Abnormal Interests

I used to think highly of Ehrman, especially in his knowledge of the bible. He jumped the shark during an Infidel Guy interview when he got into the No True Scotsman fallacy (and another one, I forgot what) when dismissing the lack of historical data on Jesus - he has a "Jesus as apocalyptic prophet" hypothesis and dismissed any mythicist position. Claiming that there is as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Julius Ceasar made me question his actual investigation of the evidence. I personally don't think that he has looked too closely at the evidence for and/or against god.

Duane, you present a balanced picture of the possibilities/situation here. Much appreciated.

I'm always surprised at how people (i.e., Christians) treat (biblical) scholars who have lost their faith. It seems that philosophers and scientists can be atheists or agnostics without much fanfare. But not so with biblical scholars. The assumption is all too often that the biblical scholars have just given in, are intellectually lazy, misinformed, haven't done their homework, unaware of the latest "strained and inconsistent" theological answers, or have "converted" away from faith for other, more personal reasons. (See comment above for this kind of reaction.)

Biblical scholars are historians of a sort. As they look for historical evidence and give historical interpretations, it seems to me that the slippery theologians look more and more disconnected from the reality of the texts, etc. If one combines close historical work on foundational religious texts with philosophical, psychological, comparative religious, cognitive scientific, and other factors (including personal stuff, which always has a place), then it seems a reasonable and respectable position for a biblical scholar to become an agnostic. Quite frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more agnostics among us.

Let's be honest: The claims of various theisms are quite extraordinary. NO ONE knows that a god does or does not exist for sure. It's unverifiable. But when one narrows the question down to the issue of the relationship of the biblical text, its deity, and the question of a superior being, things are different, in my opinion. We have a biblical text that looks every bit as human as the other texts from the ANE. Distinctive sure, but nothing that can't be explained in terms of sociology, politics, etc. Is there any reason besides tradition or faith assumptions to hold THIS text and THIS ancient deity as something special, a portal or revelation about the REAL deity of the universe?

As for the relationship between faith, scholarship, and the SBL, I've posted something here that might interest you.

BTW, I enjoy your blog. I found you at Higgaion.

Alan,

Thanks for visiting Abnormal Interests and for you insightful comments. I read your suggestion about the SBL. I found it well reasoned and well supported. I would gladly agree with it except for one tiny little item. I might not qualify for membership under you suggestions. By the way, I will see you at WECSOR. I'm giving a paper there also.

In the comments section of the SBL Membership post (as opposed to the Alan is an Alien post), I mention that there would be a need for a petition process in order to include people who are qualified but don't have the PhD. The petition process would function as both a barrier and a loophole. There are many scholars who never obtained a PhD and yet contributed to the field, sometimes in distinctive and very fresh ways because they never got pushed through the sausage grinder. Setting a standard and then allowing exceptions for these folks would maintain a high bar. You'd be welcome under my membership rules.

Biblical inerrancy is the entrance to a one-way street in the direction of agnosticism or atheism for many thinking people. Ehrman was presumably told when he was younger, as many fundamentalists are, that either the Bible is flawless or it can simply be discarded. Many preachers leave no room for middle ground, and so it isn't too surprising that many who come to find their assertions inaccurate move quickly to the other extreme, bypassing all the important places in the middle!

You set matters up so simplistically, James. Ehrman didn't take a fast track to atheism. His journey included a stop in Liberal Protestantism (and perhaps other options of which I am not aware). The problem is, the theologies of LP apparently weren't intellectually satisfying to him. If LP or some other "middle" road were reasonable, then he may have found a life line there. Apparently that didn't happen. Yes, many former fundamentalists become agnostic/atheist, but one needed assume that the journey is a simple, inevitable outcome of one's former fundamentalism. Belief is too complex for that generalization. (And many fundamentalists manage to remain Christians of some kind or other despite intense scriptural study. But you've conveniently ignored that fact.)

Also, why do you assume that those who do not accept a form of mystical faith are some kind of anomaly or an extremist? Why not put agnosticism in the middle (the "I don't know" position) and construct the categories with atheism ("there is no divine power") and faith ("there is a divine power") as the extremes? I suspect the reason you didn't is that you don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of believers you don't esteem.

Excuse me, I should have said: "Yes, many former fundamentalists become agnostic/atheist, but one NEED NOT assume that the journey is a simple, inevitable outcome of one's former fundamentalism."

You are quite right, Alan - I was applying a generalization to the case of Ehrman where it clearly does not fit well.

I am glad, however, that at least this exchange made me aware of your blog, which I must keep an eye on from now on! :)

Ehrman provided a review of his theological wanderings in the Introduction from "Misquoting Jesus." A "born again" experience at 16 occasioned by his attending meetings of Campus Life Youth for Christ, then to Moody Bible Institute, next Weaton College finally a doctoral degree at Prinston Seminary.

At each move, his friends warned him that it would be difficult to find "real Christians," such as themselves at his new destination.