book, the sharp line that many theologians have drawn which seed God on one side and everything else on the other does not reflect the thought categories extant at the time of Jesus.
About “b”, note what is provided on the Best Commentaries site as a description of Peter Carrell’s book “Jesus and the Angels”:
“This study is an examination of the influence of angelology on the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. In the Apocalypse, Jesus appears in glorious form reminiscent of angels in Jewish and Christian literature. Dr. Carrell asks what significance this has for the Christology of the Apocalypse. He concludes that, although he has the form and function of an angel, Jesus is clearly portrayed as divine, and that through this portrayal, the Apocalypse both upholds monotheism while providing a means for Jesus to be presented in visible, glorious form to his Church.”
So Carrell acknowledges that the language and symbolism used in Jewish writings to describe angels is used in the book of Revelation of Jesus Christ. Carrell notes that Jesus “has the form and function of an angel”, but then qualifies this by saying that “Jesus is clearly portrayed as divine” (presumably in contrast to angels). However, again, as you’ve shown in your book, the modern line between God and everything else does not perfectly reflect what was understood during the period during which the book of Revelation was written, and so even if Jesus is in fact presented as “divine” that doesn’t necessitate that he’s not an angelic being!
What do you think? I’m a layperson, so I’m sure I left out important detail that would also have to be incorporated into the project, but it may be worth undertaking, no?
~Sean Garrigan
[1] Patterns in Christian Truth, p. 20.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  August 31, 2014
I can’t respond to long comments/questions like this. But I will say that I’m never impressed by scholars who tell me that a particular view was “shown to be inadequate long ago.” Either engage with the issues or not, but don’t rely on the fact that a number of scholars don’t like an argument! (I’m not speaking to you, of course)
Log in to Reply  


Alethinon61  September 1, 2014
Sorry about that, Bart. I’ll try to control my verbosity in the future, and shoot for the sort of concision that would make the late William Strunk, Jr. proud:-)
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  September 1, 2014
Strunk and White — worth memorizing!!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Blackie  October 22, 2014
Just wondering about honourific titles. I worked for 19 years as a caretaker at a synagogue. As a tribute the rabbi, donated a leaf of their “tree of life” plaque. I was shocked to see that he called me “The Angel of Temple Shalom”. I could not belief the epithet that he conferred on me but he stated angels walk amongst us and I deserve the tribute. So many members of the congregation to my surprized agreed. At my retirement dinner many hugged me and repeated this salutation. If a lowly figure like myself gets this overblown title. Christ is way beyond my scope deserves at least this and more exemplary tribute by his followers and admirers. Not meaning to be boastful but it was a precious gift to an unworthy person.. There are so many who deserve our attention and praise and should be recognized!
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          
http://ehrmanblog.org/christ-as-an-angel-in-paul-2/









Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogDefending Myself 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Defending Myself

Several times a week I get emails from people who ask what it’s like to be the subject of such vitriolic attack by those who don’t agree with my views.   Or they express regret and sorrow that I am so often or viciously attacked.  Or they want me to stand up for myself and reply to my attackers.   Almost always, when I get one of these emails, I think to myself:  Am I being attacked by someone???  Huh.   *That’s* interesting.
The reality is that for the most part I’m blissfully unaware of assaults on my views (or character).  I suppose that is mainly because I don’t search around on the Internet to see who is saying what about me.   I do know that fundamentalists and lots of conservative evangelicals think that if I’m not the devil incarnate, that at least I’m one of his more academic henchmen.   And I know that the attacks by these conservative Christians pale in comparison with the attacks by the mythicists, who can’t think I’m an incarnation of Satan since they don’t believe in God, let alone Satan, but nonetheless go to great lengths to show that I’m clueless when it comes to topics like the New Testament, ancient religion, the historical (rather, the non-historical) Jesus, and so on.   I’ve always found *those* claims to be particularly … interesting.
In any event, I know all this not because I actually spend any time reading what they have to say, but because I have been in debates (either in person or on email) with a tiny number of such people (especially the evangelicals) and know they don’t like my views and, in some instances, don’t like me.  But what are you gonna do?   You can’t make everyone like you.  Or your views.  And I don’t see any reason to try.  People are who they are.  Of course fundamentalists will defend themselves by attacking me.  What else are they going to do?  If I’m right about the Bible, they are flat-out wrong about one of the most important things in their lives.
But if there are specific attacks against me floating around the Internet, I simply don’t know it.   And when I do know it, I don’t find it particularly upsetting.   At least not upsetting enough to dig into what someone else is saying about me.
I’ll give a clear instance.   I’ve had several public debates with my friend Dan Wallace, a professor of New Testament at the exceedingly conservative evangelical Dallas Theological Seminary.   In our first debate, we were supposed to be talking about whether we can be sure that we have the original wording of the New Testament, given the fact that we don’t have the original manuscripts but only copies made, in most instances, very much later, and that these copies all differ from one another in one way or another.   In the debate, I talked about this topic and gave my views about it based on my years of research.  And what did Dan do?  He actually didn’t talk very much about the topic.  What he wanted to talk about was me, about how one thing that I said at one time contradicted something that I said at some other time – he came up with lots of these – so that I couldn’t be trusted in anything that I said.
I thought that was a rather odd way to engage in a debate, since the topic was not whether Bart Ehrman was reliable but whether the manuscripts of the New Testament were.  In point of fact, I could easily defend myself against this kind of attack – a lot of what Dan has said about me over the years involves taking my comments out of context, or misrepresenting my views, or … well, there are lots of problems.  But I refuse to defend myself at any length about such things.  And why?  Because to me, they aren’t relevant to the topic.   And I have better things to do than show that Dan’s assaults on me are unfounded.
The clearest indication of the difference between Dan and me is that I would NEVER, ever read through all of the things that Dan has written, examining them down to the detail, with a fine-tooth comb, to see if something that he said in 1993 is at odds with something he said in 2004.   Why would I bother to do such a thing?  Why would I waste my time?  Who in the world cares?   If I don’t care about such things, I really don’t think others should either.
And so even though I am, in fact, pretty thin skinned, I normally simply don’t get into these kinds of arguments.
I often get asked why I don’t defend myself more often against what this that or the other person says about me.  As I’ve been indicating, the main reason is that I’m not aware of what they are saying, and am not particularly eager to find out.   Another reason is that I don’t want to take the valuable hours and minutes that I have in a day to find out.  And possibly the most important reason is this:  I think any fair-minded and reasonably intelligent human being can read whatever it is I’ve written – say, in Misquoting Jesus, or Jesus Interrupted, or Forged, or Did Jesus Exist? – and then read what someone else says who is trying to attack me.  They can then compare what I say with what the other person says.   And then – if they are really interested and not simply looking for one person to trash the other – they can figure out who seems to be right.  If someone isn’t smart enough to do that, then none of us can probably help them.  And if they aren’t willing to do it, then even more there is no help.
I don’t mind having public debates on matters of real importance.   It’s true, there are a couple of people that I refuse to share a stage with – but that’s only because they are mean-spirited, rude, and believe that mockery and scorn are academic modes of argumentation.   (I won’t name names, but one is a fundamentalist and another is a mythicist.)   But otherwise, I rather enjoy having a spirited back and forth about important topics.   And I sometimes will do that in print, when I think there is a really important issue at stake that people might be misled about (for example in my responses to Craig Evans here on the Blog a while back, when he took serious issue with my view that Jesus was probably never given a decent burial on the day of his crucifixion).  Or, OK, if there’s a particularly egregious attack on my scholarship that I get tons of emails about, I have occasionally responded (once on this Blog).  But I really don’t see the need to peruse everything on the Internet to see if I and/or my views are under attack, and then defend myself before the charges.   Life’s too short!
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Talks at the Smithsonian, March 21«
The Blog Year in Review: 2014»


