I remember years ago, sitting in an undergraduate class on Recent European History. The professor of this particular class was extremely confident and he came from the Brooklyn, New York area. This man was very sure of what he was saying he had a very powerful mind. And, he was rabidly anti-Christian. He hated Christians, hated Jesus, hated God and hated the Bible. He would taunt and mock Christians, Christianity, the Bible and anyone who hinted that they might be sympathetic to Christianity, let alone an actual Christian. He was no one to “mess around with” unless you were ready for a fight. It was a real wake-up call for me. I got a “C” out of the class.
Next, in my academic and scholastic experience, I remember a graduate school course I took while attending West Virginia University. The course was called Advanced Policy Analysis. It was a three hour night class and I’ll never forget the first night of the class as the professor stood up and made the declaration “There are two ways to view and interpret the economy and economics. One is from a market/capitalist point of view and the other is from a Marxist/Leninist point of view. I want you to know that I prefer the Marxist/Leninist point of view”. Needless to say, at that point, there was a little smoke in the atmosphere and a palpable tension in the air. I immediately thought, “I am so out of this class”. But, after sitting through that first class and “getting a feel for this guy”, I thought “I can make this work”, even though I was diametrically opposed to the views of this professor. I ended up taking two or three courses from him and I remember getting an “A” in one of them.
So, why all of this sharing about my personal academic experience, seemingly “out of the blue”? The reason being, I want the reader to know that I have some experience in academia and higher education and, more importantly, I have experience in dealing with those whose are strongly opposed to my beliefs and my point of view. I am somewhat qualified to write this post. You will see the necessity of such an introduction as we get into this.
So, the other day, I was shown a CNN news article dated May 15, 2009 and written by John Blake. The title of the news article was “Former Fundamentalist ‘Debunks’ Bible”. Needless to say, this got my attention. In this article, we read about a professor named Bart D Ehrman who is a professor of New Testament Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ehrman has written many books and his most recent work is titled “Jesus, Interrupted”. In no uncertain terms, this book is anti-Christian and it portrays the Bible as essentially, a false work and not worthy of developing and formulating a system of faith and moral belief out of its writings. So, one might ask “As a serious Christian, why would you read such a book?” I read the book first, because I couldn’t stand “not knowing” first hand what this guy was saying. Then, secondly, when I was in the military, we were taught, at that time, that one of the best ways to deal with an enemy, is to learn and know as much about your enemy as you possibly can. And, to put it in “street”, as a Pastor, you simply need to know what’s going on.
Upon reading “Jesus, Interrupted”, one cannot help but notice that Ehrman seems to be very determined to let the reader know that he is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary. Indeed, Ehrman mentions “Princeton” 8 times in the 3 ½ page preface of the book. Perhaps, this is OK. One must be aware however, that Princeton is an “Ivy League School” and there is a well-known and very historical sense of intellectual elitism that goes along with “Princeton” and the “Ivy League”. Ehrman is playing on this status. Big time.
In his book, Ehrman talks of how, early in his life, he was an evangelical Christian. Something which he now seems ashamed of and, seems to profusely apologize for in his book. He makes it very clear that he no longer considers himself an evangelical and portrays evangelicals as “narrow-minded bigots”.
Let’s take a look at some of the things Ehrman says in his book. On page number 1, of chapter 1, Ehrman is talking about the Bible and he says “…it is also the most thoroughly misunderstood, especially by the lay-reading public”. Here, as in the preface, Ehrman sets himself apart as an intellectual elite who is one of the few qualified people in this world to read and interpret the Bible.
Next, on page 4, of chapter 1, Ehrman teaches about the “Historical-Critical” method of Bible interpretation verses the “Devotional” method of Bible interpretation. He makes it very, very clear that he utilizes the Historical-Critical method of interpretation and implies that the Devotional method of interpretation is for “misguided and uneducated” people.
So, now let’s get to the “nuts and bolts” of it all. On pages 5 and 6, of chapter 1, Ehrman states that “The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions” and he states “The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend” and “It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught”.
Part of Ehrman’s reasoning and critique evolve out of the thesis that “if there are contradictions in the Bible, particularly in the Four Gospels, about a particular story or event, then, by the Historical-Critical interpretive method, the reader must conclude that the story or event never happened”. In other words, if different people are describing what they saw or heard during an event, and, if there are differences in how they are describing the story or event, then maybe it didn’t happen at all. So, what Ehrman has essentially done, is to point to a supposed plethora of supposed contradictions in the Bible and say, because of these “contradictions” the Bible cannot be taken as an accurate record of historical fact.
