Rook, What is your opinion on Bart D. Ehrman's work and his beliefs?
Offline Rook, What is your opinion on Bart D. Ehrman's work and his beliefs? I have recently finished his Historical Jesus, The Lost Gospels of Judas, and am currently going through Misquoting Jesus and From Jesus to Constantine. I find his work to be quite fascinating, although much of it heavily overlaps. I think he is presenting himself as an agnostic so as to not alienate his students, colleagues, and consumers of his works. It seems from most of the claims he lays out he is a closet atheist who purports to celebrate the traditions of Christianity out of social and nostalgic reverence. I know that you have your mythicist campaign which conflicts directly with his historical interpretation. Summary of Ehrman's Jesus being: an apocalyptic prophet who taught the end of times would come very soon in his own generation and he would sit as King of God's People in the Kingdom here on earth.
Do you think the claims he makes about the nature of Jesus in his own time, as understood by his textual criticism, to be a fair interpretation of a historical Jesus if he did exist? The question isn't whether you think he existed, you don't, and I don't think he probably did either, but whether Ehrman is tapping into a more realistic account of the Jesus Myth than has being portrayed previously by the likes of Atwill, Acharya S, Doherty etc.
Do you see him as a fairly objective historian doing honest work?
Where would you say you disagree with his conclusions? I'm not sure he doesn't believe Jesus is a myth, I just don't think he sees that as his position to argue for or against.
Thanks in advance for your response.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
This is quite an extensive list of questions. I'm going to forward my answer to Bart and allow him a response, because I respect Bart a lot and would not want to keep him from voicing any disagreements with my conclusions here.
(1) I have quite a bit of the books Bart has published. I find him to be a fiercely read individual, who takes his profession very seriously. He is to be respected, in my opinion, even if you do not agree with everything he has to say. I disagree with some of Bart's conclusions, but if everyone agreed with each other, Bart and I would both be out of work, and at the very least it would make for some dull monographs. Scholarship already manufactures endnotes at an incredible speed (I'm sure there is a factory somewhere that just spends all day producing endnotes...).
(2) Bart's claims echo quite a few very prominent scholars, some I know, many I do not. Their scholarship focuses on different questions than mine does, although I think that is part of the problem. You can check my article on the historical Jesus for more information on this particular issue.
(3) I would never consider Atwill or Acharya S as "realistic". They do not register as historians, in my opinion. Atwill makes some pretty outrageous claims, and he admits he is not a historian or scholar. Acharya S introduced more prevalently her opinions on astrotheology, which I find to be dubious and pseudoscholarship. Bart is not only one of the worlds top textual critics, but he also is not afraid to reconsider or restate previous positions he has made in light of new perspectives. That is commendable.
(4) Bart is a serious student (and teacher) of history. Like I said, we do not always agree, but I believe we have more in common than we have differences. Bart has (and I'm not ashamed to admit it) corrected me several times when I have overstated a position or had a source wrong. I'm honored that I have the ability to run perspectives by him, even if he shoots them down. His experience has been helpful.
(5) I disagree with Bart's conclusions the same way I disagree with Dom Crossan's, Paula Fredriksen's, and Geza Verme's opinions. I will have the arguments laid out in their entirety in my forthcoming book.
The best,
Rook
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Thanks for your prompt and well enumerated responses. I really just wanted your perspective on his works and ideas, and I didn't count on you knowing him and forwarding this to him, but thanks. I guess the underlying question about Dr. Ehrman was whether he was seen as one of the more reliable, honest, and well respected peers in your field. Your response plainly shows that he is. Being an active, honest peer reviewer is a fairly thankless job and that speaks a lot about a person's character. Thanks again.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Here is Bart's reply:
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
That does clear it up a bit for me. I suppose I was kind of wondering if he was agnostic with regard to the Judeo-Christian God, and he isn't. I appreciate you forwarding this to me Rook.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I wonder if instead of "Do you think there is some kind of superior force/divine entity in the universe?" the question was "Do you believe in some kind of superior force/divine entity in the universe?" Would he would answer "no" given that he doesn't know if it exists in the first place.
I suspect that he would, which would make him an atheist in pretty much every sense of the word besides the 'positive belief of no god' that theists like to slap on us.
Regardless, I am looking forward to picking up a couple of his books at some stage this year.
Bart Ehrman is an excellent scholar on textual criticism. That being said, he is the king of overstatement. He is a self-proclaimed agnostic and lost his faith because his fundamentalist upbringing couldn't handle the rigors of academia.
That's a real brash statement from somebody who doesn't know the man.
Its a statement of known fact based on his own self-disclosure in his books. Do you priviledge yourself by knowing people?
If theism (fundametalst or otherwise) can't handle scrutiny, that leads me to think theism has the problem.
You seem to be blaiming the scrutiny.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It is hardly a statement of "known fact" when you are stating your opinion. He has never said that he "overstates" so that cannot be claimed as fact. And since I know Bart, I know your statements are just childish regret - regret that you'll never be able to refute the positions Bart has laid down, so you attack him personally without any logical argument. Thanks for playing, but everyone who has read a post you've made here knows you can't seem to get the difference between fact and opinion. That is an opinion, by the way.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)