Loading...As I was making the long series of posts about my relationship with Bruce Metzger, in response to a question of how he reacted to my loss of faith, I got a number of interesting questions from readers. One that particularly struck me – as it caused me to think for a bit – was about how my loss of faith affected my scholarship. That’s a really good question. And now that I’ve thought it over a bit, I think the answer is a little surprising. To my knowledge, my loss of faith has had almost ZERO effect on my scholarship.
That seems weird, since my scholarship is on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity, and you would think that if I were no longer a believer, that it would certainly change how I look at both the NT and the history of the early church. But in fact, I don’t think I have had any change of scholarly views at all to accompany my loss of faith.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a member. If you don’t belong yet, NOW”S YOUR CHANCE!!
As a believing Pentecostal I have to tell you that I am more comfortable with scholarship coming from someone looking through an agnostic, objective lens than I am with somebody backing into an argument to support an a priori bias; even if it’s only subconsciously polemic or apologetic. I do not like having to spend all my mental energy trying to sort out the fine chaff from whatever wheat is otherwise in the work. That’s simply not an issue with your work, Bart.
Great post. I would be very interested in a series of posts on how your views changed and why… when you had “aha moments”
Really good post. I’ve got a question, though; how did you manage to harmonize your faith with the acknowledgment that both Jesus and Paul were probably failed apocalypticists, considering that that view shows that God DOESN’T intervene and save us during painful times, no matter how pious the person may be?
I’ll try to deal with this on my blog itself! Many thanks.
This is a very helpful summary. I do think that developing some understanding of textual and historical criticism does make it very difficult for one to fit into a church group. It is also quite difficult for the other church members if such a person tries to fit into such a group. That does not mean, however, that one cannot continue to try to get some help and some forgiveness from the Great Something out there Somewhere.
Bart, thanks for the answer and the insights it provides into the scholarly life. When I wrote the original question, I was thinking about your many online debates, with Mike Licona, Craig Evans, Daniel Wallace and others. I have had the impression that you’re sometimes invited to these debates in the hope that if you’re defeated, that would somehow be a victory for God!
I was also thinking about “Did Jesus Exist?” Mike Licona could not have written that book, or the reaction would have been, “of course Licona thinks Jesus existed, he’s an evangelical Christian”. But a proclamation that Jesus existed from Bart Ehrman, the famed agnostic/atheist … well, that carries weight because of your beliefs.
I was first introduced to you by The Teaching Company, but since that first introduction you’ve become controversial! It’s good to hear that your scholarly life is little affected by such things.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for sharing this personal insight. Count me as one who would be interested in hearing how your scholarship changed your religious beliefs (prior to your shift to agnosticism). As one who is going through a similar paradigm shift in his life, I would be interested to learn what an “enlightened Christianity” looks like. Is it simply viewing Christianity as a more ethical faith than a doctrinal faith? Is it viewing the bible as more metaphorical than literal? Being a formal conservative Christian, my inclination is to “throw the baby out with the bath water.” If it’s not completely true, why bother? (I’m a black and white kinda guy 😉 ).
Blessings!
Carl
AOK, I’ll add it to my questions to address list!
I am right there with you. I also am interested in those same issues.
How about a post on how your students – especially the undergrads who are predominately from evangelical family backgrounds – react to what they are learning about critical scholarship? Do some become emotionally troubled, and need counselling, say?
Good idea! I’ll add it to the list.
I guess it boils down to what is criterion for being a Christian? Is it accepting the creeds and dogma of the Church? Or is it striving to live according to the ethical teachings of Jesus? I would venture to guess your views of God and of the NT are similar to those of Jack Spong and he considers himself to be a committed Christian (although many of his fellow bishops think otherwise.)
Hello,
Your post mentions only the New Testament and teachings of Jesus as possible sources of ethical teaching. As Jack Spong points out in his book “Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World” the ethical teachings of the prophets were actually the fore- runners of those ethical teachings found in the New Testament.
I
—
And not just the prophets. There were lots of ethical teachings “in the air” at the time.
Bart.
I am a great admirer ot yours but I can’t help but think that what you describe as a “loss of faith”, you only describe in such a way because of your particular christian (possibly “fundamentalist”?) background.
I come from a different tradition. I’m was raised a Catholic and I appreciate that the Catholic church has it’s own particular problems. I’m not going to defend it.
Yet, we never regarded the bible as literal truth.
I see the Gospel of Mark infused with the idea of the triparttie soul. This comes from Greek philosophy, of course but surely the first four disciples called in the gospel of Mark (Peter, Andrew, James and John) represent different aspects of our nature.
