Ehrman is respectful, intelligent and inclusive. He has struggled with deep issues of faith himself for many years and is completely open with it within his writings. He is now an agnostic, but it is not because he believes the Bible has errors, discrepancies or contradictions, it is because of the problem of reconciling the pain and suffering in this world with an all powerful and loving God. If we are honest, we all struggle with this despite the answers that seem to work for us. He digs into this at length in his book God’s Problem which I am reading now.
Misquoting Jesus deals with exactly what the subtitle suggests. It is the best, most relevant and easily accessible read on the history of how we got the Bible that I have come across. In addition, Ehrman seems less interested in convincing you he is right and you are wrong than he is in just laying out the facts as best we know them and understand them to this point. In Jesus Interrupted, he continues dealing with the text, but takes it even further into struggling with what this all means in relation to faith and Jesus.
The problems with the text range from small discrepancies to bigger theological contradictions. In Mark 2:26 Jesus is quoted as saying “ In the days of Abiathar the high priest…” when in actuality in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 his father Ahimelech is the high priest. As expected, I ran across a long argument on-line about how to reconcile these two texts and I was left unconvinced and wandering how someone has the time to type that much. Ehrman digs into many, many discrepancies like this. A more interesting issue discussed in Jesus Interrupted is the question of what Jesus was like when he was crucified. Ehrman suggests that we cannot combine the gospel accounts into one and thus make another gospel entirely, but that we must take each one as it is from each author’s point of view. When we do this, we end up with very different stories. In Mark, Jesus makes one statement before Pilate and says nothing else. He is sentenced, mocked, his cross is carried by another man, on the cross He says, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” and then he dies with a loud cry. In Mark, Jesus is quiet and forsaken. In Luke, it is a bit different. On the way to the cross he comforts a group of women mourning and wailing for Him. While on the cross, He asks God to forgive the people for “they know not what they do” and He promises a fellow prisoner that he will be with Him in paradise. When he dies, he does not cry out as one forsaken, he , as one more in command, commits His spirit into His father’s hands. In Luke, Jesus seems in control, comforting and forgiving others. So which Jesus was it - quiet and forsaken or in control, blessing others along the way? Again, we can’t combine the stories into one making another account entirely. Ehrman talks at length about why these two accounts seem so different. You have to read the books. My short summation here is weak and incapable of capturing any part of what Ehrman does in a few hundred pages between the two writings.
For some time now I have been convinced that we do not believe in a Trinity, but more accurately a Quad-rinity. We have claimed the Bible is inerrant and infallible qualifying it to be the fourth member of the God-head. So, many of us want to make this an “either or” choice. Either the Bible is perfect as it is, or you can’t believe any of it. I don’t accept either option. I don’t believe the Bible as we have it is inerrant and infallible. Some seem to be comforted by the thought that it was in it’s original manuscripts, fine, but as Ehrman repeats, we don’t have the original manuscripts anyway. But, just because I believe the Bible that we have now is a much more human book than my heritage would like me to believe, that doesn’t mean that it is of no value –quite the opposite. Some would argue that if we accept the Bible has errors then we are left to only place value in what we pick and choose. As Ehrman purports and I concur, we do that anyway. We zero in on some points and completely act like others don’t exist no matter how much we claim to believe in the unquestionable authority of the Bible.
For me it has caused a shift to looking for the bigger picture. We have majored in the minors for so long that it has left us weak and irrelevant. We don’t argue much about love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self control. Those things are the bigger pictures in the Bible, Old and New, and in the words and actions of Jesus. This majoring in the minors has made us exclusive, narrow minded and in so many ways angry towards and untrusting of anyone else outside of our camps. The scope of what I have faith in has shrunk considerably. In turn, my faith in what is left, simply put this way of living called the way of Jesus, has collapsed into a more singular, dense, and yet simplistic force. I value the Bible, but I do not treat it as the fourth member of the God-head and no matter how much we want to take it at it’s word, I am constantly aware that we interpret every text. Even the most straight forward teaching “Love God and love your neighbor” must be interpreted. What does it mean to love God? I don’t think the answer is as complicated as we nor our churches would like to make it. I think the major themes and the bigger pictures are easy to find within scripture, even with all of its’ human influence.
11 comments:
I read Erhman's book not too long ago as well, and while some of it was a little harder to get through then other parts, I liked it overall. I never got the feeling that he had set out to shame the bible at all. I think he is doing a great service for people who claim to follow the bible; I'd venture to say that 80% of christians barley even know how the bible came about, and that I think has led to some dangerous conclusions.
To believe the bible is infallible and inerrant is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, or ever tried to believe in. Just look at the believers it produces... some of the most hateful, short-sighted, racist, mean people on the planet - ie; Fred Phelps.
It is important to spend time on those special qualities the bible does highlight, peace, patience, love, understanding etc. Talking and practicing those qualities. I think that was the core of this multi-jesus we see in the gospels.
and the trinity... well, that kind of goes along with your point of: "Some would argue that if we accept the Bible has errors then we are left to only place value in what we pick and choose." You can add, "or make up".
ricky b, (can I call you ricky b? whatever, i just did.) thanks for adding to the discussion. good stuff.
2 Timothy 3:16 - 17. Psalm 138: 2.
quoting verses that say “all scripture is God-breathed” and “exalted above all things is your name and word” does not explain away or even speak to the discrepancies and errors we have in our current Bible’s - they answer nothing being considered in this post. But, obviously you don’t want to even consider digging into the issues and facts surrounding how we got and interpret the Bibles we currently have so we really don’t have much to argue about. Just be aware that I think your comment shows you are truly uninterested in searching for truth, but rather more interested in dismissing any thought counter to your current conclusions by arrogantly quoting verses as if I haven’t heard them THOUSANDS OF TIMES before and doing so anonymously. your comment in its current form truly adds nothing to the discussion.
