Sam Harris interview with Bart Ehrman

7,219 Views | 132 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by titan
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://samharris.org/podcasts/what-is-christianity/

Good interview and it's nice to hear Bart go through thought processes he had as a believer. Especially when they mirror a lot of your own.

FYI, in case you are not aware, both speakers in this are atheist/agnostic but are discussing early christian history.
7nine
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
listened to it. I enjoyed it.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As educated as Bart Ehrmamn is, he knows very little about the Bible. The vast majority of his criticisms are complete nonsense.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you are talking about his knowledge on the origin of it and what early christianity was like, it's pretty consistent with most legitimate scholars on it.

If you're speaking to his understanding what the Bible says , I might ask how much Greek you know.
7nine
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie4Life02 said:

As educated as Bart Ehrmamn is, he knows very little about the Bible. The vast majority of his criticisms are complete nonsense.


How about some details?
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I liked the podcast, but I'm not a huge fan of Sam Harris.

And as far as I am aware, Ehrman's views on the Bible are pretty consistent with mainstream Biblical scholarship even if that doesn't line up with what your preacher tells you.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The vast majority of his criticisms aren't unique to him but are a dominant view in a field predisposed to favor Christianity.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

Aggie4Life02 said:

As educated as Bart Ehrmamn is, he knows very little about the Bible. The vast majority of his criticisms are complete nonsense.


How about some details?
Yeah, I can't wait for this.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think ya'll over stating Ehrman's synchronization with biblical scholarship, even secular sources, quite a bit. He has consistently adopted the stances of the fringe more salacious wings of scholarship then the mainstream. Ehrman writes to sell books, not to further our understanding. Are there secular scholars that agree with Ehrman? Absolutely. Do those scholars make up the majority of all biblical scholarship? Not even remotely.

It's been awhile since I've kept up with his stuff but at one point he was rather insistent that Christ's earliest followers did not believe he was Lord, and that simply does not jive with the earliest evidence we have (the uncontested letters from Paul). It's a narrative that has been completely made up out of whole cloth that simply falls apart when with an objective view of the actual evidence, and it's a narrative that is quite popular in Ehrman's circles. I think it's one of the strongest reasons to find their motivation's to be a little suspect.

That being said, I think Ehrman's books can be a great introduction on biblical scholarship, however I would warn to take his boisterous claims that "basically everyone in scholarship agrees with me" with a massive grain of salt. Go straight to the sources and read the wide range of viewpoints.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:

The vast majority of his criticisms aren't unique to him but are a dominant view in a field predisposed to favor Christianity.
They are a view, they simply aren't the dominant one. This vastly over states his case.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't see Ehrman as being that far out of the mainstream and the idea that he's adopted the fringe ideas seems just plain wrong. The fringe would be the mythicists, which Ehrman has consistently argued against. What fringe ideas do you think he supports?

As far as believing the earliest followers didn't believe Jesus was Lord, I think we'd have to discuss what it means when we say "Lord". I don't think there is any argument Jesus was believed to be a messianic figure. Ehrman's point, which isn't fringe, is that Jesus wasn't explicitly believed to be God early on. There is a significant difference between how he is described in the earlier gospels like Mark and then how Jesus is explicitly deified in John which was the latest.
mesocosm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie4Life02 said:

As educated as Bart Ehrmamn is, he knows very little about the Bible. The vast majority of his criticisms are complete nonsense.
Your post is nonsense. The guy is a top scholar on the bible - and he approaches it objectively
AggieEyes
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bart knows his stuff inside / out.

Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rocag said:

I don't see Ehrman as being that far out of the mainstream and the idea that he's adopted the fringe ideas seems just plain wrong. The fringe would be the mythicists, which Ehrman has consistently argued against. What fringe ideas do you think he supports?

As far as believing the earliest followers didn't believe Jesus was Lord, I think we'd have to discuss what it means when we say "Lord". I don't think there is any argument Jesus was believed to be a messianic figure. Ehrman's point, which isn't fringe, is that Jesus wasn't explicitly believed to be God early on. There is a significant difference between how he is described in the earlier gospels like Mark and then how Jesus is explicitly deified in John which was the latest.


Agreed. He talks a lot about Jewish concepts of the Messiah, which was definitely not predicting that God in the flesh would come down and walk around. The exact nature of Jesus was not settled for a long, long time, and even Paul's writings can be interpreted to say Jesus was subordinate to God. We know Paul saw Jesus as Lord, but assuming the other apostles had the same theology is a stretch.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

Aggrad08 said:

The vast majority of his criticisms aren't unique to him but are a dominant view in a field predisposed to favor Christianity.
They are a view, they simply aren't the dominant one. This vastly over states his case.


