Amph Bart Ehrman, the world's greatest Atheist Christian Apologist

Ever since reading Bruce Metzger's incomparable Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration, with Bart Ehrman's involvement for the fourth edition, I've become a fan of Ehrman's writing. He's one of the more popular atheist intellectuals, and his status as a leading scholar of biblical texts and a former fundamentalist Christian puts him in a unique position between two incompatible and seemingly mutually exclusive worlds.

I've been waiting for 2-3 years to read Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God." Now that it's out, and I've read it, I can say for certain that Ehrman has become the world's foremost atheist Christian apologist. With his latest book, he's done for the atheist/christian dialogue what third and fourth century theologians did for the Holy Trinity. He's embraced the paradox and fleshed out the nuances of Christianity in a way that really makes Christianity seem a lot more sympathetic to nonbelievers.

Unlike religions such as LDS and Scientology which were founded by charlatan circus carnies, Christianity was almost certainly founded by people who were genuinely insane, and that may in fact be one of the reasons it became so popular so quickly. There were other reasons of course. Christianity, like Islam, was the right religion in the right place at the right time. Yet, the audacity of Jesus and the first Christians goes far beyond what I had ever believed about the origins of the religion, if Ehrman's arguments about the first years of the religion are anything close to correct.

"How Jesus Became God" is less interesting than the Metzger classic on the texts and much of Ehrman's other work, such as "Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics," but it does cement the takeaway for me that the vast majority of Christians don't know anything much about Christianity or Jesus. They're blissfully ignorant about the origins of their movement and the evolution of their theologies and holy texts. Yet, at the same time, they're not completely wrong about much of what they think Christianity means and how it got that way. "Lowest common denominator Christianity" is more or less right on target and aligned perfectly with the very first years of the church. Also, the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who have really got it right.

Anyway, decent read even relative to the very long wait for its publication.

 

I'm only going by your one sentence description, but that seems deeply unlikely for the same reason the Nolan Joker interpretation is unrealistic. Severe mental illness is generally to crippling to sustain complex social activities. That's why they make up such a huge fraction of the homeless and impoverished. Insanity could perhaps get you a revered aesthetic like John the Baptist. It doesn't tend to produce people who kept the tempo of travel and correspondence that first generation Christian leaders did. Especially not so many, all at once, working with common purpose.

 

I should make clear that "genuinely insane" is not the Bart Ehrman interpretation. He would not say "genuinely insane," but he's an academic. In Jesus's case, "crippling to sustain complex social activities," hard to say. He was wrong about himself and his mission in a way that got him killed. Ehrman desribes the disciples in historically neutral terms. "At least some of them, and Paul, had visions of Jesus after Jesus's death." He makes distinctions about what can and cannot be historically verifiable without deciding whether disciples hallucinated or lied or experienced the supernatural. These kinds of concessions to historiography are what make him such a profoundly effective Christian apologist for an atheist.

But what's clear to him is that belief in the resurrection of Jesus was spreading within a few years, less than a decade, after his execution. And of course he already argued in a previous book that Jesus's existence and execution by Pontius Pilate is "proven" by any reasonable historiographical standard.

 

There enough. Though to be clear, what you're describing with Jesus is still in the worst case not comparable to insanity. Much like the Bush administration's estimation of the war in Iraq it simply represents a very severe miss judgment. But rational people can be very very wrong. That's different than losing one's ability to test reality and distinguish it from fantasy in their environment.

 

liked for this sentence

but Jabbadabbado are american fundies really so "right" about the early church? didnt followers of The Way live communally? hardly room for american capitalist jesus there

 

Ehrman would probably argue that Jesus's problems were about his predictions for future events and the role he was to play in them, which didn't include, in his mind, being crucified and serving as direct supernatural mediator for salvation. Jesus's beliefs wouldn't interfere with his ability to make rational decisions in the present...until his arrest. There is an implied argument not openly expressed by Ehrman, that Jesus was rational enough to know that some of his beliefs opened him to the possibility of being executed by the Roman state for sedition, and so made an effort to keep those particular beliefs a secret from everyone but his disciples, at least until Judas betrayed those beliefs to the authorities.

 

Bart Ehrman doesn't appear to believe his own work about atheism, because the edition he assisted Bruce Metzger with of "Text of the New Testament" was done the same year he wrote "Misquoting Jesus". On page 252, in the appendix of the latter book, Ehrman says, "The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position, that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."

Apparently, his atheism has much more to do with personal desire, instead of logic or reason.

 

That's not apparent at all. Ehrman's position is that the basic elements of Christian belief are circulating in preliterary traditions before Paul writes any letters or any of the gospels are written, but that the theology of the second, third and fourth centuries, such as in particular the development of the Holy Trinity doctrine, influences the ultimate composition of later manuscripts.

But like I said, Ehrman's atheism makes him a profoundly effective Christian apologist. I think it's very easy for a Christian to read his latest book as an ultimately faith-affirming message.

