10/30/2021 Post by Bart Ehrman
discrepancies, contradictions, historical errors, geographical mistakes, anachronisms, and claims that make no sense in light of what we know about the world today from biology, geology, astronomy, physics, anthropology, and … and well the list goes on.
Different people draw different faith conclusions from this kind of scholarship.
- some think it’s irrelevant to their faith
- others think it requires them to change what they believe, possibly radically
- others think that it negates the possibility of faith altogether
Tell me what you think.
petfield
it hinges upon the level of truth you can bear.
If you honestly want the truth and you think you can bear it -however inconvenient it may turn out to be-, you change your mind according to your findings -wherever it turns out they have led you.
If scholarship leads you to alter your faith, you alter your faith. If scholarship leads you to leave it, you leave it. To an intellectually honest person, I think it’s as simple as that.
Ruby
I didn’t grasp the significance until much later that the Bible was a really old book written in a very different time for people that were not North American Christians. No one really invited me to challenge my understanding of the story until Dr Peter Enns and Dr. Bart Ehrman came along.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
I hadn’t explored the work of Dr. Peter Enns.
I see he has written books and he has a website:
peteenns.com
jscheller
acknowledging scholarship can be a faith bubble-buster, but some faith bubbles must be burst if spiritual growth is to happen. Truth is not afraid of evidence.
jjohn2020
If one’s faith never depended on the literal truth of the NT, critical historical scholarship does not threaten it.
If one’s faith depends on the idea that the NT is literally true and has no doctrinal conflicts, then critical historical scholarship is a real problem.
Artemis
what “faith” is; is it a certainty that your belief system is the right one, or is it more about trusting the whole thing enough to argue with it?
I’ve been around the theological block, so to speak, and this story of Christianity is by far the most layered and endlessly fascinating of any of them. You can study this stuff all your life and not reach the end.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I disagree, Artemis. There is an end. The end of the story of Christianity will be reached when you start and finish reading Historical Accuracy.
Christianity does end when it comes clean.
Lev
biblical scholarship has both changed and deepened my faith, and I’m very grateful for it.
Achavez
I started to understand that all this Christianity is nothing more than a psychology. And I understand it if it helps you get rid of guilts in life and convince yourself of eternal rewards, and walk assured that you are not dammed.
Rodge
the ideas that God’s love is universal for all humans, that Original Sin should be replaced by Original Blessing, that Jesus is an ever present Big Brother guiding and comforting us, and that some kind of eternal life of the soul overcomes the death of the physical body. This seems to be an appealing cocktail for many, who believe that it sounds intuitively “right.” But you [Bart] have shown that it is fraudulent to trace any of these ideas to the historic Jesus. So, at the least, your work should force organized Christianity to abandon claiming Jesus as its foundation, and instead claim the church as its own foundation.
maryn
the ideas that God’s love is universal for all humans, that Original Sin should be replaced by Original Blessing, that Jesus is an ever present Big Brother guiding and comforting us, and that some kind of eternal life of the soul overcomes the death of the physical body. This seems to be an appealing cocktail for many, who believe that it sounds intuitively “right.” But you have shown that it is fraudulent to trace any of these ideas to the historic Jesus. So, at the least, your work should force organized Christianity to abandon claiming Jesus as its foundation, and instead claim the church as its own foundation.
pick up at heavenlyflesh
Bart
Different people draw different faith conclusions from this kind of scholarship. Some think it’s irrelevant to their faith; others think it requires them to change what they believe, possibly radically; yet others think that it negates the possibility of faith altogether — either confirming the atheism they already hold or driving them to abandon their faith and become non-believers.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy (the Exodus, King Saul, Jesus, Paul, and Josephus)
New Testament Criticism, Ancient History, Egyptology, and Cosmology have not negated faith altogether, certainly not confirming atheism. Nothing confirms atheism. Atheism is stronger when there is only one god. There are many gods, and with so many human alliances, there are many lords. That which exists between incarnations in an existence of reincarnation is safe from earth-based inclinations towards monotheistic atheism and even polytheistic atheism.
Fields of knowledge sometimes provide valuable information.
Change, Damage, Destroy–the question is weighted against ongoing goodness.
Objection: leading–misleading–the witness.
Nothing confirms atheism.
But then lack of belief is not predicated on certainty. When I say that I don’t believe in god I am not saying I am certain that he/she/it does not exist. All assertions* are provisional, subject to revision as our knowledge and awareness changes. So it may be that some day a believer will demonstrate some compelling reason to believe that god exists.