I don't think so at all. When I think of ehrman I think of NT texturalist criticism, authorship, and the historical Jesus. On these he's right in line.

He writes to sell books sure. But if I were to take a criticism of his style it's that he writes as if this information is largly new and exciting when it's been mostly known for some time. To be fair he's writing for a laymen audience that almost certainly didn't learn this stuff in Sunday school.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rocag said:

Ehrman's point, which isn't fringe, is that Jesus wasn't explicitly believed to be God early on. There is a significant difference between how he is described in the earlier gospels like Mark and then how Jesus is explicitly deified in John which was the latest.
It might be an overstatement on my part to call it "fringe," but it certainly isn't the "dominant" view, and, regardless of how many scholars believe it, it's a completely unsupported narrative. There is absolutely zero, zero, evidence to support it. You can't call yourself a free thinking objective rationalist and subscribe to such a notion.

Paul predates the extant works of Mark by at least 30 years and clearly believed Jesus was capitol L Lord. Clearly and explicitly. We do not have a single testimony by anyone that says Jesus was just a messianic figure. Not one. Not a single one. I cannot state this enough. You have to go into with the preconceived notion that it exists to even paint a picture that it might be true.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

We know Paul saw Jesus as Lord, but assuming the other apostles had the same theology is a stretch.
I would say assuming that they didn't when we have zero evidence to support it is a much bigger stretch.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Ehrman's point, which isn't fringe, is that Jesus wasn't explicitly believed to be God early on. There is a significant difference between how he is described in the earlier gospels like Mark and then how Jesus is explicitly deified in John which was the latest
Bart is a very educated, knows Greek, first century history, and has scripture memorized.
John MacArthur is very educated, knows Greek, first century history, (and probably has most of the NT memorized). Who is right and who is wrong is based upon their claims.

Bart's logic, of the gospels Mark was written first, John was written last. Jesus verbally claims to be God in John and not so much in the gospel of Mark. "If Jesus was God, why wouldn't He tell everyone" Conclusion, we completely throw the gospel of John out because it's not earliest.

Issues I have with his logic:
  • Withouth having a degree in Hebrew, who is speaking in Malachi 3:1? OT
3 "Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts.
  • Why does Mark quote this and then describe the Messenger?
  • Why does Mark call Jesus the Son of God? How many times is this used for Jesus in the book?
  • Without having a degree in the Greek language, read John 5: For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
  • Who does the non-Christian, 1st century audiance understand the phrase " Son of God" to mean?
  • Direct Claim - For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."
  • Indirect claims: these are fun little puzzles in which one must pay close attention to the text or they will miss it - Lord 8 As He was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed was imploring Him that he might accompany Him.19 And He did not let him, but He *said to him, "Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you." 20 And he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis what great things Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.
  • Why didn't Jesus say, report to them what great things I have done for you and he credits the Lord? Did Jesus help Him or the Lord?
  • How many times does strongs number 2962 refer to both God and Jesus in the gospel of Mark? How many times?
  • "Why is it that the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"12 And He said to them, "Elijah does first come and restore all things. And yet how is it written of the Son of Man that He will suffer many things and be treated with contempt? 13 But I say to you that Elijah has indeed come, and they did to him whatever they wished, just as it is written of him." Im Malachi 4 who was Elijah preceeding in this prophecy? How does Jesus view Himself?
  • raising the dead, forgiving sins (only a person who is sinned against can forgive a sin and all sin is against God. Jesus is God and therefore forgave sins. The audience understood this connection.

These are just a few places in Mark where we find indirect claims, direct claims, and understand that Mark know's who Jesus is claiming to be and that Jesus knows who He is. Although we do find more direct claims in John, it's not an overwhelming amount. The question is, why are the books different and what all other ways are they different? Do their differences mean that one is more true than the other?

  • Mark for one is not focused on Jesus teaching, it's action oriented. Jesus did this, went here, did this, said this, immediately left.
  • John told us he wrote his gospel to specifically expound on Jesus identity so that we would have a deep understanding and believe.
  • In the gospels we have 4 books written about one person from different perspectives focussing on different aspects of His life, for different audiciences for different purposes. They are all complimentary accounts.
  • The fact that John is written later than Mark doesn't invalidate any of John claims.

If we appled Bart's logic to his own claims about Jesus his would be the first to be dismissed for arriving 2000 years after the events.

Jesus was always God, and before His earthly appearance 2000 years ago.

500 plus BC. Zechariah 12:10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:



I don't think so at all. When I think of ehrman I think of NT texturalist criticism, authorship, and the historical Jesus. On these he's right in line.