11

JAN

2015

48
  
Comments
48  Comments
0  Trackbacks




toejam  January 11, 2015
I like your attitude. It’s pretty obvious who the un-named mythicist is. Curious as to who the evangelical is…
That said, I still think you should get yourself onto ‘The Thinking Atheist’ podcast to defend Jesus historicism to the atheist masses. That is probably the most well-known atheist podcast with pro production and mass listeners. But Richard Carrier and Bob Price are the only experts who are ever featured when discussing Christian Origins. And I don’t think it’s because the host is necessarily a mythicist, only that they’re the only NT historians putting their hand up to go on such shows. It just frustrates me, as an atheist who thinks there was a historical Jesus, having only these guys being the unofficial spokesmen for what is seen by everyone else as “the atheist position” on the historicity of Jesus. The ‘Skeptic Fence’ show was good, but it’s much less well known…
Log in to Reply  
SWerdal

SWerdal  January 12, 2015
Toejam: If i’m not mistaken, Bart did several appearances on the UK’s “Unbelievable” debates. But the host got Mark Goodacre to respond to Carrier’s claims recently here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EulhS8EkJk
 Mark is (i think) as respectful as he can be to Carrier’s precarious position, which even the host is not terribly sympathetic to (since he chose the ledge of his making himself- when will he come in off the ledge?). I wouldn’t want to be Dr. Carrier preparing his next book this year- not fun. btw, i think you’re right, and we are in the growing minority in the atheist camp. Many uninformed, untrained atheists would prefer to whisk it all away, as if he never existed, like that would make their conversion project that much easier. Nothing’s “easy” in this business. These are individual, personal, painful decisions, one by one by one.
Log in to Reply  
 



Judith  January 11, 2015
Dr. Ehrman,
In every debate I’ve watched, there is no way any opponent can hold his own with you. Therefore, it’s necessary for them to resort to sidetracking into off-topic incidentals that have nothing to do with the debates.
Every point you make in a debate is glaringly clear and incontestable..
I’m just glad there are still some willing to debate with you.
Judith
Log in to Reply  


Sharon  January 12, 2015
Here, Here! Well said.
Log in to Reply  
 



vinnyrac  January 11, 2015
Perhaps they hate you not for your scholarship, but simply because they can’t articulate a consistent, unassailable, scholarship of their own.
Log in to Reply  



HighlandUnitarian  January 11, 2015
Well, you can count me as one Christian who wrote nice things about you in the past week. The only reason other Christians get upset with you is that they mistakenly think that the Bible is the Word of God, even though the Bible itself tells you that there is only one Word of God: the living person of Jesus Christ.
The typical view is clearly preposterous not only because of the textual issues you expose, but because the earliest Christians would have been lucky to have had a page of an Epistle. But it didn’t matter because they had Jesus. That is the focus of our faith. If our focus is a collection of scriptures like the Bible, then our faith will surely fail as we learn more about it and the problems of how it was transmitted to us.
Christianity is in a shocking state and has been for a long time, but I very much see you not as an enemy, but as a great ally. Anyone who sheds light on the truth is an ally of Jesus because Jesus is the truth. You can’t be a disciple of Jesus if you’re not prepared to follow the truth, no matter how much you might not like it.
Log in to Reply  


webattorney  February 9, 2015
HighlandUnitarian, I agree. But I have yet to see any Christian minister say this in public.
Log in to Reply  
 



rbrtbaumgardner  January 11, 2015
Bart, thank you for the time and effort you make for us. I get a lot of enjoyment from this blog. My experience with one group of mythicists who were former religious conservatives turned atheists is they need not only that Jesus not be divine but that he not exist at all. Their strong attachment to that position makes discussing it with them unpleasant. The contents of their thoughts changed when they left their religion but not their thinking process.
Log in to Reply  



Mhamed Errifi  January 11, 2015
Hello Bart
I think you are attacked by Christian apologists is because you have exposed their lies about the bible and you also uncovered many things which church has hidden from people for centuries . Your example is mentioned in Koran
in verse 5:15 O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.
People of the Scripture are Jews and Christians . Now Christian apologists are having hard time in their debate with Muslims .If you remember your debate with James when he asked you to make remark about Koran so he can latter use it in his next debate with Muslims , but you were smart when you refused to do so . His plan was during debate if Muslim says that according to Bart NT has so many variants James was going to say Bart said the same thing about Koran . The ignorant James does not know we don’t care what layman says about Koran just you do not care what layman says about NT . Theses Christian apologists could not find version of Bart Ehrman in Muslim world to use him to support their arguments against Islam because there have never ever been scholar of Koran who left Islam. You can’t imagine what those Christian apologists are using , ex Muslim in some cases fake one who have zero credentials on Islam some do not even speak Arabic. I can show you those guys on youtube whenever I want to laugh I watch some of those videos LOL . Recently I found one online he was presented as professor of sharia law when I listened to him reading Koran from memory in Arabic in lecture he made pronunciation mistakes in almost every verse he read LOL where in hell can you find professor making that kind of errors . But Christian apologists are parading those ex layman Muslim , ex fake Muslim and fake scholar of Islam to prove that Islam is wrong and Christianity is the right religion . These poor evangelists are frustrated because they could not come up with Bart Ehrman of Islam and I think they will never succeed because all our experts live and die as Muslim
Log in to Reply  
Jonathan_So

Jonathan_So  January 12, 2015
Mhamed, To be fair, discounting an argument due to mispronunciation rather than merit of arguments put forth is a terrible approach to any debate. Islam itself does have its own nuances. for example various approaches in the Ulama; in some ways one could argue Zahiri as analogous to Christian fundamentalists, and other schools to apologists (as they argue more for analogy). Additionally, some Hadiths are shakier than others, for various reasons.
 There is an argument that Islam itself would be much more rich textually had Omar (or those under his example) not destroyed the other 5 versions of the Koran floating about. We could have as much discussion as Christianity does with apocrypha and look into the other interpretations prevalent at the time.
Anyway, point is Dr. Ehrman does know better than to comment on something he is not an expert on, (Greek, Hebrew etc. are part of his tool kit, not Arabic) particularly when debating as there is no shortage of those with adversarial positions who would either misconstrued or disingenuously used.
Log in to Reply  


Mhamed Errifi  January 15, 2015
I think if you were an expert on koran I would give thought about your comment . I am sure you know nothing about koran its history and its language . You source of information is from anti islamic websites that are ran by christian apologists who have zero credentials on islam it will be fool to take and believe their criticism about koran . here is website rzn by experts who know koranic studies
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Log in to Reply  
 



