(19 votes, average: 4.63 out of 5)
Loading...This is re-post of part 2 of an interesting set of comments from exactly eight years ago by my friend and colleague Jeff Siker, a New Testament scholar who agrees with most of the critical views I have of the New Testament but who is still a believing and practicing Christian. To make fullest sense of this post, you should read it in conjunction with the one from yesterday.
Jeff Siker is the author of Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity, Liquid Scripture: The Bible in the Digital World and Homosexuality and Religion: An Encyclopedia.
******************************
Like Bart, I became interested in pursuing an academic career, but with some grounding in the life of the church. And so after my BA and MA (Religious Studies) at Indiana University, I went off to Yale Divinity School. And so my trajectory from Young Life in high school to Indiana to Yale was rather different from Bart’s trajectory from Moody to Wheaton to Princeton. Whereas much of Bart’s education involved the study and practice of Christian apologetics (being able to defend one’s faith and challenge others – akin to Josh McDowell’s then very popular Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which I had also studied along the way), my own Christian faith involved a much less strident and argumentative approach to defending the truth of the Bible.
I began to understand significant differences in the New Testament as different perspectives that did not necessarily have to be reconciled to each other (anathema for those who believe the Bible is internally consistent in every regard). At Indiana University the study of religion did not include a confessional approach. Courses on the Bible stressed historical and literary contexts, including the history of interpretation across different approaches to Scripture (e.g., the Alexandrians vs. the Antiochenes regarding the matter of allegory). Truth claims about faith grounded in Scripture was not part of my academic study. There was certainly a challenge to integrate what I was learning in the classroom with my developing faith life, which was nurtured in the mainstream tradition of Protestant liberalism.
This integration continued at Yale Divinity School and after my ordination (PCUSA) in my two years as a pastor to a small church in rural Michigan. At Yale I also grew familiar with the various movements of liberation theology in addition to classic Protestant theology. In retrospect I would say that increasingly I came to see my understanding of biblical interpretation as a conversation between the biblical authors and modern faith in seeking to discern God’s presence and the leading of God’s Spirit in both personal faith and the life of the church.
Not only was this a rich conversation between modern and ancient communities of faith, it was a banquet of conversations that involved all of church history and hundreds of biblical commentators across the ages. This understanding only grew deeper during the Ph.D. program at Princeton Theological Seminary.
If it’s hard for you to figure out how a critical scholar of the New Testament could still believe in the Christian message, keep reading! If you’re not a member yet, now’s a good time to join!
You wrote: “In the end my faith rests on the firm belief in a God who brings life from death, possibility from impossibility – whether it has to do with Sarah’s barrenness (Rom 4) or the ridiculously wonderful claim that God raised Jesus from the dead. My reading of the ministry of Jesus is that he trusted in such a God, even to the point of death.”
I’m hearing echos of Hebrews: “…so that by the grace of God He [Jesus] might taste death for everyone” (2:9).
As you may know, in “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture”, Ehrman argued that instead of χάριτι Θεοῦ (“by the grace of”), the textual variant, χωρις θεου (“apart from God”), is quite possibly original.
Please be patient with a perhaps painfully specific question. Here goes. In light of your faith statement (quoted above), what is your perspective on the textual alternative, χωρις θεου?
Well I think Bart may well be right. But then I don’t share Hebrews’ view of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for sin. I like to say that Jesus died not “for” our sins, but “because of” human sinfulness. Hope that answers your question.
Wow! I remember reading your two blogs years ago. Thanks for reposting them. The contrast of your background with that of Dr. Ehrman’s is very interesting and helpful and explains a lot since for both of you, as well as all of us, “the child is father of the man.” I also greatly admire your calm, non-provocative approach.
Do you think the Resurrection of Jesus actually happened? If so , how come? Do you think there is a heaven after death? If so, how come? Or do you see this theology in a literary way?
It’s odd that Dr. Ehrman is an atheist/agnostic and you are a theist, but actually the two of you seem not that different with regard to all that matters.
The suffering issue bothers me, but not as much as the creation issue. It’s difficult for me to accept that all of this amazing world came from nothing, but it is even more difficult to accept that God came from nothing.
Wow! I remember reading your two blogs years ago. Thanks for reposting them. The contrast of your background with that of Dr. Ehrman’s is very interesting and helpful and explains a lot since for both of you, as well as all of us, “the child is father of the man.” I also greatly admire your calm, non-provocative approach.
Do you think the Resurrection of Jesus actually happened? If so , how come? Do you think there is a heaven after death? If so, how come? Or do you see this theology in a literary way?