 

Ehrman doesn't talk much about how early Christians lived, only what they believed. The ones closest to Jesus's original apocalyptic message may have believed that caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, shelter to the homeless, etc. was necessary behavior for surviving the apocalypse and being judged fit to live in God's eternal kingdom on earth. In any case, that idea makes it into the synoptic gospels. Ehrman argues that Matt. 25:31-46 bears signs of having actually been something Jesus said. It fits the apocalyptic preacher context, and it fits the "criterion of dissimilarity." I'm not qualified to judge that, but per Ehrman, there's a good chance that the very first Christians thought that the crucifixion signaled the immediate coming of the apocalypse, because the imminent arrival of the apocalypse during the lives of those living right then was primarily what Jesus preached. However, as time passed and the apocalypse failed to materialize, Christians quickly, very quickly, refocused their belief on the possibility of salvation through belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

Another thing lurking in Ehrman's text is intimations of the earliest theology of liberation movement. Christianity became a class rebellion in the Roman empire, with Jesus the son of God, in direct competition with the emperor, son of God. Early Christians saw a world with a much closer continuum between the human and divine realm, so there wasn't a huge stretch for them to believe that God adopted Jesus as his son and elevated him to divinity at the moment of the crucifixion, which is what the earliest Christians likely believed. For them there was an easy comparison with adopted sons of Roman emperor gods being exalted to divine status. Of course, Ehrman may have got this idea from an Original Trek episode.

 

A wonderful interview with Ehrman about the book:

http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/

 

what's a Christian apologist ?

 

A Christian that says they're sorry a lot.

 

Apologetics: the reasoned defense of Christianity against objections.

It doesn't take a very strained reading of "How Jesus Became God" to interpret it as deep cover Christian apologetics. Ehrman has over the years pounced on a number of claims held dear by some of the most anti-Christian polemics, e.g.

-Jesus did not exist at all - he was a composite invention taking elements of Jewish messianic apocalypticism and hybridizing it with Graeco-Roman traditions about humans that work miracles and attain divine status
-Jesus's divinity was a late-breaking convention that arose long after his death and was interpolated back into the text of the bible with the doctrinal struggles of the third and fourth centuries

 

Those are two particularly stupid claims to make in the first place, though. It's like saying Ken Hamm is a closet evolutionist because he doesn't agree with AnakinAnarchist's theory of geocentrism.

 

The point is Ehrman's one of the few figures who commands enough authority among atheists that they will listen to his arguments about the origin of Christianity, many of which could be seen as very faith affirming. I think of apologetics as being outward oriented, something intended to influence non Christians. Ehrman really makes early Christianity understandable within its own cultural context at the time it sprang up.

 

The thing I like about Ehrman is that he doesn't pander to the atheist crowd by being unecessarily hostile, like some others (Dr Richard Carrier for example). He respects religious faith and divinity and theology but is in essence a biblical historian and so he approaches the subject of early Christianity and the Scriptures with that frame of reference. If you believe in God, Jesus, the resurection, the divinity of Christ etc etc, then that's OK with Bart, just don't cite scripture as any form of ultimate reliable authority from a historical perspective for those beliefs as he will give you a spectacular smack down, as he has done numerous times in public debates (most of which are on youtube).

 

No. His counterargument is in fact notoriously weak, as opposed to the smackdown some might imagine it to be.
( And the sound you're hearing is glass breaking. )

 

but I thought an 'Apologist' was a derogatory term for someone who is seeking to defend something which can't really be defended .

.

 

Well, there's an "International Society of Christian Apologetics." Derogatory term doesn't seem right. Maybe some atheists think of it that way.

 

Why can't one just distance themselves from Christianity and modify their own beliefs to suit their needs?

 

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you mean what I think you mean: It's easy to do in western Europe, where Christianity is nearly dead. It's not possible in American culture. The Christian right is too loud and too insistent and too prevalent in politics. Did I understand the question?

 

ok , I'm not sure what you're talking about .

are you defending / apologising for / or excusing Christianity ? or what ?

 

Yup that's basically what I meant. I just didn't know how to word it properly.

 

gezvader28 Me? I think it's good to have a biblical textual scholar like Ehrman who approaches the origins of Christianity from a historical rather than theological perspective. There aren't a lot of real historians who want to get anywhere near the topic, but Ehrman's background makes him unique. Christianity is worth getting to know well because of its vast cultural significance in my part of the world. Ehrman's work offers a pathway for getting to know Christianity a whole lot better.

 

yeah I think it's fine to get as much history on it as you can , but it tends to end up being - history vs. faith , which goes nowhere .

I'm not a Christian (altho I was raised one ) but for me no matter how much history or facts you get it doesn't address the most significant aspect which is - even if it's all made up , why has this 'myth' this story survived and been so significant ? it's kinda like the difference between a documentary and a drama , a documentary can give you the facts but not the important human psychology or emotion , whereas a drama will often bend the facts but give more human truth to the situation .


.