Steefen  January 24, 2015
Google: Historical Inaccuracies and Koran
 Result:
 In many places, the Qur’an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur’an has confused Jesus’ mother with Aaron’s sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur’an indicates that Mary (Christ’s mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron (chapter 19:28) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called “the wife of Imran” (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron.
Muslim scholars acknowledge what happened and they are confused and fail in their desperate attempts to justify this grave error. Their contradictory interpretations fail to help them to find a solution to this dilemma.
Does the reader believe that Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice? This is what all Muslim scholars say. Do you know that the Qur’an claims that Haman was pharaoh’s prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later? Yet the Qur’an says so. The Qur’an says that the one who picked Moses from the river was not his sister but his mother (28:6-8), and that a Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, and the golden calf was lowing (refer to chapter 20:85-88) though it is well-known that Samaria was not in existence at that time. The Samaritans came after the Babylonian exile. How could one of them have made the golden calf for the people of Israel?
Log in to Reply  


Mhamed Errifi  January 25, 2015
Your source of information is from anti islamic websites that are ran by christian apologists who have zero credentials on islam it will be fool to take and believe their criticism about koran .Bring one expert who supports these rubbish that you posted here at least we muslim are using the biggest scholar on NT Bart while you guys are using amateurs thats why christians apologist are frustrated and they are attacking Bart . do some reseach online and see how experts on koran refuted your rubbish and check this website ran by experts who know koranic studies
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Seifert  January 11, 2015
That’s so true Mr. Ehrman!
Don’t worry about the rude attackers. Do what you do best: research and teach us poor spirited folk about history. We appreciate it very much!
Log in to Reply  



timber84  January 11, 2015
Do you still have some conservative evangelical friends? You must have lost some conservative evangelical friends over the years because of your views. Did you socialize with Dan Wallace after your debate?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 12, 2015
Yes I do. And yes, Dan and I have no problem going out for a beer afterwards.
Log in to Reply  
 

Tom

Tom  January 11, 2015
Using an example from the evangelical Christians I know, many are very threatened by your research outlined in your trade books (How Jesus Became God, Misquoting Jesus, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Forgery and Counter-Forgery, etc.) and is counter-intuitive from what they have been taught in church.
 Their anger is aroused very similar to how a young man gets rejected by a girl of his dreams when asking her out on a date … and then subsequently rejected. I suspect the resultant feelings in both scenarios are very similar.
 My recommendation for you, Dr. Ehrman is focus on your audience we who acknowledge your credibility as a Bible scholar & textual critic since we take the time to subscribe to your blog, purchase your books, and continue in our personal non-scholarly research. There are many of us who respect your status as a Bible scholar and regard you as an intellectual heavyweight concerning the Bible.
 Some people just lash out and is unfortunate. Just ignore them. I hope you find inspiration in my comment.
 -Tom J
Log in to Reply  

SWerdal

SWerdal  January 11, 2015
Best to stay above the fray. FWIW there are blogger apologists like Tim O’Neill
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html
 who absolutely dismantle bloggers
http://www.raphaellataster.com/
 who do favorable book reviews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/
 for other bloggers like Dr. Carrier and Earl Dougherty. Makes sense to me that it would be a waste of your valuable time to dignify the baiting, desperate attacks of followers of imaginary controversies. Wish I could be decades younger to join your Forgery and Counter-forgery seminar, Prof- you rock- rock on!
Log in to Reply  


Tim  January 14, 2015
“… there are blogger apologists like Tim O’Neill”
Ummm, “apologist”? I’m an atheist. The only thing I’m an “apologist” for is the rational and *objective* analysis of history. I’m as harsh on Christians who distort history as I am on my fellow unbelievers. And I get mistaken for or accused of being a Christian enough thanks. I don’t need it here.
Log in to Reply  



Steefen  January 24, 2015
I looked at your first link (which I wish would have opened in another window) and left the following response:
 You’re mistaken about the Testimonium Flavianum. The two passages following it have to be addressed. See the YouTube video
“Jesus; Sam Harris, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, Jefferson Bethke, Talk Islam, Pope Francis” by YouTube subscriber WBFbySteefen.
Steefen
 author of
 The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, First Edition
Log in to Reply  
 



magpie  January 11, 2015
Amen to that!
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  January 11, 2015
Terrific post. Thanks for sharing your views about this. I welcome critical analysis of your books, as I think you do, but so often the critics skip your main points, such as there are contradictions in the Gospels and that probably means that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, and attack you personally (ad hominem attacks) thereby thinking they can dismiss your work by dismissing you as being “biased” and having an “agenda.” One blog that I read that really affected me was “Are you going to believe Ehrman or are you going to believe Jesus?” At that point, I essentially stopped most of my blog correspondence. This subject is important enough that it deserves a critical examination of crucial questions. Such an examination just shows that the examiners think that the subject is very important. That’s it…..
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 12, 2015
Reminds me of a professor at Moody Bible Institute, who used to say, “Are you going to believe me or what the Bible says — which is the same thing!”
:-)
Log in to Reply  
 



Robert  January 11, 2015
Great answer!
 It seems to me that these “mean-spirited, rude” people wouldn’t have to resort to personal attacks like this if there were any validity to their arguments.
Log in to Reply  



jbjbjbjbjb  January 11, 2015
Hi, I may be wrong but I am pretty sure this is in response to an email I sent to Bart Ehrman. This appears to be a big defense, or at least a case that Bart does not and cannot defend himself against every view contrary to his own. Fair enough! However, my email was never, ever meant to be an attack, and I think anyone interested to follow this up should check out our correspondence here to see for themselves: http://faithandscripture.blogspot.fr/2015/01/bart-ehrman-blogs-on-back-foot-to-my.html
I would also just like to comment that I think this area of textual criticism to be FASCINATING; I come at it POSITIVELY. I also do not believe there is one single human mind that can bring progress in these areas without debate and scholarly interaction, which is why I asked Bart in the first place if he had responded to Daniel Wallace’s book, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: manuscript, patristic, and apocryphal evidence.
While I apologise for offending him or perhaps appearing aggressive, which was certainly not my intention, I still think the question was legitimate, and I would welcome anyone else’s views on the point the book makes about full integration of causal factors in manuscript copying discrepancies.
I thank Bart for his highly informative and stimulating blog.
 John
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 12, 2015
No, I certainly was not responding to your email.
Log in to Reply  
 



Arlyn  January 12, 2015
I shared in a forum where you were misquoted. When calling the person on it, the answer was Bart doesn’t deserve a correction. His disdain for Bart was so great, that he would not retract the quotes even after exposing the quotes as being mined from a site where the owner and originator even identified they were his snarky products.
It seems a no holds barred battle exist (freely bearing false witness without remorse for doing so) between some defenders of the faith and those who threaten their faith.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 12, 2015
Go figure….
Log in to Reply  
 