It’s odd that Dr. Ehrman is an atheist/agnostic and you are a theist, but actually the two of you seem not that different with regard to all that matters.
The suffering issue bothers me, but not as much as the creation issue. It’s difficult for me to accept that all of this amazing world came from nothing, but it is even more difficult to accept that God came from nothing.
Ah, the resurrection. How about this — I believe that God brings life from death both here and now and in whatever the afterlife might mean. Heaven? Beats me. Resurrection and heaven are both beyond my pay grade!
Jeff Siker writes in Part 2 of his post: “First, I never felt betrayed or lied-to by the church in the way that Bart did about the nature of the Bible.”
Bart, please may I ask if that was indeed your experience – that you felt “lied-to and betrayed” by the church? In reading your blog it seems to me that you do not hold that you were baldly, actively and maliciously misled. Rather, the opportunities you had in your education gradually led you to see things, of your own accord, from a different perspective.
Dr Siker, please may I ask, if you had to write your own Creed, what are the fundamentals you would state about the Christian Faith in terms of “I believe…”?
Yikes. I believe… fundamentals, eh? This isn’t really the forum for any fundamental statement. I’ll just say that fairly traditional categories such as creation, covenant, sin and forgiveness, the call of the prophets, Jesus’ call to a life of compassionate engagement (Mt 25), community, and the empowerment of God’s Spirit would all figure prominently.
Thank you so much Jeff! I am a United Methodist pastor and I feel a real kinship with you through your description of your views on God, Jesus, and scripture. On a practical level, I feel the same for Bart and the most excellent work he does in providing the best biblical education available for lay persons. Because of my upbringing, living in The Bible Belt, and my interactions with people so heavily influenced by fundamentalism and evangelicalism, revealing what the bible is and what it isn’t is a crucial aspect of my ministry. I believe when Christians hold firm to the mystical belief that the bible is imbued with the very presence and power of God, bad things happen. Especially when those taking advantage of that belief have divisive or even nefarious motivations. Though an extreme example, consider the acceptance of Donald Trump as “a man of God” because of his bible-holding photo op. I think Christians who want to take Christ-likeness seriously need to open their eyes to the barriers that biblical inerrancy and infallibility entail. When I am looking for aid in exegesis, there is no close second for any commentaries to Bart’s work.
Agreed. I’ve often thought of myself as having one foot in the academy and one foot in the church, and that each helps to keep the other honest. Bart’s work is on the academic side, but his work certainly has implications for the church.
Wondering if you could respond to this below: when I challenged a believer on the day of crucifixion discrepancy they responded with this.
FROM THE OTHER GUY:
—————————————–
Through further research, there existed two Seder evenings and both were called Passover. John wrote about the first Seder evening (John 13-17). On this evening the slaughtered lamb was eaten by the people (evening 14 Nisan {Thursday} after daytime of 13 Nisan {Wednesday}). However John also mentions the second Seder evening (John 18:28) of 15 Nisan {Friday} following daytime of Thursday. The second Seder evening no lamb was eaten, only unleavend bread. Friday (15 Nisan) was a Festival Sabbath and Thursday (14 Nisan) was the day of liberation out of Egypt. This is because the week of Passover started with an extra sabbath. So there are 2 days of preparation: On Wednesday (13 Nisan) for the first Seder evening (Passover), and on Thursday (14 Nisan) for the Festival Sabbath (not actual sabbath) on Friday 15 Nissan (second Seder evening), the beginning of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (also named Passover). And so Thursday (14 Nisan) was actually the day of crucifixion in Matthew, Mark and Luke as well as in John.
Well “the other guy” is clearly trying to show there are no contradictions between the Gospels. I think a far better explanation is that John’s Gospel is trying to show that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple. No accident that John the Baptist calls Jesus “the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”(Jn 1). Ironically, Passover had nothing to do with forgiveness of sin; that was the province of Yom Kippur. Early Christians ended up combining the Passover observance with the meaning of Yom Kippur. In turn this showed Jesus to be a pure, unblemished (sinless) lamb. Another irony is that the unblemished lamb was a ritual category, not a moral one, but that when applied to Jesus it became a moral category by virtue of being applied to a human. And so in retrospect Jesus became sinless. But I digress! John’s Gospel mentions Passover three times. This has more to do with the length of Jesus’ ministry (contra the Synoptics’ one reference to Passover, and one year ministry) than the different nights of Passover observance.
