Bart Erhman

[Emower]

So, in addition to reading apologetic works by Laura Hales, Mason, and others I am also reading some of Bart Erhmans books.

I knew that the bible had contradictions, and that it probably was not a true history, but I really have not spent any time dwelling on the idea or what it means to christian faith. What I did not know was that there exists a greater divide between academic theologians and your average christian or preacher among the wider christian faith. Erhman makes it clear that most people who go through a seminary come out with views radically altered where the bible is not history, and that the authors all say something different about important stuff. But that view does not get communicated to Christians at large very well. That is interesting.

Also interesting is the analysis of what little discrepancies might mean. He talks about a bunch but one of the more interesting ones has to do with the reason for the death of Christ, which would be a really important deal right? Erhman contrasts the gospel of Luke's view with the gospel of Mark's view. For Mark, it is an atoning sacrifice. He gave his life as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Luke, which used Mark as source material, changed the idea. Luke omitted Mark's verse about a ransom, and changed the ripping of the temple curtain from happening at Christ's death to while Jesus still was living. Erhman states that many scholars view the curtain-ripping incident discrepancies as Mark thinking Jesus' death made it so people have access to God alone, and Luke thinking that the ripping of the curtain as he was still alive showed a judgement of God upon the establishment Jews (many other examples in Luke indicate that his agenda was to show judgement on the Jews). Then in Acts (which is written by the author of Luke), an atonement is never mentioned. Instead, what is mentioned a lot is the concept of judgment and forgiveness. The death of the innocent should make people turn in repentance to God (Acts 2:36-38, 3:17-19). So we have atonement from Mark, judgement and forgiveness from Luke. Not the same thing as Erhman points out, one involves an active mediator (Jesus), the other only a reminder to ask for forgiveness (Jesus). It is interesting to me that some simple changes can result in some major belief changes and where you put your emphasis.

Regardless of where one comes down on the faith spectrum, one has to grapple with what religious texts say at some point. I did not know that an academic christian viewpoint allows for a pretty wide latitude of beliefs. This is not news to most of you I am sure, (after all this is why there are so many denominations and ultimately what probably motivated Joseph Smith). This is my first foray into wider religious thought since giving up the ideas forced upon me by orthodox Mormon belief.

[Hagoth]

I really enjoyed the Erhman books I read and I enjoy listening to him speak and debate.

Erhman makes it clear that most people who go through a seminary come out with views radically altered where the bible is not history, and that the authors all say something different about important stuff. But that view does not get communicated to Christians at large very well. That is interesting.

A similar thing can happen with LDS scholars. Take, for instance, Richard Bushman's acknowledgement that the Books of Abraham and Moses are pseudepigrapha, while the church in general believes them to to be the actual writings of those prophets, or Charles Harrell's documentation of radically evolving LDS doctrine which everyone else seems to think has been unchanged since the beginning. The big difference between LDS scholars and Christian scholars is that Christians in general do not answer to self-proclaimed prophets, while Mormons must walk a fine line that requires them to acknowledge the superiority of the current leadership, lest they be branded apostate.

[oliver_denom]

If you want to really get your mind blown, then read Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God".

He points out that Paul's understanding of who Christ was differs wildly from what the writers of the gospel believed. The writers of the gospels believed that Jesus was born a regular human being and was at some point exalted and made divine. Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was an angel or heavenly being that came to earth. In other words, Paul viewed Jesus as already divine where the gospel writers saw this divine nature as having been bestowed.

[Corsair]

Bart Erhman is a really interesting author. He is an atheist that believes in a historical Jesus. Perhaps this Jesus was not quite like you may have heard about in the New Testament, and certainly a bit different than the guy taught in Primary, Sunday School, and LDS Seminary. But it's pretty likely that some itinerant mystic from the city of Nazareth and region of Galilee got a lot of Aramaic-speaking Jews and Greek-speaking Romans to embrace monotheism and (somewhat) be kind to each other. The fact that this movement won the demographic lottery and took over the Roman empire is a point in it's favor but is irrelevant to the question of theological truth.

[Emower]

The big difference between LDS scholars and Christian scholars is that Christians in general do not answer to self-proclaimed prophets, while Mormons must walk a fine line that requires them to acknowledge the superiority of the current leadership, lest they be branded apostate.

I would be interested to know if any of the academic scholars feel like they cannot be honest based on the majority of christian's believing in an error free Bible. Erhman mentions in the book I am reading (Jesus, interrupted) that he hesitated to write a freshman level textbook on the New Testament for fear of what it could to to his career. He also mentions that most people who go through a hard-core seminary and become ministers after almost always revert to a devotional view of the bible, presumably because that is what people want.
I think there may be some pressure to walk a certain line, even as a non-Mormon scholar and it probably just depends on the kinds of circles you want to run in that determines whether you walk that line or not. I think this is pretty similar with Mormonism.

