An Early Review of Bart Ehrmans New Book
Stanley Fish gives us an early glimpse at Bart Ehrmans soon to be published book, God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer. Ehrman is quoted as saying: “I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the fact of life . . . I came to the point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge.” “The problem of suffering became for me the problem of faith.” “If God tortures, maims and murders people just to see how they will react – to see if they will not blame him (as in Job's case), when in fact he is to blame – then this does not seem to me to be a God worthy of worship.” “If he could do miracles for his people throughout the Bible, where is he today when your son is killed in a car accident, or your husband gets multiple sclerosis? . . . I just don’t see anything redemptive when Ethiopian babies die of malnutrition.”
22 comments:
Fish also reviews the book written in Antony Flew's name, and mentions the controversy. It seems as though that book will forever be tarnished, and for good reason.
You know that the first criticsm of this book will be that Ehrman, a biblical scholar, is stepping out side of his area of expertise to discourse on morality, so he therefore should be dismissed.
If a biblical scholar can't talk about biblical morality, who can?
And of course, if all those pious republicans in Congress can do it, why not Ehrman? I'd listen to him long before I'd listen to the likes of Huckabee, Vitter and Santorum.
I am glad that Ehrman is coming out with this.
A lot of people did not realize what agenda he was working from; his textual analysis is clearly not the result of an objective approach...as many atheists have tried to tell me...but driven by an agenda and conclusion he came up long before his "research".
Dear Slanderew:
Were your claim to be true, this would simply put Ehrman on an even footing with most Christian commentators on the Bible, whose 'research' is devoted to proving what they already 'know' is true.
Perhaps Ehrman did this, though I doubt it, but his statement quoted here is undated, and more likely is the conclusion his research drove him to, rather than a conclusion that drove his research.
I realize your type of theistic mentality -- judging from your comments here -- might make it difficult to imagine that people actually act this way, but I assure you, they do. Look up the Michaelson-Morley experiments for an example of people who conducted research with an 'objective approach' but who expected the results to confirm the 'obvious.' But when the results came in, they entirely changed their initial assumption because the data forced them to.
In fact, you idiot, THAT is what 'an objective approach' MEANS!
(Sorry, John, for not treating a visitor with respect, but in Andrew's case...)
Hey, pup, ERRman came to these conclusions years ago, and the truth about that will soon come out.
But, you have already admitted that he may have done it, so I am satisfied with that.
And by the way, I agree with John that Flew's book is forever tarnished.
The atheists successfully Swift Boated him...and now the same is going to happen to ERRman.
Andrew, having read "Misquoting Jesus" I see no reason to doubt Ehrman's story about his former faith. Like many people, the more he read of the Bible, the more he understood the history of the Bible, the more he questioned the basis for religion. Eventually he came to the understanding it was all human-invented.
Of course that is a disturbing conclusion for theists to deal with, that someone who truly believed at one time investigated religion and ultimately, generally very reluctantly, rejected it. That, however, is the truth.
If you simply want to maintain your faith, why hang around on sites like DC? It's bound to erode your faith over time.
Not really. I find the self referential posturings here amusing and remarkably weak for supposedly well educated people.
But why do you care? As John concludes in his book, everything came by chance..."from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.
Of course his conclusion is irrational, as it does not follow from what he presented in his book, and goes beyond anything science is capable of.
Now, if he had said he just doesn't know, that might be different, but he specifically asserted a conclusion.
I emphasize asserted.
And Errman's book is "Misquoting" is extremely misleading, and he KNOWS it. It was willful; he distorts the calculation of manuscript errors, and concludes that "1500" years of copying have left us uncertain.
Balderdash. The most recent translations are taking from the best...and the oldest is not necessarly the best if you understand textual criticism...manucripts and it has not been copy upon copy upon copy for over 1500 years as one student tried to tell me.
He knows good and well that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is the best from the ancient world.
No, his motives are elsewhere...as are John's. John has clearly stated that even if he were to admit that Christianity is true, he would not follow it.
And he has also said elsewhere that he wants to "poison" (his word) other peoples belief...and this despite his conclusion that everything came "from nothing, by nothing, for nothing".