If today, 500 villagers in a remote area of a Third World country claim to have received an appearance by a dead person at the same time and place, would you believe them? I doubt it. You would most likely chalk up their experience to their gullible, superstitious imaginations. Yet you believe two thousand year old texts written by anonymous authors, whom the majority of scholars do not believe were eyewitnesses, alleging the very same thing. Is that rational?
Global, massive human suffering: If your all-knowing, all-powerful god exists, he allows 17,000 children under the age of five to starve to death each and every day. If a human ruler behaved in such a way, would you continue to respect this person, let alone love and worship him?
You may be extremely intelligent and educated, but you are not using good critical thinking skills in this one, very important area of your life. Abandon your comforting superstitions, my friend. Embrace rational thinking.
You’re absolutely right that religious faith is not fundamentally rational. I’ve often though that Jews in the second century viewed Christians the way most Christians today view Mormons — they seem like nice folks, but they believe some weird things! As for massive human suffering, I’d argue that we’re the ones who allow unchecked and preventable suffering to continue. No, that doesn’t explain why a 3-year old gets cancer and dies. Rational thinking is indeed important, but so is the capacity of humans to believe and hope even in the face of what seems to be a hopeless situation.
Yes, it is important to have hope, but is it ethical to give false hope to people? Isn’t reality, no matter how cold and discomforting it may be, better than a lie? As a scholar, you know that the evidence for the resurrection is weak. You know that the authors of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses. You know that the Gospel stories are most likely highly embellished. Yet, you teach little children and gullible adults to believe this ancient superstition because it gives you pleasant “experiences” in your “community”.
Think about the harm you are doing, my friend. Superstitions are dangerous and even deadly. Abandon your comforting superstitions, maybe not for your benefit, but for the good of future generations. Let them grow up in a world free of religious superstitions and the hate and violence that those religious superstitions generate.
Ah, lies and reality. As a scholar I know that there is no such thing as “evidence” for the resurrection that would pass any serious historical test, especially since historical reconstruction is based largely on analogy. Hard to find an analogue to the resurrection of Jesus! (Was it like Aunt Betty’s resurrection?!) Yes, I also know that the gospel writers were believers, but not eyewitnesses, and that the stories they tell are embellished and often in conflict. As for teaching little children and “gullible adults,” I find very few adults who are gullible in the sense that I think you mean, and I find children quite discerning by and large. And clearly I don’t consider Christian faith to be a superstition. I find much of what passes for Christianity to be tragically misguided, and you are right to condemn those aspects of the faith (or any faith) that engenders hate and violence. I rather prefer the gospel message that embraces human suffering so as to transform and redeem it. At least that’s what I believe God calls us to do.
Thank you Bart and Jeff for writing about your journey to where you both are now. I’ve had a wild religious ride this lifetime, and it’s not over yet. Born into a very strict Christian fundamentalist family, at the age of fifteen I started using Strong’s concordance to look up the Greek words in the Bible. I was shocked to learn the vast difference, which made me leave Christianity and Jesus. I pivoted to Zen Buddhism as a young adult, met yogis and sages and studied world religions in my middle years, and now as a “seasoned” veteran, am earnestly pursuing spiritual evolution under the guidance of Paramhansa Yogananda. I’ve come a long way, and yet not moved far from my starting point. Ironically, I now love and appreciate Jesus Christ more than I ever did. He is one of the few Enlightened Beings. As a fundamentalist Christian, I was taught to fear God; now as a yogi, I feel indescribable awe for the vast Intelligence that created the Cosmos. I now write a blog to share my research and insights as you both do. Thank you both again.
Hi Jeff
All well and good but if God exists you are still unable to prove that it is your God. We made God in our image not the other way round. There is great learning to be taken from the Bible but you don’t have to believe it. If you help the needy and feed the hungry who cares if you go to church on Sunday. Come from love ,show compassion ,you will be happier and so will be the people around you.
Hierarchies lead to corruption, the Church has done terrible things. There isn’t anyone between you and God so why not just cut out the middle man. They don’t even know who wrote the Gospels.
Dominic
I actually quite agree that what matters most is living a compassionate life, regardless of whether one goes to church or not. Part of the difficulty Christians have is the sharp differences we have with one another about what it means to be faithful to God and to follow Jesus. Yes, the church has done terrible things (and still does). Still, I find engaging in a community of faith seeking to discern the presence of God in living fruitfully to be very meaningful. You are right — approach others with love and compassion. The rest will take care of itself.