Here is the short-coming of Ehrman’s method of analysis and interpretation. The “historical” example that “screams” to be used at this point is the JFK assassination. So very well do many of us remember that day. I know that I was sitting in class at school as the Principal’s voice came over the intercom at school and announced “The President has been shot in Dallas”. And, then, the world changed.
Let’s look briefly at the Kennedy assassination. There are a myriad of conspiracy theories swirling around this historical event. Some examples are “It would have been impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have gotten off the multiple shots required, in the few seconds that evolved, and to have been that accurate from such a distance”. Next, there is the grassy knoll. Several people who were there that day talked of seeing another gunman on the grassy knoll. But, the experts say that a shot at such close range would have done much more damage. But, others argue that a lighter caliber gun could have been used. And, also at the grassy knoll, were the supposed policeman that “came out of nowhere and then disappeared” after the shooting. And, then, there was the woman who was picked up as she was hitch-hiking around the New Orleans area a few weeks before and told the driver of the car that gave her a ride “They’re going to kill the President in Dallas”.
So, we are left with more questions than answers when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. Who were “They” that this mystery woman was talking about? And, it does seem that it would be a lot to expect a lone gunman to accomplish at the distance and few seconds of time that Oswald supposedly was able to do. And, what about the several eye-witnesses to things going on at the grassy knoll? Indeed, it is a mystery.
My point is this. We have many, many people who gave many, many varying and different and “contradictory” accounts of the Kennedy assassination. There was even a formal governmental investigation of the event and still no solid conclusion and much disagreement among the legal and governmental experts. So, no conclusion on exactly how and why the Kennedy assassination occurred. So, according to Ehrman and his view and perspective of the Historical-Critical approach, we would have to conclude that because there are “irreconcilable contradictions” surrounding the Kennedy assassination that, we perhaps have to conclude that “it didn’t happen”. Maybe, everyone simply had a “visionary imagination” about all of it, and Kennedy has been hidden away somewhere all these years for some mysterious reason. You may say, that’s absurd. Well, read Ehrman’s book. This is exactly how Ehrman goes about “interpreting” the Bible.
Another example I would love to “get into” to make my point, but for the lack of time I will only touch upon is the Princess Diana auto accident. What of the mysterious white Fiat or Peugeot that may have “cut them off” in the tunnel that fatal evening? And, what about auto accidents in general. How many different interpretations and contradictions of who did what. I think you understand the weakness of Ehrman’s broad-brush approach with the Historical-Critical method of Biblical interpretation.
Furthermore, on any given day, on any major news event, you can click on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and the BBC and read stories about the same news event, but, get varying and differing views of what happened and why and how. Does this mean it didn’t happen?
OK, let’s get back to the book. On page 16, of chapter 1, Ehrman’s challenges (in an almost taunting fashion) the authenticity of the Bible as he says “If God wanted us to have His words, why didn’t He preserve His words”. Next, on page 32, of chapter 2, Ehrman writes about the reference of King Herod and the slaughtering of the children as found in the Book of Matthew. Ehrman says of Matthew that this was “…a detail made up by Matthew in order to make some kind of theological point?” Next, there is what I see as the most stunning and jaw-dropping arrogance exhibited by Ehrman found on pages 104-107, in chapter 4, in the section sub-titled “The Authors of The Gospels”. Here Ehrman discusses who may have written the Bible. Ehrman begins to paint with a very broad brush and indicates that all of the disciples were illiterate. Then Ehrman makes a most stupefying, condescendingly, super-arrogant inference as he says, on page 105, “Jesus himself was highly exceptional, in that he could evidently read (Luke 4:16-20), but there is nothing to indicate that he could write”.
The magnitude of such a statement leads me to believe that, somewhere along the way, Ehrman was offended concerning Christianity. And, he apparently has taken it so personally that he subsequently has made it his mission in life to “destroy” Christianity. Somewhere along the way, there was an offense.
Next, one can get an idea of Ehrman’s doctrine (or, absence of doctrine) on forgiveness of sin as you see on page 172, of chapter 5, where Ehrman says “We have no historical record that can prove why, from God’s point of view, Jesus died”.
Next, Ehrman comes up short again on page 225, of chapter 7, where he summarizes that most Christians, in other parts of the world, particularly outside of the Southern U.S., don’t adhere to a belief that a person has to necessarily believe in the Bible in order to be a Christian. In other words, Ehrman is telling us that one can be a Christian, while at the same time, believe that the Bible is a bogus forgery. This would be an oxymoron.