If you want to really get your mind blown, then read Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God".

Its on my list!

[Emower]

But it's pretty likely that some itinerant mystic from the city of Nazareth and region of Galilee got a lot of Aramaic-speaking Jews and Greek-speaking Romans to embrace monotheism and (somewhat) be kind to each other.

As a guy who knows a little on the history of the Roman Empire, did the christian movement have a measurable effect on the social fabric like a reduction in violence or something?

[LaMachina]

If you want to really get your mind blown, then read Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God".

He points out that Paul's understanding of who Christ was differs wildly from what the writers of the gospel believed. The writers of the gospels believed that Jesus was born a regular human being and was at some point exalted and made divine. Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was an angel or heavenly being that came to earth. In other words, Paul viewed Jesus as already divine where the gospel writers saw this divine nature as having been bestowed.

How Jesus became God was very interesting. Highly recommend.

I can't recall which book I read this in, I thought it was one of Ehrman's but maybe it was Aslan's "Zealot"?? Anyway, the author suggested a theory that Paul's infamous statement 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' did not refer to some random false prophet or apostate but that it specifically referred to the Apostle James. It was a mind-blowing theory for me at the time but it seemed to make a lot of sense once I pondered on it.

[oliver_denom]

But it's pretty likely that some itinerant mystic from the city of Nazareth and region of Galilee got a lot of Aramaic-speaking Jews and Greek-speaking Romans to embrace monotheism and (somewhat) be kind to each other.

As a guy who knows a little on the history of the Roman Empire, did the christian movement have a measurable effect on the social fabric like a reduction in violence or something?

I would recommend reading:

Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism by Larry Siedentop

[Mad Jax]

But it's pretty likely that some itinerant mystic from the city of Nazareth and region of Galilee got a lot of Aramaic-speaking Jews and Greek-speaking Romans to embrace monotheism and (somewhat) be kind to each other.

As a guy who knows a little on the history of the Roman Empire, did the christian movement have a measurable effect on the social fabric like a reduction in violence or something?

There's no "quick answer" to this of course, but it can be argued that the Byzantine Empire was a relatively stable and successful implementation of civil religion. As to whether or not it would be more so or less so than say, a Persian religion, is ultimately speculative. I fear I really haven't answered your question but that's where I would begin if I were particularly interested in the outcome.

[Palerider]

If you want to really get your mind blown, then read Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God".

He points out that Paul's understanding of who Christ was differs wildly from what the writers of the gospel believed. The writers of the gospels believed that Jesus was born a regular human being and was at some point exalted and made divine. Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was an angel or heavenly being that came to earth. In other words, Paul viewed Jesus as already divine where the gospel writers saw this divine nature as having been bestowed.

How Jesus became God was very interesting. Highly recommend.

I can't recall which book I read this in, I thought it was one of Ehrman's but maybe it was Aslan's "Zealot"?? Anyway, the author suggested a theory that Paul's infamous statement 'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.' did not refer to some random false prophet or apostate but that it specifically referred to the Apostle James. It was a mind-blowing theory for me at the time but it seemed to make a lot of sense once I pondered on it.

I'm pretty sure the Apostle James was already dead by the time Paul wrote this. The book of James was most likely written by James the brother of the Lord.

This James had been quite adamant that new gentile converts still adhere to the Law of Moses and be circumsized among other things. He also had followers who became known as Judaizers who dogged Paul's converts demanding they follow the Law. As such their "gospel" became an amalgamation of Christian belief and unnecessary jewish legalism. Paul spent a lot of time trying to clean up the doctrinal mess they were making.
Hence his warning to not believe the overzealous followers of James the brother of Christ.

[LaMachina]

Too many James's!
You're right, I did mean James the brother of Jesus, who I believe can be justifiably considered an apostle. However, referring to him as THE apostle James is confusing, my apologies.

I do find the fact that Paul was warning against someone like James, a guy with enormous cred when it came to Jesus and his earthly ministry while Paul claimed visionary authority and (as oliver mentioned) what appears to be a much different understanding of Christ to be fascinating.

[Hagoth]

If you want to really get your mind blown, then read Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God".

He points out that Paul's understanding of who Christ was differs wildly from what the writers of the gospel believed. The writers of the gospels believed that Jesus was born a regular human being and was at some point exalted and made divine. Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was an angel or heavenly being that came to earth. In other words, Paul viewed Jesus as already divine where the gospel writers saw this divine nature as having been bestowed.