But that’s the point , the rest doesn’t take care of it’s self. There is great teaching in the bible but there is also great teaching elsewhere. There has to be more than you stick to the religion you are brought up with. I know your background was more liberal than Bart’s but you did go to Sunday school regularly . I live in Stamford Hill in London which is very Hasidic Jewish and I wonder how much choice they have, especially the women? The 2017 film Disobedience is worth a watch. I just saw a documentary about what Catholic priests did to unmarried mothers in Ireland from 1920 -1997. The rest will take care of itself ? Maybe on an individual level but you need better safe guards as you widen your community.
OK it looks like you won’t reply to my previous question, not very Christian by the way. It all becomes a little facile if you are just another academic rummaging around in nuance to justify your beliefs. Your reply to GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER is a case in point in terms of the Jesus not dying for our sins, but for mankind’s sinfulness. If you are interested in Philosophy and Evolution, terms like evil and sin become problematic. Bart didn’t stop believing in God due the lack of belief in the inerrancy of the Bible ( that had happened earlier) but because of the problem of suffering. Keith Ward and Peter Williams are just so intellectually disappointing over this side of the pond.
The bottom line is, in my view, if you want to believe in God then fine, but if you justify it by belief in the Bible, ( Koran, plus other books etc) then you have a problematic position. Just own that it makes you feel better and not for any other reason.
My apologies for the delayed response. I tried to post a reply but got an error message back. So let me try again. I don’t view myself as engaging in academic “rummaging around in nuance to justify my beliefs.” I’m not even sure what that means! As for justifying my faith through belief in the Bible: my belief is in God, and I think that the Bible bears witness to formative experiences of a faith community in relation to God and Jesus.
I enjoyed this post.
“I was able to make the transition (a la Paul Ricouer) from first naivete to second naivete without stumbling. Namely, I was able to shift from a literal reading of the biblical text and the Christian story to a critical reading of the biblical text and Christian story in a way that did not shatter my faith, but deepened it.”
That very much describes my own journey; it’s encouraging to have it described and summed up so well here.
Thanks. Yes, that shift has been crucial for me, as has Ricouer’s understanding of metaphor. I quite like the notion of Jesus as a metaphor of God.
Hi Jeff,
First of all, thank you so much for sharing why you are still a Christian. The posts were excellent. My question for you is around the trinity. Does your faith include the belief that Jesus is God? And, if not, how do you “see” Jesus.
I like to joke that I have a rather subterranean christology (very low indeed). While I understand how and why the doctrine of the Trinity developed, in my view either Jesus was fully human or he wasn’t. And since he obviously was human, then I’m not sure what it means to call him divine. Inspired? Yes. Seeking to discern God and lead others to God? Yes. But no, I don’t believe Jesus came into the world as a sinless divine being. My book _Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity (Cambridge, 2015) shows how it is that Jesus came to be viewed retrospectively as sinless. I see Jesus as a prophetic teacher who had a particular vision of God that stressed God’s inclusion of those who are vulnerable and in need (Mt 25). I identify with the call to be similarly engaged.
Dear prof. Siker,
In your book “Jesus, Sin, and Perfection in Early Christianity” you write: “It is not that the
Gospels are fictions; rather, in order to communicate the story of Jesus as they desired, as they believed it to be, the Gospel writers by necessity created many scenes and discourses that likely never happened, at least not as simple narrated facts.”
Do you think that people writing gospels saw their own work in a way you do? Did they really know that stories such as Jesus’ temptation in the desert or even the magnificent scene of Jesus’ entrance in Jerusalem (with people proclaiming him as a king) weren’t narrated facts but stories with a deeper meaning?
I suppose it’s a hard question since we can’t penetrate in their heads, but hopefully, you’ll shed some light? If they didn’t see it in that way, doesn’t that mean that these stories (which didn’t really happen) are theologically meaningless? To put it more bluntly: If Luke writes something that didn’t happen even though he was sure that it did happen, doesn’t that negate the whole point of the Gospels being divinely inspired?
Kind regards,
Marko
Hi Marko:
c
Hi Marko: I keep trying to reply, but I keep getting error messages. Hope to get this sorted. – Jeff
Respectfully, I still don’t get it.
Do you agree or not with the scholarship of Bart and others. Because they (scholars) show that the Bible is a not of divine origin, is a mix of fiction and non fiction, and the character Jesus was just an apocalyptic Jewish preacher, nothing more.
correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds to me like on the one hand you’re aware this is most probably true, but reject it. Not sure why the evidence is not enough.
And How does this even deepen your faith if it’s means your faith is just tradition made up by humans.