One might ask, why bother, but it should be evident by now who he is working for.
I'll put Ehrman's scholarship up against yours any day of the week, andrew (and twice on Sunday). He is the department chair at an internationally-prominent university who is credited with exceptional contributions to textual criticism amongst his peers; you are an anonymous commenter on a message board who would do anything for Jeebus.
Back when Antony Flew was an active philosopher, he had your kind nailed down exactly. In "Theology and Falsification", he pointed out quite clearly that your kind are more than happy to layer post hoc justifications one atop another until they have built an impenetrable edifice that no evidence can penetrate.
As an example; a man makes a life's work of studying the Bible, coming to the conclusion that the scriptures cannot be used as a foundation for religious belief due to their known erroneous nature. You see this evidence and come to the obvious post hoc conclusion; Ehrman clearly went to Moody Bible Institute and Princeton Theological Seminary (and indeed, his early days in the Evangelical movement as a teenager) in a devious attempt to gain credibility when he revealed his secretly held atheism (which he still to this day denies as an agnostic, being devious as all atheists are).
Ehrman has been looking at Ethiopian babies dying of malnutrition and asking himself 'What would Jesus do?'
And coming to the conclusion that there is no God called Jesus, otherwise Jesus would do something.
Ehrman will be claiming there is no Mr. Incredible next, just because we have no evidence of Incredible rescues.
Shygetz, you are OBVIOUSLY Bart Ehrman himself and you already came to the conclusion that atheism is true, so you are writing a book on it and. . .oh wait. What's wrong with any of this? Being Bart Ehrman would be a compliment (although in reality, from what argumentation you've given, I like you better!), coming to the conclusion that atheism is true and then writing a book on it is not a bad thing, and pointing out how the Bible is clearly a broken piece of fiction . . .well, that's kinda pointing out the obvious I guess, so that's not good. But so many people believe it, so why not?
OK, my rambling is done. Shy, once again, you win the brilliancy prize for this tournament.
Shy: You missed what Andrew was saying.
About Ehrman "No, his motives are elsewhere...as are John's"
and about John "but it should be evident by now who he is working for."
Don't you get it? He's accusing them of being 'in league with the devil.' Or the Antichrist. Or something.
Ain't paranoia FUN?
It seems to me Ehrman makes it pretty clear the sequence of events:
1. He tried to "harmonize" "apparent" Biblical contradictions.
2. He found that problematic.
3. He realized the whole problem just went away if you quit assuming the text to be inerrant.
4. He thought, "What the hell?..."
------
Andrew-"He knows good and well that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is the best from the ancient world."
Irrelevant. Even if that vague claim could be construed as true. Saying its better than all the rest has nothing to do with how historically -- much less theologically -- accurate it itself is.
You mentioned certainty. Ehrmans whole, brilliant project is to educate the general public about the historic method -- i.e., the use of evidence to construct theories about history. That is more or less by definition an inductive process. Do you really wish to assert an inductively based argument can give us certainty about the NT or any other text?
As they say, close doesnt count except in horse shoes and hand grenades. This is your eternal soul were talking about.
Shygetz, your appeal to authority is dismissed.
And to reiterate, I agree with John's first post that Flew's book is forever tarnished.
He was "Swift Boated" before he even got clear of the dock.
And now we are going to do the same to ERRman. This book makes his motives clear, and that he has an agenda which drives his research. He professes atheism not because of supposed scriptural inadequacies as he sees them...and even this he misrepresents, as for example in the calculation of manucript errors where is he willfully misleading...but for other reasons.
From a strategic point of view this book is a mistake.
You have already lost this one.
At least Ehrmnan's book was written by him and discusses what he thinks.
Flew's book was written by an evangelical pastort, and hardly touches upom deism.
It is a scandal as great as Salvador Dali signing blank canvases.
You have to admire Ehrman's sheer sneakiness in going to Moody College to pursuse his atheistic agenda.
He fooled them all.
Andrew, I see you're on fairly good behavior here so I've allowed your comments. But you've simply got to realize that the process of deconversion begins once there is a crack in the wall of defense. The crack for Ehrman was the problem of texual criticism, as he said. Then other problems like the problem of evil crept in to destroy his faith.