Kabir  January 12, 2015
Hello Prof.
I really like your idea of Not wasting your time worrying about criticism after all True Scholarship is subject to critics simply for fear of getting ones conviction proved wrong.
 I have Never seen your work as a threat to the laity but rather a serious threat to the Evangelicals and the Fundamentals because it may put them out of souls to feed on. So why worry yourself about them since you don’t attack their beliefs but simply putting forward scholarly findings in a layman terms so we all can understand.
 I guess soon if they can’t beat you (which ofcos they can’t) they might have to resort to making Forgeries in your name, lol.
 Have you yet come across such forgery in your name (ofcos they do Misquote you) or has anyone here on the Blog come across such?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 13, 2015
Ha! That would be interesting to see a forgery in my name. But I’ve never seen one.
Log in to Reply  
 



qaelith2112  January 12, 2015
It sounds as if Dan Wallace mistook the debate for some kind of political campaign. It seems to be standard fare in political campaigns to hash over every single thing said by an opponent at one time that disagrees with anything else said by the same opponent at some other time — even if thing #1 was 25 years earlier and the candidate had changed his or her mind. In the political arena, though, changing one’s mind is seen as a weakness, which is a mind-boggling perspective in my view. Guessing at motives might not be an entirely reasonable thing to do, but I suppose one *possible* motive for this strategy might be awareness that one’s own position isn’t as solidly defensible as one would like.
Log in to Reply  



mjordan20149  January 12, 2015
I recently read about something called “cognitive dissonance reduction.” This terminology defines the human tendency to vigorously defend views that are demonstrably false. This “CDR” effect explains a great deal when discussing Evangelical reactions to modern scholarship. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have a lot invested in the idea that scripture is of divine origin, so instead of admitting that the bible contains errors and contradictions, people invent elaborate arguments that “refute” these facts. When the “refutations” stop working, they resort to character assassination.
I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and taught at a Bible College, and I think that I can attest that most of these institutions exist at least to some extent for the purpose of reducing cognitive dissonance. We were in church almost all day on Sunday, then we went back on Wednesday night. Why? Monday and Tuesday were hard to get through due to all the cognitive dissonance we had to deal with. Then there was Saturday!
Most of the bibles that are published these days contain elaborate explanations of the text. I’m sure that a lot of the notes are helpful comments designed to provide a context for the passages, along with devotional material; but a lot of them are designed to reduce their readers’ inevitable cognitive dissonance. I still have an old Scofield Reference Bible that I read in my Fundamentalist days-lots of bad arguments there designed to reduce that nasty ole CD!
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 13, 2015
Ah, the Scofield Reference Bible was my daily companion for years!!!
Log in to Reply  


mjordan20149  January 13, 2015
That’s where I got my a lot of my introduction to the historical critical method
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Jana  January 12, 2015
I am so relieved to read your approach .. Life IS too short! (btw: don’t check youtube either :) … I subscribe to your feed and inadvertently am shown “related” videos”. Happy New Year. I hope friends and family are healing.
Log in to Reply  

Jonathan_So

Jonathan_So  January 12, 2015
Thanks for taking time to answer that question Dr. Erhman. It is not necessarily needed to address your silence in the face of critics, but it does go a ways to refuting anyone who argues silence is indicative of defeat. Battling ignorance, confirmation bias and rationalizing in response to evidence you point to or argue is quite often a waste of time better spent (writing books and doing research! or course planning). A closed mind is hard to open if its owner wont give it a chance.
 The most you can do is call out your opponent in a debate when they start falling into fallacies such as ad hominem and that would only be to the benefit of those too young or ignorant to be familiar with fallacies, everyone else recognizes such for what it is!
Additionally, to Aryln’s reference to misquoting your Dr. Ehrman, “Haters gonna hate.”-Abraham Lincoln
Log in to Reply  


jbjbjbjbjb  January 14, 2015
Hey Jonathan, I agree with you as my comment higher up implies. At the same time, would you consider it also legit to ask a scholar if they have already responded to a book questioning their method by other scholars? While a scholar does not need to feel obligated to respond to a criticism over their methodology, they could still do is if they considered they wanted to give extra clarity, right? And asking that question would not necessarily constitute a criticism, right?
Log in to Reply  
 



reillyjj  January 13, 2015
New to the blog page and excited to be here! I’ve watched many of your debates and am about to begin How Jesus Became God. I was raised in a fundamentalist home and went to a private Christian school from K-8, my most impressionable years of my youth. My teachers would speak in tongues in the middle of a lesson. and on…and on. I hope to be able to interact with you once or twice on here, Bart. It would be an honor!
Log in to Reply  



JDTabor  January 14, 2015
I could not agree more. So many of the defensive tit-for-tat exchanges, now proliferated by the internet, seem to generate such personal nastiness and end up exposing the self-protective passions of the participants rather than shedding any light on the issues. Avid readers of such become like side-liners cheering for their champion. In the meantime the issue itself and its arguments or support goes begging.
Log in to Reply  



FrankJay71  January 16, 2015
I know you’re not a psychiatrist, but what do you think is the psychology behind the vitriol that the mythicists throw at you? I can kind of understand what motivates the fundamentalists, because they have this life and the next invested in their belief. The mythicists movement on the other hand seems so extremist and intolerant, but I can’t understand why.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 16, 2015
I think they have so much invested in a view that so many other people think is crazy that they have a real psychological need to be right, which creates a visceral reaction to someone who points out they are wrong.
Log in to Reply  
 



Mark  January 16, 2015
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Emerson said that.
Thanks for the free account. I’m a payer again. This is the best site on the Internet IMHO.
I said that.
Log in to Reply  



Lance  January 17, 2015
I heard you say in your “Freedom from Religion” speech that you choose to emphasize knowledge over belief. Having read most of your books, this blog, and heard almost every video/audio on youtube and on your . I would have to say that is exactly what you so profoundly do. I can think of a few on the fundamentalist side that were just downright disrespectful to you…. Was just watching your lecture on the King James Bible. Would be curious to see some posts on here about the differences between the many different translations of the Bible we have. What makes the NIV so different from the NRSV? Or the KJB? Or even the New World Translation? How much does the Greek to English differ? What would be some of the major biases the translators used?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 18, 2015
The differences in translation often reflect the biases of the translators. The NIV, done by a group of conservative evangelical scholars, often will remove inconsistencies from the text simply by the way it translates some verses, for example. All the modern translations differ from the King James in being based on much better manuscripts and, of course, in using modern instead of archaic English.
Log in to Reply  
 



gabilaranjeira  January 17, 2015
I appreciate all your arguments, specially that life is too short, that things should be debated in academic grounds and also, I appreciate your respect for the intelligent readers that can very well decided for themselves.
 You’re awesome.
Log in to Reply  