In summary, I *do not* think it is possible to accept Bart and co’s views and remain a Christian, other than culturally.
I view the Bible as a very human book. But at the same time, it expresses what various people thought God was up to in the world, and they express very different views in that regard. To say that Jesus was “just” an apocalyptic Jewish preacher does, I think, not really appreciate the impact that he had on others. MLK was not “just” another black preacher, and Gandhi was not “just” another lawyer seeking justice. There really are transformational figures in history, and there’s a reason Jesus is one such touchstone for so many.
Evidence that Demands a Verdict is a sophomoric attempt to persuade people to accept a fundamentalist view of Christianity. The author, an undergraduate with apparently little if any training in classical history, proposes a ludicrous “trilemma”, which states that, according to a literal reading of the gospel narratives, Jesus is either a “liar, lunatic or lord.” The obvious way out of this supposed trilemma is to understand that the gospels do not provide an actual historical account of Jesus’ life, which is something real scholars such as Dr Ehrman and many others have clearly dmonstrated.
I can respect some of Dr. Jeff Siker’s argument for remaining Christian even after “knowing the same historical-critical information that Bart knows” concerning the historical and the NT. Where I perhaps somewhat agree with Dr. Siker is that the corruption of the NT and corrupt dogma does not mean that Christians must forsake a belief in God. But, a reevaluation is needed.
Re-evaluation is the name of the game. My own conviction is that we are always engaged in what I would call retrospective theologizing — namely, making sense of our theological understanding in light of our past and present experiences. 2000 years of Christian anti-Jewish teaching contributed to the Holocaust, and so post-Holocaust Christian theology has to reckon with this reality. It has led to a far more positive evaluation of Jews as the “elder brethren” of Christians, and that God’s covenant with Jews is (as Paul says) irrevocable. So yes, semper reformans (always reforming!).
I think the Christian god, the NT scripture, Jesus and the church all have to be reevaluated in light of what we know about the NT and its corruption. The Christian god – which is Jesus (a man-god and 2nd person within a triune godhead) – IS NOT the best explanation of the ultimate power who took 4 and a half billion years to create the earth!! Humanity is only 200,000 years old and uses only 10% of its brain. We don’t know everything and neither did Jesus as he admitted in Mark 13:32 and in Matthew 24:36. To you Dr. Ehrman, the problem of human suffering is the fault of man alone, not God. God taught man THE GOLDEN RULE (e.g. Mark 12:31 and in all religions). It is to our own detriment if we do not heed!! Do you agree Dr. Ehrman?
Thanks for this, but I didnt feel you gave any lucid or coherent reason for suffering, but just said you experienced the “graciousness of God” …. eh? thats a bit of a word salad if I can be so frank.
You experiencing something as vague and nebulous as that, has no explanatory power as to why God would not intervene when people suffer.
If he really is the all loving deity we hear constantly, then I feel you need a much better explanation for suffering and his lack of intervening.
11M Jews were killed in WW2 but there was a “no show”, I am wondering exactly how big of an atrocity does it have to be before he manifests himself again like he did 2000 years ago?
In my view we are all responsible to (and for) those who suffer. Contrary to Cain, we are our brothers and sisters keepers — it is ours to care for one another. We really are extensions of God’s presence in the world, and we can choose to act compassionately or not. God does not flip a switch and end human suffering. Some see this as a sign of God’s impotence or irrelevance (or worse). I view it as God’s call to comforting the afflicted (and nudging the comfortable to action as well). What does it take for us to act in the here and now? How many more will die, for example, before we enact better gun laws? And so it goes.
sorry, I have to admit I am baffled by your reply as it didn’t answer any element of my question.
Which is …….why doesn’t God intervene anymore no matter how heinous an event?
Your answer answer then cant be ……..we humans are responsible for helping others and by not intervening, it somehow makes things better.
Why can’t that be my answer? It really depends on your view of God, doesn’t it? I don’t view God as a divine magician who intervenes into human history in the way that the ancient Israelites recorded. God is not a heavenly police person enforcing the laws. That’s why I say it really is up to us to address human suffering. The core of the Christian message is that of a God who suffers with us and calls us to the same. Some find this a wimpy answer on behalf of a powerless God, so why bother? Others (myself included) find the idea of embracing the suffering of others to be a very powerful response, and one that ultimately leads to redemption. Check out the movie The Mission (Robert De Niro, Jeremy Irons), a great film about the conflict between different understandings of how power works.
