Academia is a business of argumentation. We are trained to falsify our own assumptions to varying degrees of success. We are also trained to appraise the strengths and weaknesses of our colleagues' arguments with varying degrees of honesty. The byproduct of such a state of affairs is that almost no professional scholar can agree with a colleague 100% of the time. This is a happy byproduct. It just so happens that we spend most of our time focusing on the 5 to 10% that makes for good debate. (By the way, keep this in mind the next time that someone laments that there is a different "historical Jesus" for every historical Jesus scholar. In my view, most of us agree much more than we disagree.) This is why Tom Wright and Marcus Borg could tour the world for a decade with their Siegfried and Roy act.
So I am quite happy to say that I agree with about 80% of what Bart Ehrman writes. This statement will scandalize some demographics and seem par for the course to others (no surprise there). Some folks are going to think that 80% is too high a percentage as I am a professing believer and Prof. Ehrman is a dreaded heretic.
Well, let me qualify this number by explaining that it gets worse: not all of the remaining 20% is disagreement. As I am not a textual critic, I am simply not qualified to have an opinion about some of Ehrman's research. So there is really only about 10% of his conclusions where I (1) am qualified to take an opposite stance and (2) do indeed take an opposite stance. I should qualify this further by saying that I have not read everything that Ehrman has published (who can keep up?).
I thank God for Bart Ehrman because he is good at what he does. This, of course, includes marketing himself and his ideas. I am grateful that his influence in the general public sets the talking points along the lines of sanity. I am grateful that he exemplifies good argumentation. To me, this is much more important than his conclusions.
For what it's worth, this blog post could just have easily have been titled "Why I thank God for Tom Wright". There are some academics who are always going to hate both of these guys because they've pursued a popular audience. (One also wonders about professional jealousy.) Say what you will of C.S. Lewis or Bertrand Russell, but these guys teach an otherwise unreachable group of students and set the tone of a needed conversation. Without the Bart Ehrmans and Tom Wrights, most of the the interested public would be living in an echo chamber filled only with the voices of Simcha Jacobovici and Lee Strobel.
-anthony
Thanks for this post. I'm curious what conclusions fall under the 10% that you feel qualified to have an opinion about and take the opposite stance.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, what is your take on the following Ehrman conclusions:
1. Ehrman argues that the Jesus' dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3 is probably not historical because the pun of "anothen" only works in Greek, not Aramaic which Jesus most likely would not have been using in a conversation with a Jewish religious leader.
2. Ehrman argues that the triumphal entry probably never happened because if it did, the Romans would have arrested him then and there.
3. Erhman argues that Jesus was an apocalytic prophet who predicted the imminent end of history and breaking in of the kingdom of God.
Caveat: I have not read your books although I would like too.
Thank you Caleb,
DeleteI knew as soon as I posted this that someone would want to sidestep the thrust of my affirmation and ask about the 10%.
This makes for good biblio-fodder, but I think that answering your questions would be counter-productive as it would take away from the impetus for this post. Perhaps I can return to your questions in a different post.
I am, however, on record concerning numbers 2 and 3 - and a few of my books make great father's day gifts.
-anthony
I have learned a good deal from Bart Ehrman's academic writing. As to his popular material, it's hard to fault him for his content-- he brings no new data to the table. My objection to his argumentation is related to his pursuit of a popular audience: at least in public debate, I have seen him use his knowledge as a weapon against unsuspecting (if deserving) fundamentalists. In the matter of fundamentalist paranoia over "error" in scripture, he beats them at their own "all-or-nothing" game, but I gather he doesn't believe a word of it. His cynicism is hard to take; it looks like revenge.
ReplyDeleteTo my own students, I continue to say: If you don't want the big bad wolf to "huff and puff and blow your house down", don't build your house out of cards in the first place.
Scott Caulley
"Don't build your house out of cards in the first place." Well said, Scott.
DeleteI like Bart's books for bringing out the supposed controversies to the average person. However I like to make my own conclusions rather than relying on his.
ReplyDeleteI emailed Bart Ehrman a question last year. I asked him why he thought Paul had virtually no sayings of Jesus. He actually responded. He pointed out examples where Paul did use some of Jesus' sayings and, more surprisingly, he suggested it was not really a problem and gave a few reasons why.
ReplyDeleteNow, having said that, I need to suggest something about his having good argumentation. I have listened to at least 5 Ehrman debates. Perhaps his arguments on a scholarly level are good. But his arguments on a popular level are misleading and sensationalistic.
The ever popular, "there are more variants in the NT than there are words" comes to mind. And then there is the, "all we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of the NT". Both of these are misleading and play off the general ignorance of the average listener (given this blog no need to explain the problems with these arguments).
Corby, both of your examples are great illustrations.
DeleteI have heard him say "there are more variants in the NT than there are words" half a dozen times... in my hearing, he has qualified this statement by speaking to the triviality of most of these variations. But his point is an important one nonetheless and effectively jarring to some ears.
His statement "all we have are copies of copies of copies of copies of the NT" is not wrong. I would push it even further though. I would say that all we have are memories of memories of memories leading to copies of copies. This illustrates how much we can agree on and how much we (in this case, me) have invested in our nuances.
It sounds like you're saying: he may be right, but I would have said it differently.
My point exactly.
-anthony
As one of those non-scholarly folks (and a devout agnostic) interested in the issues addressed by Ehrman, I found his self-absorption boring and his axe-grinding tedious. He does not have an easy command of the written word.
ReplyDeleteWhat interesting stuff he says (and it is there) is in desperate need of an editor who can get through his seemingly impervious and unappealing ego.
Anonymous, please, tell us what you really think. I have to disagree. I think Bart is a great writer. I think his axe-grinding is less significant in his more serious work, and it's a shame more people don't read that work. Of course he has an ego, as most scholars do, but I never cease being surprised that people so easily hate Bart. I've had numerous interactions with him, including he and Eldon Epp publishing my first book, and can attest that he's genuinely a nice guy in person.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that certain people so easily hate Bart is probably because they find him (and his arguments) threatening ...
DeleteDr. Le Donne
ReplyDeleteHave you waded into Ehrman's new academic tome: "Forgery and Counterforgery"? I enjoyed the earlier book for popular audiences, "Forged", and have wondered whether I would find this new book readable or too dense for me. (I'm an academic, but in the fine arts, not in biblical studies).
I have read a good chunk of it, and I would say that it might be a bit on the dense side, if for no other reason that Ehrman occasionally gives a bit of untranslated Greek from the Apostolic Fathers or other sources.
DeleteI have not. Do please call me Anthony.
DeleteThanks, Anthony.
DeleteI think I'll try to wade into it. I've been enlightened by everything I've read by Ehrman.
Always funny to see which posts generate comments!
ReplyDelete