TracyCramer

TracyCramer  January 20, 2015
Dear Bart,
 This is a bit off topic, but I had never heard of “mythicism” until a friend who spends too much time on the internet mentioned it. Your book seems to have settled the question. But, if anyone is interested, here is another voice from academy who points out the emptiness of mythicism:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/24/4154120.htm.
Log in to Reply  



asahagian  January 21, 2015
I saw this and just had to share it with you. (Maybe you could learn it and sing it at your next debate…hahaha!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE&feature=youtu.be&list=PL81D74F609756576F
Log in to Reply  



shakespeare66  April 23, 2015
Not sure why you would want to debate a fundamentalist anyway. If I approached you when you were at Moody’s Bible School and told you that Jesus was “manufactured” over the course of time and that his real philosophy has nothing to do with Christianity, then you would have vehemently denied any such thing. So it is with those who are so entranced by their belief system of who and what Jesus was that they cannot see you as anyone other than the devil incarnate. In fact, when I approached my Jehovah Witness brother about findings of early Christianity, he eventually just said, “You’re the devil.” That is how they defend themselves against someone who they think is trying to tear down their belief system. They act like animals defending a territory and get particularly mean spirited ( certainly no Jesus like) when they do it, too. It comes with the territory of what you do. You work at trying to make people think about the right or wrong of some of these things and people get defensive. It is like having an argument with my Republican buddy who is so steeped in his ignorance about what the Left wants to do, it is impossible to have a civil conversation about politics. We avoid it. You cannot. It is just part of what you do. Now I know you have a choice as to who you can go to battle with, but a fundamentalist is a sworn enemy and will do nothing but try to tear down your character and misrepresent what you are saying or have said.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/defending-myself/













Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogDefending Myself 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Defending Myself

Several times a week I get emails from people who ask what it’s like to be the subject of such vitriolic attack by those who don’t agree with my views.   Or they express regret and sorrow that I am so often or viciously attacked.  Or they want me to stand up for myself and reply to my attackers.   Almost always, when I get one of these emails, I think to myself:  Am I being attacked by someone???  Huh.   *That’s* interesting.
The reality is that for the most part I’m blissfully unaware of assaults on my views (or character).  I suppose that is mainly because I don’t search around on the Internet to see who is saying what about me.   I do know that fundamentalists and lots of conservative evangelicals think that if I’m not the devil incarnate, that at least I’m one of his more academic henchmen.   And I know that the attacks by these conservative Christians pale in comparison with the attacks by the mythicists, who can’t think I’m an incarnation of Satan since they don’t believe in God, let alone Satan, but nonetheless go to great lengths to show that I’m clueless when it comes to topics like the New Testament, ancient religion, the historical (rather, the non-historical) Jesus, and so on.   I’ve always found *those* claims to be particularly … interesting.
In any event, I know all this not because I actually spend any time reading what they have to say, but because I have been in debates (either in person or on email) with a tiny number of such people (especially the evangelicals) and know they don’t like my views and, in some instances, don’t like me.  But what are you gonna do?   You can’t make everyone like you.  Or your views.  And I don’t see any reason to try.  People are who they are.  Of course fundamentalists will defend themselves by attacking me.  What else are they going to do?  If I’m right about the Bible, they are flat-out wrong about one of the most important things in their lives.
But if there are specific attacks against me floating around the Internet, I simply don’t know it.   And when I do know it, I don’t find it particularly upsetting.   At least not upsetting enough to dig into what someone else is saying about me.
I’ll give a clear instance.   I’ve had several public debates with my friend Dan Wallace, a professor of New Testament at the exceedingly conservative evangelical Dallas Theological Seminary.   In our first debate, we were supposed to be talking about whether we can be sure that we have the original wording of the New Testament, given the fact that we don’t have the original manuscripts but only copies made, in most instances, very much later, and that these copies all differ from one another in one way or another.   In the debate, I talked about this topic and gave my views about it based on my years of research.  And what did Dan do?  He actually didn’t talk very much about the topic.  What he wanted to talk about was me, about how one thing that I said at one time contradicted something that I said at some other time – he came up with lots of these – so that I couldn’t be trusted in anything that I said.
I thought that was a rather odd way to engage in a debate, since the topic was not whether Bart Ehrman was reliable but whether the manuscripts of the New Testament were.  In point of fact, I could easily defend myself against this kind of attack – a lot of what Dan has said about me over the years involves taking my comments out of context, or misrepresenting my views, or … well, there are lots of problems.  But I refuse to defend myself at any length about such things.  And why?  Because to me, they aren’t relevant to the topic.   And I have better things to do than show that Dan’s assaults on me are unfounded.
The clearest indication of the difference between Dan and me is that I would NEVER, ever read through all of the things that Dan has written, examining them down to the detail, with a fine-tooth comb, to see if something that he said in 1993 is at odds with something he said in 2004.   Why would I bother to do such a thing?  Why would I waste my time?  Who in the world cares?   If I don’t care about such things, I really don’t think others should either.
And so even though I am, in fact, pretty thin skinned, I normally simply don’t get into these kinds of arguments.
I often get asked why I don’t defend myself more often against what this that or the other person says about me.  As I’ve been indicating, the main reason is that I’m not aware of what they are saying, and am not particularly eager to find out.   Another reason is that I don’t want to take the valuable hours and minutes that I have in a day to find out.  And possibly the most important reason is this:  I think any fair-minded and reasonably intelligent human being can read whatever it is I’ve written – say, in Misquoting Jesus, or Jesus Interrupted, or Forged, or Did Jesus Exist? – and then read what someone else says who is trying to attack me.  They can then compare what I say with what the other person says.   And then – if they are really interested and not simply looking for one person to trash the other – they can figure out who seems to be right.  If someone isn’t smart enough to do that, then none of us can probably help them.  And if they aren’t willing to do it, then even more there is no help.
I don’t mind having public debates on matters of real importance.   It’s true, there are a couple of people that I refuse to share a stage with – but that’s only because they are mean-spirited, rude, and believe that mockery and scorn are academic modes of argumentation.   (I won’t name names, but one is a fundamentalist and another is a mythicist.)   But otherwise, I rather enjoy having a spirited back and forth about important topics.   And I sometimes will do that in print, when I think there is a really important issue at stake that people might be misled about (for example in my responses to Craig Evans here on the Blog a while back, when he took serious issue with my view that Jesus was probably never given a decent burial on the day of his crucifixion).  Or, OK, if there’s a particularly egregious attack on my scholarship that I get tons of emails about, I have occasionally responded (once on this Blog).  But I really don’t see the need to peruse everything on the Internet to see if I and/or my views are under attack, and then defend myself before the charges.   Life’s too short!
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Talks at the Smithsonian, March 21«
The Blog Year in Review: 2014»


11

JAN

2015

48
  
Comments
48  Comments
0  Trackbacks




toejam  January 11, 2015
I like your attitude. It’s pretty obvious who the un-named mythicist is. Curious as to who the evangelical is…
That said, I still think you should get yourself onto ‘The Thinking Atheist’ podcast to defend Jesus historicism to the atheist masses. That is probably the most well-known atheist podcast with pro production and mass listeners. But Richard Carrier and Bob Price are the only experts who are ever featured when discussing Christian Origins. And I don’t think it’s because the host is necessarily a mythicist, only that they’re the only NT historians putting their hand up to go on such shows. It just frustrates me, as an atheist who thinks there was a historical Jesus, having only these guys being the unofficial spokesmen for what is seen by everyone else as “the atheist position” on the historicity of Jesus. The ‘Skeptic Fence’ show was good, but it’s much less well known…
Log in to Reply  
SWerdal