Thank you “jbickle” for the excellent point that you raised!!! Your reply can be easily answered in this way: If you take Jesus to be the true “one-time” intervention of God to end human suffering – human suffering still endures even after Jesus and his alleged Resurrection. You need only read ALL of Mark 1, the first gospel to be written in ca 65-70, Jesus was an apocalyptic sage who professed the coming of God’s Kingdom to end evil and human suffering. Nothing there about him being God incarnate!!! The Bible says that GOD IS NOT A MAN, read Numbers 23:19.
Thanks for your writing, sir. A very strong thread I see is that of social identification/adhesion on your part. Given your ‘lighter’ commitment to biblical inerrancy and literal meaning, is it fair to assume that this stress on the social aspects of Christian life supplies you with some portion of the requisite motivation to continue in the Christian faith?
I have no commitment to biblical inerrancy or literal interpretation. But yes, the potential impact of Christian faith on the social realities of our world do motivate me to continue in the Christian faith. As an example, I have been involved in prison ministry for several years now, which has led to an interesting fellowship with extremely conservative fellow prison chaplains who are trying to save souls, whereas I see myself more as accompanying the prisoners. Although the other chaplains aren’t thrilled with my theology, they’ve been very accepting — since I show up and do the same visiting they are doing. So I think it’s possible to be engaged in common social causes across faith lines, and that has been rewarding.
Mr Siker, I appreciate what you have to say and don’t wish in any way to criticize you. You make a compelling case for continuing in an accommodation to a form of Christianity that you feel comfortable with. Arguments over reasoning don’t often cope well with human experience and I want to acknowledge your stance at face value and salute your honesty in finding your way.
Thanks.
My experience was quite different. My family and religious community told me there was only one Christianity and that their interpretation of scripture was the only proper one. Even before I was baptized as an adolescent I saw flaws in that interpretation, and those flaws grew as I studied as a precocious teen not just the bible, but the “archeology of the Bible” subgenre of Christian literature, and unassailable scientific advances in astronomy, paleontology and those of history and psychology. One way required faith and denial of common sense, the other offered understandable and compelling explanations. Literalism, then traditional, then mainstream, then liberal Christianity fell apart under clear-eyed examination supported by deeply rooted science, history and logic. Over just a handful of years, I went directly from confused believer to atheist. (Agnosticism never tempted me.) Having been there, I don’t disdain my former fellowshippers, but I find it hard to talk to them on these matters.
Again, I thank you for your comments here and extend my good wishes! Please forgive my riff in response to what you had to say.
no apologies necessary!
Thanks to Jeff Siker for sharing his faith story. I agree that the historical/ critical approach to Biblical studies may shake the faith of young people raised in the fundamentalist tradition.
On the other hand, the more mainline, less conservative churches have been in a longer membership decline. Are the mainliners more likely to drift away from faith than the conservatives?
Good question. They certainly have been in decline! I think part of it is that the more conservative evangelical churches seem to demand more of their members (and some would say offer more) than the more casual mainline Protestant churches.
Was there a rebuttal Professor Ehrman?
Thanks
I believe in the end it comes down to faith, and I believe you have shown that faith is possible and even reasonable in spite of suffering.
I really appreciate your perspective. I share much of it, most especially to still believing in a loving God, and consider myself as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, still longing to have the faith ‘of’ Jesus but not faith ‘in’ Jesus as ‘personal Lord and Savior, and definitely no longer Trinitarian). I’m a strange hodge podge of Ebionite (who thinks Paul was a heretic) and liberation theology (Howard Thurman style) and did a 38+ yr career as a Social Work Chaplain among the homeless, without an intentional vow of poverty; and sometimes think about returning to my Jewish roots – but for my affection for Jesus of Nazareth, prophet, mystic, seer, and healer. Pertaining to Bart, et al agnostics I know and love, I’ll quote French Christian philospher Jean LaCroix when he said, “I thank God for my atheist friends – they keep me from cheating.” Pax Vobiscum
“First, I never felt betrayed or lied-to by the church in the way that Bart did about the nature of the Bible. This is why, I think, Bart has left the church behind…”
Bart, how do you feel about that comment? In the past, you have positively bristled at the notion that your academic studies led you to doubt the historicity of the Bible, and therefore, it’s authority, and that that, in turn, contributed to your loss of faith.
I appreciate his sincere, heartfelt remarks/beliefs. But at the same time, it seems some folks, even after critical thinking, would rather belief what they “hope” to be true, rather than what is most likely to be true. Faith in something can be a coping mechanism in this strange world; but whatever is “true” it seems should be sought after. Can’t believe any “loving God”wouldn’t appreciate that journey? John Lennon…”just give me some truth”.