Peter is the personification of Spirit. Andrew is the personification of Action.
James and John are the personification of Faith and Reason respectively.
It is beautiful:
Peter’s declaration “You are the Christ” is followed by the first prophecy of the Passion, where Jesus completely undermines the traditional idea of the Messiah. Peter’s reaction in remonstrating with Jesus leads to Jesus’ rebuke in front of all the disciples:
“Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
[Mark 8:33]
>>>>>>>>> This is Christ rejecting a faith that is based on a desire to impose our will on others. <<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>> This is Christ rejecting a faith that is based on a belief that we are more virtuous than others <<<<<<>>>>>> This is Christ rejecting a faith that is based on the final vanity; the conviction that the sacrifice of oneself for that faith makes us more worthy than others <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The name of the blind man of Jericho is Bartimaeus – a name that is a fusion of Aramaic (“Bar” – meaning “Son of”) and Greek (“Timaeus” – from Plato). After being called by Jesus, Bartimaeus discards his cloak. Before he does so, he addresses Jesus as “Son of David” – a title of the conquering Messiah. After he discards his cloak, he addresses Jesus as Rabboni (master).
Like Bartimaeus discarding his cloak, it is only AFTER we discard our vanities that we can hear the voice of TRUE authority. Like Bartimaeus with his sight restored, it is only then that we can recognize Christ.
Apologies for the sermon!
DominckG
http://www.stmarkblog.com
You may want to read my books about how and why I left the faith. I certainly left the fundamentalist form of Christianity because of my historical scholarship. But I left Christianity for altogether different reasons, and the Christianity I left was not at all fundementalist, evangelical, or in the least conservative; it was good, mainstream, very liberal Christianity that stressed metaphor and the importance of myth.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for this blog and opportunity to ask you questions. I understand your leaving the fundamentalist form of Christianity because of your historical scholarship.
But, if I may ask, would you please briefly explain your reasons for leaving Christianity altogether? That is something I don’t quite understand. Perhaps you have already addressed that question, but being new to the blog I am still trying to catch up on all the postings.
Thank you, margret
—
—
I deal with that issue at some length in my book God’s Problem. Hope it’s of some use in explaining my journey.
Thank you for letting me know which book deals with that. I had planned on reading that one next.
In my previous post my arrows completely mucked up the formatting and removed much of the text so I’m retrying:
For the Jewish people, the Christ-figure, the Messiah, was the “hoped-for” leader that would lead them in their struggle for freedom from Roman rule. Peter’s declaration is followed by the first prophecy of the Passion, where Jesus completely undermines this concept of Messiah-ship. Peter’s reaction in remonstrating with Jesus leads to Jesus’ rebuke in front of all the disciples:
“Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
[Mark 8:33]
Christ rejects a faith that is based on a desire to impose our will on others.
Closely following the second prophecy of the Passion is a statement from John, as the personification of reason: “Master, we saw a man who is not one of us, casting out devils in your name, and because he was not one of us, we tried to stop him”. Jesus responds:
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said.
“For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.
[Mark 8:39-40]
Christ rejects a faith that is based on a belief that we are more virtuous than others.
The third prophecy of the Passion is followed by the request of James, as the personification of faith, and John as the personification of reason, to be allowed to sit at the right and left of Christ in glory. Faith and reason without divine spirit is the voice of conviction, and it is the voice of conviction that speaks loudest. For this reason, [3: 17], Jesus gives James and John the name “Boanerges” or “Sons of Thunder”. But the response of Jesus to their request is:
“You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
[Mark 8:39-40]
Christ rejects a faith that is based on the final vanity; the conviction that the sacrifice of oneself for that faith makes us more worthy than others.
Thanks for your patience!
DominickG
I believed from an extremely early age that religion was the craziest story ever told, much to the horror of my parents. Maybe it is my analytical nature, but I was always the kid in the back of the Sunday School Class either asking quesitons about the absurdities of Noah’s Ark or sitting there thinking I didn’t eat the apple so I am not to blame for anything. As I got older and could see the whole picture then it really got crazy. A loving God that gave you 2 choices, love him or bun in hell forever. Which for you math majors is really one choice. He also requires a blood sacrifice of his son (Jesus) which harkens back to the symbology of goat ceremonies. The rest is just knock offs from older religions. There is always someone is the class with his hand up going but you have free choice. No you don’t, You either choose right or burn in hell forever. So When Moses was on the mount and God aid, ” Though Shalt not have no other Gods Before me.” Moses should have asked for more resumes. Maybe we could have gotten a nicer God with fewer powers.
I am enjoying learning more of the detail of how this all come into being. Thank you for the rant Dr. Ehrman.