SWerdal  January 12, 2015
Toejam: If i’m not mistaken, Bart did several appearances on the UK’s “Unbelievable” debates. But the host got Mark Goodacre to respond to Carrier’s claims recently here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EulhS8EkJk
 Mark is (i think) as respectful as he can be to Carrier’s precarious position, which even the host is not terribly sympathetic to (since he chose the ledge of his making himself- when will he come in off the ledge?). I wouldn’t want to be Dr. Carrier preparing his next book this year- not fun. btw, i think you’re right, and we are in the growing minority in the atheist camp. Many uninformed, untrained atheists would prefer to whisk it all away, as if he never existed, like that would make their conversion project that much easier. Nothing’s “easy” in this business. These are individual, personal, painful decisions, one by one by one.
Log in to Reply  
 



Judith  January 11, 2015
Dr. Ehrman,
In every debate I’ve watched, there is no way any opponent can hold his own with you. Therefore, it’s necessary for them to resort to sidetracking into off-topic incidentals that have nothing to do with the debates.
Every point you make in a debate is glaringly clear and incontestable..
I’m just glad there are still some willing to debate with you.
Judith
Log in to Reply  


Sharon  January 12, 2015
Here, Here! Well said.
Log in to Reply  
 



vinnyrac  January 11, 2015
Perhaps they hate you not for your scholarship, but simply because they can’t articulate a consistent, unassailable, scholarship of their own.
Log in to Reply  



HighlandUnitarian  January 11, 2015
Well, you can count me as one Christian who wrote nice things about you in the past week. The only reason other Christians get upset with you is that they mistakenly think that the Bible is the Word of God, even though the Bible itself tells you that there is only one Word of God: the living person of Jesus Christ.
The typical view is clearly preposterous not only because of the textual issues you expose, but because the earliest Christians would have been lucky to have had a page of an Epistle. But it didn’t matter because they had Jesus. That is the focus of our faith. If our focus is a collection of scriptures like the Bible, then our faith will surely fail as we learn more about it and the problems of how it was transmitted to us.
Christianity is in a shocking state and has been for a long time, but I very much see you not as an enemy, but as a great ally. Anyone who sheds light on the truth is an ally of Jesus because Jesus is the truth. You can’t be a disciple of Jesus if you’re not prepared to follow the truth, no matter how much you might not like it.
Log in to Reply  


webattorney  February 9, 2015
HighlandUnitarian, I agree. But I have yet to see any Christian minister say this in public.
Log in to Reply  
 



rbrtbaumgardner  January 11, 2015
Bart, thank you for the time and effort you make for us. I get a lot of enjoyment from this blog. My experience with one group of mythicists who were former religious conservatives turned atheists is they need not only that Jesus not be divine but that he not exist at all. Their strong attachment to that position makes discussing it with them unpleasant. The contents of their thoughts changed when they left their religion but not their thinking process.
Log in to Reply  



Mhamed Errifi  January 11, 2015
Hello Bart
I think you are attacked by Christian apologists is because you have exposed their lies about the bible and you also uncovered many things which church has hidden from people for centuries . Your example is mentioned in Koran
in verse 5:15 O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.
People of the Scripture are Jews and Christians . Now Christian apologists are having hard time in their debate with Muslims .If you remember your debate with James when he asked you to make remark about Koran so he can latter use it in his next debate with Muslims , but you were smart when you refused to do so . His plan was during debate if Muslim says that according to Bart NT has so many variants James was going to say Bart said the same thing about Koran . The ignorant James does not know we don’t care what layman says about Koran just you do not care what layman says about NT . Theses Christian apologists could not find version of Bart Ehrman in Muslim world to use him to support their arguments against Islam because there have never ever been scholar of Koran who left Islam. You can’t imagine what those Christian apologists are using , ex Muslim in some cases fake one who have zero credentials on Islam some do not even speak Arabic. I can show you those guys on youtube whenever I want to laugh I watch some of those videos LOL . Recently I found one online he was presented as professor of sharia law when I listened to him reading Koran from memory in Arabic in lecture he made pronunciation mistakes in almost every verse he read LOL where in hell can you find professor making that kind of errors . But Christian apologists are parading those ex layman Muslim , ex fake Muslim and fake scholar of Islam to prove that Islam is wrong and Christianity is the right religion . These poor evangelists are frustrated because they could not come up with Bart Ehrman of Islam and I think they will never succeed because all our experts live and die as Muslim
Log in to Reply  
Jonathan_So

Jonathan_So  January 12, 2015
Mhamed, To be fair, discounting an argument due to mispronunciation rather than merit of arguments put forth is a terrible approach to any debate. Islam itself does have its own nuances. for example various approaches in the Ulama; in some ways one could argue Zahiri as analogous to Christian fundamentalists, and other schools to apologists (as they argue more for analogy). Additionally, some Hadiths are shakier than others, for various reasons.
 There is an argument that Islam itself would be much more rich textually had Omar (or those under his example) not destroyed the other 5 versions of the Koran floating about. We could have as much discussion as Christianity does with apocrypha and look into the other interpretations prevalent at the time.
Anyway, point is Dr. Ehrman does know better than to comment on something he is not an expert on, (Greek, Hebrew etc. are part of his tool kit, not Arabic) particularly when debating as there is no shortage of those with adversarial positions who would either misconstrued or disingenuously used.
Log in to Reply  


Mhamed Errifi  January 15, 2015
I think if you were an expert on koran I would give thought about your comment . I am sure you know nothing about koran its history and its language . You source of information is from anti islamic websites that are ran by christian apologists who have zero credentials on islam it will be fool to take and believe their criticism about koran . here is website rzn by experts who know koranic studies
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Log in to Reply  
 



Steefen  January 24, 2015
Google: Historical Inaccuracies and Koran
 Result:
 In many places, the Qur’an mentions Mary as the sister of Moses and Aaron and the daughter of Imran. The Qur’an has confused Jesus’ mother with Aaron’s sister because both of them carry the same name, though there are several centuries between them. The Qur’an indicates that Mary (Christ’s mother) had a brother whose name was Aaron (chapter 19:28) and a father whose name is Imran (chapter 66:12). Their mother was called “the wife of Imran” (chapter 3:35) which eliminates any doubt that it confuses Mary, mother of Jesus, with Mary, sister of Aaron.
Muslim scholars acknowledge what happened and they are confused and fail in their desperate attempts to justify this grave error. Their contradictory interpretations fail to help them to find a solution to this dilemma.
Does the reader believe that Abraham did not offer Isaac, but Ishmael, as a sacrifice? This is what all Muslim scholars say. Do you know that the Qur’an claims that Haman was pharaoh’s prime minister even though Haman lived in Babylon one thousand years later? Yet the Qur’an says so. The Qur’an says that the one who picked Moses from the river was not his sister but his mother (28:6-8), and that a Samaritan was the one who molded the golden calf for the children of Israel and misguided them, and the golden calf was lowing (refer to chapter 20:85-88) though it is well-known that Samaria was not in existence at that time. The Samaritans came after the Babylonian exile. How could one of them have made the golden calf for the people of Israel?
Log in to Reply  