*And I am making an assertion, a statement about the world, not simply describing my personal psychology. I embrace the burden of justification since I am obligated to justify my beliefs even if only to myself.
maryn (Corrected)
I hang on to the piece of Christianity that provides a guide to living that is exemplified by Jesus’ teachings
kt
[Scholarship paves an easier path to understanding what Christ means.]
GeoffClifton
My background is a Protestant one and I have to admit that my faith was shaken a lot when I first came across Scriptural problems around 40 years ago. However, I now regard the Bible as a great work of literature, like Shakespeare and Homer, and probably dissociate it somewhat from my faith. Not the best approach maybe but it works for me.
R0bby
Biblical scholarship liberated me from errant religious dogma of the past, so that, I can now appreciate a future base in logical sense.
= = =
MWCamp
No, Biblical scholarship doesn’t negate the possibility of faith altogether.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Historical King Saul, Labaya, gave obeisance to a pharaoh.
Jesus instituted the Last Supper/Holy Communion.
Even as only a metaphor, one does not make metaphors of sin.
God said in Leviticus 17: 10-11 cannibalism causes God to turn his face away and to excommunicate the offending person from the community of God.
Jesus performed his cannibalistic Last Supper, and what do you know? God was true to His word: Jesus asked, why have you forsaken me? The wicked tenants killed him.
Biblical scholarship does negate faith in Christianity.
God said this is my son in whom I am well pleased but God did not make a way for his son to live among those who killed the prophets.
That negated faith. Jesus rebelled against Yom Kippur as if he needed to be a sacrifice. Then his sacrifice needed his body and blood consumed. Jesus negated faith knowing God would turn away from him–an atheistic stance. The Messianic Revolt against Rome failed and God’s Temple was destroyed. That negated the faith. The Jewish Son of Man did not come in his glorious kingdom and Jews lost two more wars with Rome.
BetaGater
“holy scripture” isn’t necessarily a guide to Truth.
Many of the characters in Genesis regularly knew of and interacted with the divine and never had a bible.
So why would later generations need one?
Pbarnhart
Galileo, Newton, and Einstein all changed the way we understood Earth’s place in the cosmos, but their discoveries didn’t affect either the force of gravity nor the orbit of the planet.
seahawk41
[Biblical Scholarship isn’t as much a problem for me as] the trillions of galaxies with trillions of stars with several planets each, who knows how many having life, even intelligent life.
pick up at Jumbo October 31, 2021
Many of the characters in Genesis regularly knew of and interacted with the divine and never had a bible.
So why would later generations need one?
Because the Almighty figured out the direct approach wasn’t working so he retired and wrote his memoirs.
Galileo, Newton, and Einstein all changed the way we understood Earth’s place in the cosmos, but their discoveries didn’t affect either the force of gravity nor the orbit of the planet.
Did we discover math or did we invent it?
Professor, I have a question that is related to biblical scholarship. From all your years studying the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus what do you think the personality of the historical Jesus was like? Do you think he was mentally insane, a power hungry cult leader, a wise teacher, a man who felt very strongly about his beliefs, etc?
BDEhrman
My guess is that he had a charismatic personality, was a bit of an uneducated religious genius, a wise teacher, and a committed prophet.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
In my opinion, Jesus was a composite figure of historical fiction consisting mostly of the Apostle Paul, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, a stoic sage, and the rebel Jesus of Galilee who rejected General Vespasian’s diplomacy for surrender and peace by stealing the horses of the party sent to Jesus to avoid the Battle of Galilee where the follower of Jesus were horribly defeated (when history was written by the victors, the biography of the historical Jesus, the Galilean, was rewritten to make him a person in whom Rome found no fault). Jesus’ act of salvation was Holy Communion knowing full well ** you do not have permission to see this link **. After believing in Moses, King David and King Solomon, the Babylonian Exile resulting in Messianism and Apocalypticism (Tribulation of AD70 and Glorious Victory) where the Glorious Victory did not happen, we were saved from continuing any further along that path.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
When a version of God is wheeled into the public square it is rarely a sculpture where the originators chipped away the falsehoods to find the truth left underneath. It is usually a mache of anthropomorphic paper and paste with layers of unwieldy concept glopped on over and over that over time needs a heavy dose of apologetic – like putting a warped mirror in front of it to make it look straight again.
Scholarship is a chisel.. it chips away the apologetic and the human mache just to find that what was wheeled in does not exist in that way at all. Maybe something does… but it’s not found by building a concept of God as much as tearing them down.