Hard to say what is most likely to be true as opposed to what one hopes to be true. It’s like talking about the probability of improbable things, and their name is legion!
“This is why, I think, Bart has left the church behind . . . ”
Surely Bart left the church behind because he stopped believing in God?
Perhaps you could confirm that was the reason, Bart?
Jeff, do you agree that the historical process does not support a resurrection?
I think Bart’s reasons for leaving the church are multiple. My impression is that he considers himself more an agnostic than atheist. As for the resurrection, yes I agree that historians have nothing to say about it except that early Christians came to believe it as an historical event, though in different ways.
Thanks Jeff.
Bart is both. He describes himself as an agnostic atheist.
But you presumably believe a resurrection occurred. What is you basis for doing that if not historically, if you don’t mind me asking?
I believe that the early Christians experienced something, even though they have a hell of a time describing it and are not consistent about that experience. They appear to have felt the ongoing presence of Jesus, even though they rather transformed their understanding of Jesus in the process. So I’m not committed to a physical resurrection per se, but I’m open to the ongoing presence of God’s Spirit in life beyond death. But I’m really focused on this life, and not the life to come. I remember a conversation with an evangelical Christian who asked if I was confident I would go to heaven when I died. He found my response disconcerting. I told him I figured that was God’s problem. Mine was to be as faithful as I could in the here and now.
(I thought I replied, but I’m not seeing it… so here goes again!). Belief in a resurrection takes many forms. Some believe in a very physical resurrection. Some (like Paul) believe in a spiritual body (whatever that is), while some believe in a spiritual (but not bodily) resurrection. The early Christians struggled to describe what they believed they experienced in the resurrection of Jesus. Historical reconstruction has no access to the miraculous. I believe in a God who brings life from death, whatever form that might take here and now, or beyond death.
After several years as a member, this is my last post. I used to love this blog and looked forward to it every day. It struck me as an ingenious way to raise money for the homeless, while offering valuable insights into ancient Christianity for those unable to afford an Ivy league education. It makes me very sad to see it become dominated by wealthy elites who get the most interesting posts and interactions, while the rest of us get the crumbs and are expected to like it. I am grateful for what I have learned over the years, however, and accept that your ovveriding aim is to raise money for the poor. But you lose something valuable when you get rich people to pay more for their memberships by leaving the rest of us on the outside looking in, noses pressed to the shop window.
Such are most of the interactions on this planet, but I am happy that you are grateful
This is great, thank you! Bart, have you ever read Thomas Oord’s, “God Can’t” ? I was raised in a pretty conservative fundamentalist world and when my wife had a miscarriage I began to ask all sorts of questions about why a good God would allow such a tragedy and all the band-aid answers that I was fed growing up no longer worked for me. Oord’s book gave me a different way to look at it even if I’m not totally on board and maybe even don’t fully understand. Curious if you’ve read it and if so what you think. Thanks!
Well as Pilate said: “What is truth?” Jesus, his disciples and all the “early” church fathers seemed to believe that the stories and prophets of the Old Testament were “true”. That 600 year old Noah made a boat out of wood big enough to hold 2 of every creature in the world for 10 – 11 months, floating on water that covered the mountains. Jonah lived in the belly of a fish for 3 days without suffocating or being digested. Samson killed 1000 Philistines with just the jawbone of a donkey. Joshua stopped the sun. The authors of the New Testament said that Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine, healed lepers, raised the dead and was raised from the dead himself.
What is the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? What is “true?” Does it matter? Not to a lot of people it seems.
During my quest (as a Christian) over the past few years to find the truth about the existence of God of the Bible, I initially explored the Jesus was a myth notion and then discovered Bart’s works and agreed with his argument that Jesus was a historical character who was made out to be the Son of God. What sealed it for me however, has been the study of ancient Israelite archeology which makes it clear to that the invention of Yahweh resulted from an ancient literary construct which gained significant traction to carry on.
To “darren” with all due respect– I got a GOLD membership and I am FAR from rich. I figure it’s worth it, not because I plan to enjoy the gold perks, but for the sake of being more supportive of Bart’s charities. Heck, I could’ve gone Platinum very easily but I figured I don’t have the smarts to enjoy or make use of the perks at that level. I don’t think “rich” is the issue. What do you want to give? It’s all in the giving. Give what you feel you can afford and be happy. Even at the most basic level this blog is well worth the cost of admission.