Consider deconversion a progressive thing. First inerrancy went for him, then other things began to be problematic also, things which he may never have mentioned yet at all. Finally the problem of evil sent him away from the faith entirely.
I think you have a strong tendency to look for intergrity problems in the atheist/agnostic, as if they are not being honest with themselves and/or others because you do not believe they leave the faith honestly. While I understand your position, it's deluded. There are better explanations for Ehrman and myself than that we're purposely misleading people about why we reject Christianity. As far as Erhman goes, he has never written a step by step progression of why he left the faith. If he does someday then you'll see all of the factors that caused him to change his mind.
John, you are quite right that this kind of thing can lead to what you call deconverisions.
But this book will idicate that that is not what led to it. After all there all plenty of Christians and liberal scholars who do not have the same view of inerrancy and scriptural truth as they do at Topeka and Moody Bible Institute, where it is either/or. In Ehrman's case he has simply switched from one extreme to the other.
In fact, I know atheists who will accept the scriptural and manuscript integrity of the New Testament, and who still tell me that they wouldn't believe it anyway. In your own case, you have said that even if you were to admit that Christianity were true you wouldn't follow it.
And yes, I do question the motives of atheists and agnostics, but no more than you do when you talk about things like the impact of maintaining their livelihood and the like. Specifically in Ehrmans case, take his example of the number of scriptural errors. I KNOW that you know enough about variances and counting the number of them and textual criticism in general to know that he is misrepresenting the number of them...in this book, anyway. This is clearly willful.
That is why this book is a mistake from his point of view, and will deflect from his stated agenda to free his students from religious views. He has clearly laid his motives on the line; and theists are going to learn a lesson from the way Flew was treated.
Yep, Ehrman has already lost this one.
What is the correct number of scribal errors?
10 or is it more than 10?
Give us a number.
John knows. I'll let him tell you, and I am sure he will not conflate that and the concept of inerrancy.
And John, you may recall that I agreed with you about Flew's book being forever tarnished.
You see, my argument is not so much about what can lead to "deconversion", or manuscript reliability, or even Christianity itself. My point was about Ehrman's book itself.
Until now, he had a reputation of being this calm, urbane, scholar who was only interested in the truth, and tried to be as objective as possible. A reputation that he had no other agenda.
This book will give the impression, whether true or not, that that is not the case. He will be, and IS being, "Swift Boated".
Its over before it begins.
Andrew, first we should wait to see what Ehrman says in this new book, then we'll be better informed.
Besides, what difference would it really make if the REAL reason why he left the faith is because of the problem of evil? We all have biases. You have a supernatural bias. He and I have a non-supernatural bias. A completely objective approach to Biblical studies is probably not possible, although, most liberal and skeptical Biblical scholars started out with the presumption that the Bible was the literal Word of God. The real question is who has the proper presumptions and biases.
That's why half of the argument in my Prometheus book argues for a skeptical bias.
John, there is some truth to what you say, but it makes a difference if his integrity is called into question.
As for example his calcuation of the number of scribal "errors". You know enough about textual criticism to know that AT BEST his representation in this regard is misleading.
That aside, that is not really my argument.
The point is that he is going to be "Swift Boated".
Its already happening.
I don't understand the challenge. I have most of these books and have gone through them and will continue to refer to them.
I am a stronger Christian because of it. I find all the arguments understandable and sympathize with those who make them. Yet, in the end, I disagree with their conclusions (and not simply to keep a job!)
Did I take the challenge?
how did you get your hands on his book its not out till feb 19th??
Anyway im doing a review of his misquoting Jesus and will be buying his book when its out.
Interesting thing to bear in mind with Erhman is.. this isnt a guy who was an atheist and has a grudge against christianity..no he went to 3 of the top seminaries in the USA, Moody, Wheatly, Princeton which all 3 are different providing him a well rounded view and look at scripture... its what he found that has made others call him agnostic ( choosing to say there isnt enough proof)
His book misquoting Jesus is a must for any believer to read.
http://www.inthepursuitofgod.com/bart-d-ehrman-gods-problem/
Post a Comment