Also, the gospels seem to differ in their opinions about at what point Jesus became the "son of God." Luke gives us a virgin birth and a Jesus who is very special from the beginning but Mark seems to show Jesus begin adopted as the "son of God" at his baptism. John is from another planet entirely, when compared to the synoptics, and presents Jesus as the pre-existent "word." It is really weird to hear Sunday school teachers telling the story of Jesus when you realize they are building a story that is apart from the four gospels by mixing and matching the various gospel stories into a single new narrative.

[Corsair]

But it's pretty likely that some itinerant mystic from the city of Nazareth and region of Galilee got a lot of Aramaic-speaking Jews and Greek-speaking Romans to embrace monotheism and (somewhat) be kind to each other.

As a guy who knows a little on the history of the Roman Empire, did the christian movement have a measurable effect on the social fabric like a reduction in violence or something?

I will openly admit that I might be wrong in this, but I don't see Christianity necessarily reducing the violence. The Roman empire pragmatically decriminalized Chrstianity under Gallienus in 259, made it preferred under Constantine in 325, and became official under Theodosius in 387. The Byzantine empire in Constantinople in the east was thoroughly Christian in religion, but still quite Roman in terms of violence.

Slavery and the whole system of military campaigning did not change for a very long time. We can credit St. Augustinine the 4th century for some of the first systematic and logical refutations of slavery. Thomas Aquinas taught that slavery was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, but it was appropriate and socially useful in a world based on Original Sin. Full opposition to slavery was not going to truly arrive into Christian consciousness until William Wilberforce in the late 1700s. I highly recommend the 2007 movie "Amazing Grace" detailing his life.

As for military violence, the idea of a pacifist, peaceful Jesus is largely a twentieth century invention. The fudal system of Europe was an attempt to retain the dwindling awesomeness of the Roman Empire with Constantinople as a primary legacy in the East. Hippie Jesus would have been clobbered repeatedly during the Crusades, Norman conquests, Mongol incursions, Reconquista of Spain, and endless internecine conflict. There were some points of non-violence all through those centuries, but Deus Vult largely ruled politics. I wouldn't hold it against the ostensible Christian kingdoms at the time. It's hard to imagine a modern pacifist surviving back then.

[Gatorbait]

Bart Erhman....the beginning of the end of my belief in Christianity started when I read, twice, the book " Misquoting Jesus". It was about ten years ago. Shattered my belief in the bible.

The question then remained- if the bible was phony, how about the rest of religion. I read a bunch of C.S. Lewis books- all of them almost, on Christianity, and sort of got back on track, started believing the bible again, and Blammo! read another Bart Erhman book- can't remember which one, because I've read most of them that he's written now, but I think it was "How Christ became God".

In any case, I'm interested in Christianity, love the message of parts of the bible, but alas....don't believe it....(sigh).

If you've never read a Bart Erhman book though, I'd suggest you start with "Misquoting Jesus", as it tells Bart's story and how he started as a zealot, became a scholar, and then started writing the books which have made him famous.

[Ghost]

I'm also a big fan of Ehrman's books. I haven't yet read How Jesus Became God, but it's on my list.

The first of his books that I read was Misquoting Jesus, and I remember being struck by something he mentioned that I'd never really considered before--just how far removed the earliest written versions of the New Testament books are from the events, in terms of time, geography, and language.

Aside from his New Testament work, I also enjoyed his book God's Problem. In that one, he explains how his crisis of faith was not about the issues he encountered in Christian tradition but about the problem of evil. I could relate to that.

[wtfluff]

Bart Erhman....the beginning of the end of my belief in Christianity started when I read, twice, the book " Misquoting Jesus". It was about ten years ago. Shattered my belief in the bible.

I remember when I obtained "Misquoting Jesus" and a thought crossed my mind, something like "Well, this could be it...:"

Then in one of the beginning chapters, he says something like: "There are more differences between the manuscripts used to create the new testament, than there are words in the new testament."



Yes Rico, Kaboom...

[Ghost]

Several of Ehrman's books are discounted for the next few days. The electronic versions, that is.

https://www.newsandpews.com/harperone-c ... 1-99-each/

[GoodBoy]

I read "How Jesus Became God" and have listened to many of Ehrman's lectures on YouTube. It was written from an academic viewpoint and in an academic style that is tedious to follow along with. If you want essentially the same information, but in a much more engaging format, try "Zealot: The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth" by Reza Aslan.

It all depends on how far down the rabbit hole you really want to go. I respect people's choice to hold onto certain beliefs and avoid learning information that might damage those cherished beliefs. You may honestly be happier not knowing how the sausage is made.

[Corsair]

Several of Ehrman's books are discounted for the next few days. The electronic versions, that is.

https://www.newsandpews.com/harperone-c ... 1-99-each/

Thanks for posting this! I just picked up some new reading material during the three hour block.