Even if Jesus was no more than a poor, delusional schmuck, being able to love such a person must be worth something, whether there’s a God or not. Love, compassion, understanding– they enrich us, period.
I have read through the comments on Jeff SIker’s most recent post (to date), and find myself disturbed by many “thinkers” on the blog. I see the gauntlet thrown – if you concede that the bible is not infallible/inerrant, then you can’t be rationale to claim a Christian faith. Ironically, this is the same argument made by fundamentalists and evangelicals (although “rationale” should be replaced with “authentic” in their case). Those who make the claim, sighting Bart as a source for their evidence, fail to remember that Bart has repeatedly suggested that Christian faith should not be based on the accuracy of the bible, but on faith alone. To align Bart with their own views is using the same tactic as some self proclaimed Christians use to align Jesus with their own questionable views. What we ultimately believe about God, and God’s relationship with humanity has not, and likely will never, be proven by empirical evidence one way or the other. So why can’t one be a “feeler” as well as a “thinker”? Especially when their “feeling” promotes the support, acceptance, and empathy for all humanity – seeing all as their brethren and as children of God, loved by God?
Dear Dr Siker. Thank you very much for two very enlightening posts. I too am a Christian (and also a Jeff/Geoff:) but have struggled to maintain my faith over the years. Currently I’m hanging on by my fingertips. Your response to the suffering question resonated very much with me and comes extremely close to how I look at it. I was going to ask a question on Christology and the Trinity (which is probably the area I find most troubling in terms of my faith). But I saw that you had already addressed this in the Q & A above and found your reply very helpful. I too favour a low Christology. Thank you again.
Dear Dr Siker. Thank you very much for two very enlightening posts. I too am a Christian (and also a Jeff/Geoff:) but have struggled to maintain my faith over the years. Currently I’m hanging on by my fingertips. Your response to the suffering question resonated very much with me and comes extremely close to how I look at it. I was going to ask a question on Christology and the Trinity (which is probably the area I find most troubling in terms of my faith). But I saw that you had already addressed this in the Q & A above and found your reply very helpful. I too favour a low Christology. Thank you again.
Thanks Geoff. Glad my response resonated with you. My hunch is that you’ll find your faith transforming to a deeper faith even amidst the struggle. Hang in there!
Hi Jeff,
Hmmm… when you suggest that your REALITY is different than Bart’s because your religious experience was different, that’s illogical. “I feel good about it” is not an argument for the existence of God. So if Bart had been raised in a tradition that was a bit more moderate, he would not have stumbled over the complete lack of logic at the core of religious belief? God would still exist? Does God only exist for those who believe? We call that mass hysteria, I think. You can choose to believe something but that doesn’t make it real.
Like Bart, I could not accept theologians’ explanations for human suffering. A benovolant God wouldn’t torture some poor child in Africa to provide me with an opportunity to earn heavenly credits. And why did God NOT reveal himself to a large part of the human race? Didn’t they matter? Historically, the conclusion of theologians is no, they did not. Great for justifying things like slavery, colonial exploitation, etc.
Your faith might feel good – that’s dopamine. But it’s not logical. BTW I honestly take no issue with your beliefs – live and let live – just your explanation.
Does God only exist for those who believe? Apparently so! True, believing something doesn’t make it so. But I find the ministry of Jesus a compelling set of narratives about what it means to be human in a world full of suffering. In my view it’s not God who tortures some poor child; it’s we who fail to meet the needs of those who are suffering, even if we can’t fix everything. Faith is not just a feeling, it is a lived commitment. You can assert that faith is not logical, but (like faith!) that doesn’t make it so! There is a logic to faith, but like Paul says in 1 Cor 1, the cross of Christ is foolishness and a stumbling block to folks. Understandably!
If what you believe is truly what you believe to your core then should you not give up all your worldly possessions and go live in Third world country and help the starving.
As you say…. In my view it’s not God who tortures some poor child; it’s we who fail to meet the needs of those who are suffering, even if we can’t fix everything. Faith is not just a feeling, it is a lived commitment.
Grace to you Dr. Siker. Do you think 16:8 is the original ending of GMark?
Joseph
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
He’s no longer replying, but I believe he does; he certainly does not think the final twelve verses are original, that I know for sure.
“Instead, for reasons that are difficult to pin down, I am most struck by what I experience as the graciousness of God.” The problem of suffering doesn’t overshadow your faith because you experience the graciousness of God. I am so curious as to what those reasons might be? And how those who would like to experience the graciousness of God could do so when the problem of suffering is such an obstacle on a personal and theological level.