Mhamed Errifi  January 25, 2015
Your source of information is from anti islamic websites that are ran by christian apologists who have zero credentials on islam it will be fool to take and believe their criticism about koran .Bring one expert who supports these rubbish that you posted here at least we muslim are using the biggest scholar on NT Bart while you guys are using amateurs thats why christians apologist are frustrated and they are attacking Bart . do some reseach online and see how experts on koran refuted your rubbish and check this website ran by experts who know koranic studies
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Seifert  January 11, 2015
That’s so true Mr. Ehrman!
Don’t worry about the rude attackers. Do what you do best: research and teach us poor spirited folk about history. We appreciate it very much!
Log in to Reply  



timber84  January 11, 2015
Do you still have some conservative evangelical friends? You must have lost some conservative evangelical friends over the years because of your views. Did you socialize with Dan Wallace after your debate?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 12, 2015
Yes I do. And yes, Dan and I have no problem going out for a beer afterwards.
Log in to Reply  
 

Tom

Tom  January 11, 2015
Using an example from the evangelical Christians I know, many are very threatened by your research outlined in your trade books (How Jesus Became God, Misquoting Jesus, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Forgery and Counter-Forgery, etc.) and is counter-intuitive from what they have been taught in church.
 Their anger is aroused very similar to how a young man gets rejected by a girl of his dreams when asking her out on a date … and then subsequently rejected. I suspect the resultant feelings in both scenarios are very similar.
 My recommendation for you, Dr. Ehrman is focus on your audience we who acknowledge your credibility as a Bible scholar & textual critic since we take the time to subscribe to your blog, purchase your books, and continue in our personal non-scholarly research. There are many of us who respect your status as a Bible scholar and regard you as an intellectual heavyweight concerning the Bible.
 Some people just lash out and is unfortunate. Just ignore them. I hope you find inspiration in my comment.
 -Tom J
Log in to Reply  

SWerdal

SWerdal  January 11, 2015
Best to stay above the fray. FWIW there are blogger apologists like Tim O’Neill
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html
 who absolutely dismantle bloggers
http://www.raphaellataster.com/
 who do favorable book reviews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/
 for other bloggers like Dr. Carrier and Earl Dougherty. Makes sense to me that it would be a waste of your valuable time to dignify the baiting, desperate attacks of followers of imaginary controversies. Wish I could be decades younger to join your Forgery and Counter-forgery seminar, Prof- you rock- rock on!
Log in to Reply  


Tim  January 14, 2015
“… there are blogger apologists like Tim O’Neill”
Ummm, “apologist”? I’m an atheist. The only thing I’m an “apologist” for is the rational and *objective* analysis of history. I’m as harsh on Christians who distort history as I am on my fellow unbelievers. And I get mistaken for or accused of being a Christian enough thanks. I don’t need it here.
Log in to Reply  



Steefen  January 24, 2015
I looked at your first link (which I wish would have opened in another window) and left the following response:
 You’re mistaken about the Testimonium Flavianum. The two passages following it have to be addressed. See the YouTube video
“Jesus; Sam Harris, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, Jefferson Bethke, Talk Islam, Pope Francis” by YouTube subscriber WBFbySteefen.
Steefen
 author of
 The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, First Edition
Log in to Reply  
 



magpie  January 11, 2015
Amen to that!
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  January 11, 2015
Terrific post. Thanks for sharing your views about this. I welcome critical analysis of your books, as I think you do, but so often the critics skip your main points, such as there are contradictions in the Gospels and that probably means that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, and attack you personally (ad hominem attacks) thereby thinking they can dismiss your work by dismissing you as being “biased” and having an “agenda.” One blog that I read that really affected me was “Are you going to believe Ehrman or are you going to believe Jesus?” At that point, I essentially stopped most of my blog correspondence. This subject is important enough that it deserves a critical examination of crucial questions. Such an examination just shows that the examiners think that the subject is very important. That’s it…..
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 12, 2015
Reminds me of a professor at Moody Bible Institute, who used to say, “Are you going to believe me or what the Bible says — which is the same thing!”
:-)
Log in to Reply  
 



Robert  January 11, 2015
Great answer!
 It seems to me that these “mean-spirited, rude” people wouldn’t have to resort to personal attacks like this if there were any validity to their arguments.
Log in to Reply  



jbjbjbjbjb  January 11, 2015
Hi, I may be wrong but I am pretty sure this is in response to an email I sent to Bart Ehrman. This appears to be a big defense, or at least a case that Bart does not and cannot defend himself against every view contrary to his own. Fair enough! However, my email was never, ever meant to be an attack, and I think anyone interested to follow this up should check out our correspondence here to see for themselves: http://faithandscripture.blogspot.fr/2015/01/bart-ehrman-blogs-on-back-foot-to-my.html
I would also just like to comment that I think this area of textual criticism to be FASCINATING; I come at it POSITIVELY. I also do not believe there is one single human mind that can bring progress in these areas without debate and scholarly interaction, which is why I asked Bart in the first place if he had responded to Daniel Wallace’s book, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: manuscript, patristic, and apocryphal evidence.
While I apologise for offending him or perhaps appearing aggressive, which was certainly not my intention, I still think the question was legitimate, and I would welcome anyone else’s views on the point the book makes about full integration of causal factors in manuscript copying discrepancies.
I thank Bart for his highly informative and stimulating blog.
 John
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 12, 2015
No, I certainly was not responding to your email.
Log in to Reply  
 



Arlyn  January 12, 2015
I shared in a forum where you were misquoted. When calling the person on it, the answer was Bart doesn’t deserve a correction. His disdain for Bart was so great, that he would not retract the quotes even after exposing the quotes as being mined from a site where the owner and originator even identified they were his snarky products.
It seems a no holds barred battle exist (freely bearing false witness without remorse for doing so) between some defenders of the faith and those who threaten their faith.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 12, 2015
Go figure….
Log in to Reply  
 



Kabir  January 12, 2015
Hello Prof.
I really like your idea of Not wasting your time worrying about criticism after all True Scholarship is subject to critics simply for fear of getting ones conviction proved wrong.
 I have Never seen your work as a threat to the laity but rather a serious threat to the Evangelicals and the Fundamentals because it may put them out of souls to feed on. So why worry yourself about them since you don’t attack their beliefs but simply putting forward scholarly findings in a layman terms so we all can understand.
 I guess soon if they can’t beat you (which ofcos they can’t) they might have to resort to making Forgeries in your name, lol.
 Have you yet come across such forgery in your name (ofcos they do Misquote you) or has anyone here on the Blog come across such?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 13, 2015
Ha! That would be interesting to see a forgery in my name. But I’ve never seen one.
Log in to Reply  
 



qaelith2112  January 12, 2015
It sounds as if Dan Wallace mistook the debate for some kind of political campaign. It seems to be standard fare in political campaigns to hash over every single thing said by an opponent at one time that disagrees with anything else said by the same opponent at some other time — even if thing #1 was 25 years earlier and the candidate had changed his or her mind. In the political arena, though, changing one’s mind is seen as a weakness, which is a mind-boggling perspective in my view. Guessing at motives might not be an entirely reasonable thing to do, but I suppose one *possible* motive for this strategy might be awareness that one’s own position isn’t as solidly defensible as one would like.
Log in to Reply  