I don't know if you have, but, before buying Erhman's arguments hook, line and sinker, you might want to investigate the book by Bock and Wallace, "Dethroning Jesus". There scholarly qualifications are every bit as impressive as Bart's and they take many of his conclusion to task. As you also probably know, Bart studied under Bruce Metzger and considered him to be like a father. Metzger did not buy Bart's conclusions either but lived and died with the belief (and he studied just as much evidence if not more than Bart) that we may be confident that we have what the early church did. It's always good to see the other side of the coin as it pertains to serious issues like this. Peace.
If the scriptures are man-made forgeries, how can we know if anything Christ said was true or whether He said anything at all about what man must do to be saved? After all, according to Ehrman, we cannot truly know Jesus. By what standard, then, will man be judged and how can we know what it is if the scriptures are not reliable? (See John 12:48 – 50) Your position results in a logical fallacy and claiming to be a Christian while adhering to it exemplifies your hypocrisy. Happy Thanksgiving.
@ bill. I never claimed to buy Erhman’s arguments hook line and sinker and I am undoubtedly open to considering “both sides of the coin.” I am not sure why you made such condescending statements. Nevertheless, I appreciate your other comments and the book recommendation. I will check it out. Obviously this was a short blog and I by no means have the space to be comprehensive. I did put forth some of Ehrman’s arguments to be considered but I did not claim to agree with all of his assertions in all of his writings. Although it would be foolish to dismiss them all categorically. My bigger point really is to my heritage. We often use the claim that the Bible is without error to back up our very fallible conclusions on instrumental worship, women participating in our gatherings and so on. While I, like Metzger believe so much of the scripture is reliable, I also, like Metzger too, do not believe it is without error as we have it now. In addition, Metzger would probably see some fault in some of my heritage’s conclusions and interpretations as well although that is an assumption. But, I digress. I do stand behind what I wrote in this post. Peace to you as well.
@anonymous is this hildreth? Whomever you are, I admit that signing your name may make no difference unless I know you personally. Regardless, I never claimed that the entirety of the scriptures are man-made forgeries and, while I see a lot of validity in many of Erhman’s conclusions, I do not think exactly as he does. I do not believe it has to be an either/or judgment - Either they are without error and completely reliable or they are with error and completely unreliable…I reject that choice and your assertions that it is a “logical fallacy”. What I mostly reject is my heritages’ claim that the Bible is without error and thus the use of this assertion to back up ridiculous claims about instrumental music, women participating in worship and other conclusions that I find extremely fallible. But my bigger issue is with your judgment upon me as a hypocrite. The arrogance in your conclusion that I cannot be a Christian because I do not think the way you think is unbelievable yet typical and it clearly describes your theology. In addition your wish of Happy Thanksgiving is patronizing and completely uncalled for. Unless you are willing to sign your name and stick to arguing issues as opposed to attacking me as fellow follower of Christ, I will be left with no choice but to delete and ignore future attacks because I have more important things to do like sleep and watch ufc.
Brother Michael, I did not say you had bought Ehrman's arguments, I said, "before" you do you might want to read the book I suggested. I did not mean to come across condescending at all. I am passionate about Scripture so if I came across that way I apologize. However, if I believed that Bart was right (and I do not believe he is) I would embrace agnosticism (as he has) or outright atheism. If the Bible isn't true then how can I know if anything about Jesus is? Bart and others like him have done more to cast doubt not only on Scripture but Jesus as well as anybody. If the Bible is true, and If Jesus is the Son of God I would not want to be in their shoes on Judgment Day. Peace.
Bill, thanks for the comment and no offense is taken. Ehrman is not an agnostic because of textual criticism. He is an agnostic because of the problem of pain and suffering. He explains this in his book Jesus Interrupted along with the fact that he believes one can be honest about the facts surrounding the current text we have as many of his colleagues are and indeed still have faith (including his own wife and Metzger). From my perspective, I don’t see him as trying to annihilate faith in Jesus and Bible as much as he is trying to put forth widely accepted facts that many church members never hear that should inform our faith and not necessarily kill it. But, I completely understand that Ehrman may take his conclusions much further than you are comfortable with and I respect that. Actually reading Erhman has strengthened my faith which had been damaged more by my heritage and its ‘continued missing of the point. But, that is a whole other discussion. Thanks for your graciousness and thoughts.
Yes, this is hildreth. I did not intend on being deceptive in not mentioning my identity. I only thought it unnecessary to commence a rivalry between us by adding my name to the comment. I am very disturbed by the views you have espoused here on your blog and I wonder how an eldership can employ you to work with kids while you hold to these outrageous teachings. Anyhow, I really do hope that you had a good Thanksgiving.
hahahahaha...I knew it. I smelled your disdainful and contentious theology thousands of miles away. Thanks for being concerned hildreth, but no one asked you to be. Again, no one asked you to be. Plus, we have been through this all once before, remember? That’s rhetorical so don’t answer. As I said in my last e-mail to you this is not because I am unwilling to argue points, it is because you cannot refrain from personal attacks as you repeatedly demonstrated again here. But, I have already told you that months ago. So I will repeat myself. Please don’t e-mail me and please do not comment further on my blog. It is fruitless for us both.
Post a Comment