Comments on: Who’s Afraid of Bart Ehrman?

By: nonoy lopez

nonoy lopez — Sat, 02 May 2009 12:29:04 +0000

After all the buzz let’s face the question, who’s afraid of Bart Ehrman? The answer is simple: James Snapp, Jr. and other fanatically minded so called “Christians”?

By: Suzi B

Suzi B — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:05:09 +0000

On a fairly recent NPR program, a Biblical Scholar from a Judaic background (whose name I unfortunately do not recall at this point in time)explained that The Ten Commandments actually meant “The Ten Words” in Hebrew, and that they were not especially elevated above other laws the ancient Hebrews were required to keep. This may seem “trivial” to some, but that is subjective. I am a Christian. To me, such discussions are a breath of fresh air, and I wish churches had more insights given from the Judaic perspective from with the OT came.

I personally wish more churches DID study books by scholars AT ALL than another flavor of the month God Loves You book. Can we look from the perspective of language, of culture, of archaeology rather than a well-marketed scriptural rehash?

I respect Bart Ehrman tremendously for having the courage to tell his faith journey story and risk being attacked for where his faith is now by those who see it differently. He did not, evidently, reach his current conclusions haphazardly as seems to be suggested. We can’t know from the outside how traumatic the shifting of his beliefs was for him. It doesn’t mean he’s not a careful scholar.

Maybe in some cases reading books such as his might make the traditional views stronger, but we have to be willing to look.

By: SkipChurch

SkipChurch — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:16:35 +0000

A minor correction to the top post. Prof Ehrman attended Princeton Theological Seminary, not Princeton University. Same town, different institutions.

As a non-Christian who benefited from 12 years of education in church schools, with daily chapel, and Sacred Studies as a regular required course, I have found Bart Ehrman to be an accessible and engaging writer and lecturer. Let me say from the outset that in all the hundreds of hours spent in religion classes I never heard a thing to make me think any of the supernatural aspects of The Story were true. Yet I must say, I was fascinated by the whole business of Christian belief and doctrine, and often found that my teachers (fresh from seminary in many cases) knew things that the ordinary pew-sitters apparently did not.

In fact, I came to the view that the seminarians knew more than was probably good for the pew-sitters to learn. And that was exciting! The forbidden fruit of knowledge!

Prof Ehrman captures that spirit very well.

More atheists come out of seminary than ever went in, and for good reason.

It seems to me that one part of the Christian community is engaged in a kind of Wizard of Oz “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” game regarding scholarship. Deny, deny— maybe it’ll all go away. Well, maybe it will and maybe it won’t. I’ve had many wonderful religion teachers, mostly ordained, and they were prepared to listen to serious arguments and judge a case on its merits. That is worthy of respect. Some of the apologetics I’ve read– well, just pitiful. I’ll say no more. Anyway, real scholarly controversy is such fun! I sure wish Morton Smith were alive to see this upwelling of interest…then we’d see some real fireworks!

I’m no great expert on Bart Ehrman’s qualifications or achievements as a scholar compared to others in the field. But I do have the Loeb Classical Library edition in two volumes of “The Apostolic Fathers” which he edited and translated, and also the 2005 4th edition of “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration” which he updated with his old PTS mentor Bruce M. Metzger– and neither of these is likely to reach the best seller list.

By: justholco

justholco — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:58:02 +0000

Pandhandle,

I wish I’d seen your post earlier (I was in Sudan in May and parts of June. I noticed that you mentioned my edited volume (Christian Theologies of Scripture”) in your description of your journey that doesn’t found faith on inerrancy. Can you say more about that point? I’d like hear more of what you are thinking and how the book plays into that.

Justin

By: rkm

rkm — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:01:11 +0000

Greeting Michael,
I have to say that I really enjoyed and agree with much of what you have said about Professor Ehrman! I started to listen to his lectures since 2002 and own almost all of his Teaching Company lectures. I simply cannot get enough.
He has admitted to being an agnostic but I don’t think that makes him a non-christian. Not by definition at least. It is my guess that he may prefer a “Lost” Christianity, but as a religious historian , I suspect that he would regret writing in a “Eusebian” way. I think that many of his readers enjoy his un-biased history telling. My next read will be Peter, Paul & Mary Magdalene.
Regards,

By: irenicum

irenicum — Mon, 29 May 2006 16:58:30 +0000

Thanks for this post Michael. My store carries his first two books on the Lost…, and we’ve found them quite valuable. But I’ll have to admit that I was not aware that had left the fold, so to speak until I came across his Misquoting Jesus book in another store. When I glanced at it, it made me re-evaluate his other works. I still think they’re valuable, but I recommend them cautiously to my customers, warning them of his drift to unorthodoxy and now unbelief. BTW, I appreciate your mention of Howard Zinn. I agree that his politics is quite radical, and in many ways fundamentally flawed. Yet he offers a much needed critique of American history that betrays our perpetual “innocence”. Have you read Richard Hughes’ “The Myths Americans Live By”? I just finished it this weekend and highly recommend it. He does come from a somewhat social gospelly perspective, so filter the work in that light. But he, like Zinn, helps to lay waste our collective amnesia over the American dream.

By: panhandle

panhandle — Thu, 25 May 2006 23:00:33 +0000

“…his assimilation into an evangelicalism that evangelized from a manipulative position of selling peace of mind to teenagers and then putting the faith’s existence on the foundation of the theory of textual inerrancy”

Michael, this is a subject that I think needs more discussion. I’m just recently on the road to leaving those things behind as the foundation of my faith (currently reading “Christian Theologies of Scripture” by Justin Holcomb) and would appreciate it if you could perhaps spend a whole post on that journey.

By: kawika37

kawika37 — Thu, 25 May 2006 19:42:25 +0000

“As head of the religion department at North Carolina State University, Ehrman has the credentials and the communication skill to be a “media-friendly” communicator.”

I believe this is incorrect. UNC not NCSU. Many folks in North Carolina feel strongly about this distinction.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/Ehrman1.html

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Thu, 25 May 2006 15:53:22 +0000

>But “everyone has always agreed with what we believe”??? That’s preposterous, Michael; it’s preposterous to claim that any Christian historians have claimed that.

i.e. all true Christians believe what our church believes and it has always been that way.

If you haven’t encountered that one, let me give you some web sites to visit. Google Southern Baptist Landmarkism

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Thu, 25 May 2006 15:43:05 +0000

Thanks for reposting James. My apologies for losing the post.