mjordan20149  January 12, 2015
I recently read about something called “cognitive dissonance reduction.” This terminology defines the human tendency to vigorously defend views that are demonstrably false. This “CDR” effect explains a great deal when discussing Evangelical reactions to modern scholarship. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have a lot invested in the idea that scripture is of divine origin, so instead of admitting that the bible contains errors and contradictions, people invent elaborate arguments that “refute” these facts. When the “refutations” stop working, they resort to character assassination.
I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and taught at a Bible College, and I think that I can attest that most of these institutions exist at least to some extent for the purpose of reducing cognitive dissonance. We were in church almost all day on Sunday, then we went back on Wednesday night. Why? Monday and Tuesday were hard to get through due to all the cognitive dissonance we had to deal with. Then there was Saturday!
Most of the bibles that are published these days contain elaborate explanations of the text. I’m sure that a lot of the notes are helpful comments designed to provide a context for the passages, along with devotional material; but a lot of them are designed to reduce their readers’ inevitable cognitive dissonance. I still have an old Scofield Reference Bible that I read in my Fundamentalist days-lots of bad arguments there designed to reduce that nasty ole CD!
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 13, 2015
Ah, the Scofield Reference Bible was my daily companion for years!!!
Log in to Reply  


mjordan20149  January 13, 2015
That’s where I got my a lot of my introduction to the historical critical method
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Jana  January 12, 2015
I am so relieved to read your approach .. Life IS too short! (btw: don’t check youtube either :) … I subscribe to your feed and inadvertently am shown “related” videos”. Happy New Year. I hope friends and family are healing.
Log in to Reply  

Jonathan_So

Jonathan_So  January 12, 2015
Thanks for taking time to answer that question Dr. Erhman. It is not necessarily needed to address your silence in the face of critics, but it does go a ways to refuting anyone who argues silence is indicative of defeat. Battling ignorance, confirmation bias and rationalizing in response to evidence you point to or argue is quite often a waste of time better spent (writing books and doing research! or course planning). A closed mind is hard to open if its owner wont give it a chance.
 The most you can do is call out your opponent in a debate when they start falling into fallacies such as ad hominem and that would only be to the benefit of those too young or ignorant to be familiar with fallacies, everyone else recognizes such for what it is!
Additionally, to Aryln’s reference to misquoting your Dr. Ehrman, “Haters gonna hate.”-Abraham Lincoln
Log in to Reply  


jbjbjbjbjb  January 14, 2015
Hey Jonathan, I agree with you as my comment higher up implies. At the same time, would you consider it also legit to ask a scholar if they have already responded to a book questioning their method by other scholars? While a scholar does not need to feel obligated to respond to a criticism over their methodology, they could still do is if they considered they wanted to give extra clarity, right? And asking that question would not necessarily constitute a criticism, right?
Log in to Reply  
 



reillyjj  January 13, 2015
New to the blog page and excited to be here! I’ve watched many of your debates and am about to begin How Jesus Became God. I was raised in a fundamentalist home and went to a private Christian school from K-8, my most impressionable years of my youth. My teachers would speak in tongues in the middle of a lesson. and on…and on. I hope to be able to interact with you once or twice on here, Bart. It would be an honor!
Log in to Reply  



JDTabor  January 14, 2015
I could not agree more. So many of the defensive tit-for-tat exchanges, now proliferated by the internet, seem to generate such personal nastiness and end up exposing the self-protective passions of the participants rather than shedding any light on the issues. Avid readers of such become like side-liners cheering for their champion. In the meantime the issue itself and its arguments or support goes begging.
Log in to Reply  



FrankJay71  January 16, 2015
I know you’re not a psychiatrist, but what do you think is the psychology behind the vitriol that the mythicists throw at you? I can kind of understand what motivates the fundamentalists, because they have this life and the next invested in their belief. The mythicists movement on the other hand seems so extremist and intolerant, but I can’t understand why.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 16, 2015
I think they have so much invested in a view that so many other people think is crazy that they have a real psychological need to be right, which creates a visceral reaction to someone who points out they are wrong.
Log in to Reply  
 



Mark  January 16, 2015
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Emerson said that.
Thanks for the free account. I’m a payer again. This is the best site on the Internet IMHO.
I said that.
Log in to Reply  



Lance  January 17, 2015
I heard you say in your “Freedom from Religion” speech that you choose to emphasize knowledge over belief. Having read most of your books, this blog, and heard almost every video/audio on youtube and on your . I would have to say that is exactly what you so profoundly do. I can think of a few on the fundamentalist side that were just downright disrespectful to you…. Was just watching your lecture on the King James Bible. Would be curious to see some posts on here about the differences between the many different translations of the Bible we have. What makes the NIV so different from the NRSV? Or the KJB? Or even the New World Translation? How much does the Greek to English differ? What would be some of the major biases the translators used?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 18, 2015
The differences in translation often reflect the biases of the translators. The NIV, done by a group of conservative evangelical scholars, often will remove inconsistencies from the text simply by the way it translates some verses, for example. All the modern translations differ from the King James in being based on much better manuscripts and, of course, in using modern instead of archaic English.
Log in to Reply  
 



gabilaranjeira  January 17, 2015
I appreciate all your arguments, specially that life is too short, that things should be debated in academic grounds and also, I appreciate your respect for the intelligent readers that can very well decided for themselves.
 You’re awesome.
Log in to Reply  

TracyCramer

TracyCramer  January 20, 2015
Dear Bart,
 This is a bit off topic, but I had never heard of “mythicism” until a friend who spends too much time on the internet mentioned it. Your book seems to have settled the question. But, if anyone is interested, here is another voice from academy who points out the emptiness of mythicism:
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/24/4154120.htm.
Log in to Reply  



asahagian  January 21, 2015
I saw this and just had to share it with you. (Maybe you could learn it and sing it at your next debate…hahaha!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE&feature=youtu.be&list=PL81D74F609756576F
Log in to Reply  



shakespeare66  April 23, 2015
Not sure why you would want to debate a fundamentalist anyway. If I approached you when you were at Moody’s Bible School and told you that Jesus was “manufactured” over the course of time and that his real philosophy has nothing to do with Christianity, then you would have vehemently denied any such thing. So it is with those who are so entranced by their belief system of who and what Jesus was that they cannot see you as anyone other than the devil incarnate. In fact, when I approached my Jehovah Witness brother about findings of early Christianity, he eventually just said, “You’re the devil.” That is how they defend themselves against someone who they think is trying to tear down their belief system. They act like animals defending a territory and get particularly mean spirited ( certainly no Jesus like) when they do it, too. It comes with the territory of what you do. You work at trying to make people think about the right or wrong of some of these things and people get defensive. It is like having an argument with my Republican buddy who is so steeped in his ignorance about what the Left wants to do, it is impossible to have a civil conversation about politics. We avoid it. You cannot. It is just part of what you do. Now I know you have a choice as to who you can go to battle with, but a fundamentalist is a sworn enemy and will do nothing but try to tear down your character and misrepresent what you are saying or have said.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

The Community Behind the Gospel of John
April 25, 2015

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (19) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


The Community Behind the Gospel of John
In chapter 6 of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels, after I deal with collective memory in theory, I move on to talk a...


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/defending-myself/