I’ll admit it – one of the people I "fear" the most is Bart Ehrman, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC-CH. Why? Because he is smarter than me. Well, not just that. He’s also been educated at some of the best evangelical institutions in the U.S. (Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College). But what’s scariest is, with all of his devotion and bible knowledge, he is an evangelical turned agnostic. What?!? How could that happen?
Well, he studied the New Testament texts, and found his faith in
them wanting. And he’s not quiet on it either. He’s written a slew of
books on the topic, and today, was interviewed on Fresh Air pimping his new book, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend.
But despite his fearsome reputation, I found him smart, not anti-faith,
and even a bit faith affirming. The interview is well worth the
listen.
RELATED POSTS:
I think that Ehrman seeks to accomplish a simple task, which is simply to get those who are hardcore “Everything in the Bible is RIGHT!” people to question their beliefs. I don’t think he asks anybody to abandon Christianity, but rather to think deeply about what is being said.
Whereas I just brush it off the table as complete and utter lunacy.
Back in the '97 I read _The Historical Figure of Jesus_ by E.P. Sanders. He was my Bart Ehrman at the time. That summer was the one I stopped going to church. Maybe it didn't have to turn out that way.
The truth is I went looking for a book like that for a simple reason: I had already felt my faith was gone but my mind's wiring was still "Christianized", holding explanations of things I had internalized from preaching and reading but that I had not replaced with non-Christian explanations. That's not necessarily bad, but to lose one thing means you naturally want to replace it with something else.
So, I wanted to read how a historian would view Jesus based on the historical evidence available. Not Josh MacDowell, a Christian apologist, but one that didn't have a prior commitment to faith, necessarily. I needed to be able to imagine a Jesus who was not divine, otherwise I would be in limbo between belief and non-belief. I guess I wanted one or the other.
What books like Ehrman's and Sander's do is allow someone to see things from person's perspective that does not feel tingly or reverent of the New Testament the same way that you (and still I) might. My analogies are that they allow one to see the New Testament as a non-LDS might view the Book of Mormon's "revelations" or as a Christian might view the "revelations" of the prophet in the Koran.
Since believers usually hold their own beliefs tightly, they cannot understand how others of another religious persuasion can. These books are a way to get out of your own mind's eye and look at the world and the evidence differently.
Though one may fear where that road may lead, it is unfair and unreasonable to expect non-Christians to be willing to go down that road and become Christians, when Christians are not willing to travel down that road themselves.
Plus, what if some textual critics are right, and the New Testament was fabricated to an extent that made Jesus the prophet into a divine being that he never believed himself to be? That's a possibility I want to know about, since I don't like being misled, especially by Greek-speaking authors 2000 years ago I never met.
Tom, those are all excellent points. Myself, I left xianity for 10 years, then returned with a different, more educated faith. Losing one's faith is a tough ordeal, and you do have to painfully let go of all you hold as true so that you can take it back with integrity and true belief – and what you take to be true after such a letting go may be much different from what you had.
I went off and explored Buddhism and yoga, both of which have benefitted me greatly. However, I found them lacking, mostly in intellectual explanations of reality and solutions for mankind. And the historical evidence supporting much of the NT is impressive. And lastly, I found the words of Jesus (if they are his words, or just summaries, or whatever) to be more compelling than any other I have read. And the apostle Paul seems to be no slouch either, though perhaps not of the same caliber.
some people just need religion or they cannot make it through life. when they leave one, then they think they need another and return to the one they are most comfortable with. many other stories can unfold as well. to a believer it is true.
for me, i was a christian and then like some, found it to be a lie, thanks to people that show us the truth. no more threat of hell fire or rewards of heaven, just free to think and be as we are.
sometimes people believe as they are raised to believe, other are fearful of the result if they do not, other need it and other just prefer logic.
i personally prefer logic and my life has been much better since that decision. i look to myself, my friends and loved ones if i feel i need to talk to someone and do not need some friend i cannot see.
to each their own
I love reading Ehrman, and am impressed with his credentials. I know that what he writes is based in truth.
However, I've never heard him speak of a revelatory experience, so his agnosticism doesn't surprise me.
His writings have pushed me deeper into my faith.