Here Ehrman misses it completely. Here Ehrman exhibits an underdeveloped sense of the Christian world view. Here, Ehrman exhibits underexposure to Christianity in other parts of the world. Remember, Ehrman “dropped out of the race” long time ago. Ehrman needs to visit the Christian churches in places like Iganga, Uganda and the slums of Nairobi (where I have ministered) and ask the Christians there if they believe in the Bible. Oh, but wait! That’s right, how could I forget, the African Christians didn’t graduate from Princeton. How could I have overlooked such a thing!
You know, to be honest with you, Ehrman presents, in an analogous way, as a thwarted athlete. As a person who loved the game of football as a young boy, played at the junior-varsity level, but then never made it to the next level due to a combination of small-stature and lack of skill. But now, Ehrman offers up critique of the game as if he is a veteran, all-pro quarterback who “hawks” 10 Super Bowl rings. And, he feels like he needs to apologize to the rest of us because of “how good he is”. But, at the same time he enjoys telling all the rest of us why we are not qualified to play the game. Hubris?
Finally, on page 283, the last page of the book, on the 1st line, we see Ehrman “lay down his hand” as he says “Furthermore, even those of us who do not believe in the Bible can still learn from it”.
The glaring short-coming of Ehrman’s analysis is that he thinks he can get us all to believe he can intellectually dismiss the person of Jesus Christ and at the same time totally ignore the “Father” and the “Holy Spirit” that Jesus spoke frequently about. We read in several passages in the four gospels that Jesus was “filled with the Holy Spirit” and “led by the Holy Spirit”. We read in several passages in the four gospels where Jesus speaks of His Father in Heaven. So my point is, if Ehrman is going to be so bold as to inform us that Jesus didn’t exist, then, to be “intellectually honest” in his analysis, Ehrman also has the burden to explain away the “Father of Jesus” and the “Holy Spirit”. Ehrman does not and cannot do it. Ehrman is being less than scholarly in his appraoch to Bible interpretation. Ehrman is a spiritually blind man attempting to lead other spiritually blind men and they will all fall into a ditch. Perhaps, Ehrman could have been so bold as to have titled his book “God Interrupted”?
Years ago, when I was meditating on Christianity and how I have seen certain professors and even a few so-called preachers seek to de-authenticate the Bible, I had a vision. Here is how it went: I saw a chamber in Hell, it was sort of like a cave. The chamber was dimly lit with a pulsating type light that is emitted from flames. And, in this chamber there were approximately 20 or 30 demons that appeared to be assembled as if in a classroom. Then, they brought out a man who apparently had been either a Pastor or a Professor in his life on Earth. The conditions in this chamber were miserable. Then, this man was asked (forced) to begin teaching, the group of demons that were assembled, on the subject of why he did not believe in the existence of God. So, the professor began his discourse and at first the demons seemed interested. Looking at them, they almost exhibited a type of sadness that they were there and an extreme anxiety that their fate had been sealed. They at first, appeared to respect what the professor was saying but, in short order, their sadness turned into mockery and extremely sarcastic laughter and taunting of the professor. They were asking him questions during his discourse such as “Why did you believe us?” and “Why would any fool believe there is no God” and “Why do you think we are here?” and “Why do you think you are here?” Then, these demonic spirits became very violent, almost as if sharks in a feeding frenzy as they began screaming at the professor and calling him filthy names. At the same time, the light began to go out in the chamber, at which time, the demons began attacking the professor beating him and biting him in the dark. Then, the vision changed. The chamber was once again set up and the same scenario unfolded with the same man. Then, the Holy Spirit impressed upon me that this cycle would continue for this man for eternity.
So, if Ehrman wants to talk about visions and imaginations (as he does in his book), then this is one I had years ago. Perhaps, he would find it interesting.
In closing, I really admire the gracefulness and maturity exhibited in the response of Bishop William H Willimon in the CNN news article. Bishop Willimon is quoted as saying that he doesn’t like the “breathless tone” of Ehrman’s work. And, “He keeps presenting this stuff as if this is wonderful new knowledge that has been kept from you backward lay people and this is the stuff your preachers don’t’ have the guts to tell, and I have. There’s a touch of arrogance in it”.
You know, I couldn’t agree more with Bishop Willimon.
A point of note. The CNN news article also points out that Ehrman is a frequent contributor to the Biblical documentaries shown on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. Remember, a few posts back I expressed my extreme frustration with these documentaries. Now I know why!
In closing, I will quote what one of my church members had to say upon reading the CNN news story. He said of Ehrman “What a wasted career, what a wasted life”.