He writes to sell books sure. But if I were to take a criticism of his style it's that he writes as if this information is largly new and exciting when it's been mostly known for some time. To be fair he's writing for a laymen audience that almost certainly didn't learn this stuff in Sunday school.
I think it depends on which Ehrman you are referring to here. His scholarly articles tend to show a more intellectually honest side then his best sellers. Take for instance his often quoted "400,000" number for variants in the variety of extant texts. He knows, as does every other scholar, that the vast, vast majority of those are inconsequential. He's being deliberately misleading when he uses that number without couching it within the proper context. Only about 1% of those variants are meaningful and viable. Not a completely unsubstantial number, but it paints a completely different picture then the "we can't possibly know what anyone actually original wrote" motif that many laymen agnostics take away from his books.


Also, while I agree with you that much of what he says has been known for sometime, that doesn't mean his perspective on those things is even remotely the only one. Many many biblical scholars are very aware of the potential issues he raises and have not been swayed from their traditional beliefs.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I get the feeling that many of you agnostics and atheists simply have not read Ehrman's books with the same critical lens that you now read the bible. Just because Bart claims his views are "basically shared by everyone" does not make it so. There are literally thousands of scholars out there that do not share his view points at all.

Now, I have no idea on the actual "majority" of such view points, not that it really matters. But I would caution anyone, regardless of worldview, to be careful of trusting any source just because it aligns with your preconceived notions.
Rocag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Every time I've seen him talk about the massive number of textual variations in the different copies of the books of the Bible we have he's immediately followed it up with an explanation that most are irrelevant and just transcription errors. I agree it would be misleading to not include that information, but I don't think Ehrman is guilty of doing that.

And I completely agree that most Biblical scholars are Christians and by definition won't have the same view of the Bible as a non-Christian would. Ehrman, in that respect, is of course not within the majority. I think what people really mean is that Ehrman isn't just coming up with random new ideas about the Bible but instead is popularizing points of view which have long existed and been debated.

I'm not convinced you can so easily dismiss the apparent lack of agreement on Jesus' nature as shown within the gospels, no matter what Paul wrote.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When Misquoted first hit the shelves and he was doing his initial media tours its something he was frequently criticized for doing. If he has gotten more consistent about discussing the full context in more recent interviews then I retract that piece of criticism.

While I can follow the narrative of the "legend growing" from Mark to Luke/Mathew to John, I simply do not see anything in Mark that leads me to believe the author didn't believe Jesus was Lord.

However, again, Paul is the best and closest to the source evidence we have. By Ehrman's own standards that oldest is bestest nothing trumps Paul's testimony.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

Quote:

We know Paul saw Jesus as Lord, but assuming the other apostles had the same theology is a stretch.
I would say assuming that they didn't when we have zero evidence to support it is a much bigger stretch.


We know the contours of Jewish messianic beliefs in the 1st century. The only writings we have before Mark are from Paul, and we also know Paul and the other apostles often disagreed. It seems like a huge leap to assume they all shared the same theology about the nature of Jesus when you can't provide any evidence and the whole of Jewish thought points in a wholly different direction about the messiah.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Every time I've seen him talk about the massive number of textual variations in the different copies of the books of the Bible we have he's immediately followed it up with an explanation that most are irrelevant and just transcription errors. I agree it would be misleading to not include that information, but I don't think Ehrman is guilty of doing that.
agreed, both in his works and in person he's seem pretty forthright about that.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:


Quote:

Every time I've seen him talk about the massive number of textual variations in the different copies of the books of the Bible we have he's immediately followed it up with an explanation that most are irrelevant and just transcription errors. I agree it would be misleading to not include that information, but I don't think Ehrman is guilty of doing that.
agreed, both in his works and in person he's seem pretty forthright about that.
I've followed Ehrman for years and he has always made the claim that most of the issues are inconsequential.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

Silent For Too Long said:

We know the contours of Jewish messianic beliefs in the 1st century.

We most certainly do not. 2,000 years of rabbinic writing intentionally distancing themselves from any semblance of messianic thought has substantially muddied those waters.
Quote:

Quote:

The only writings we have before Mark are from Paul, and we also know Paul and the other apostles often disagreed. It seems like a huge leap to assume they all shared the same theology about the nature of Jesus when you can't provide any evidence and the whole of Jewish thought points in a wholly different direction about the messiah.

When I can't provide any evidence? Don't be absurd. My evidence is the whole of Christendom. Virtually unanimous agreement by all the earliest writings. Your side is trying to assert an ahistorical reality with zero evidence backing it up. The burden of proof is clearly on you.

And, again, your final statement isn't even remotely as "clear" as you seem to think it is. There are plenty of OT prophesies that point to a messiah with with a divine nature. DD just shared some in this very thread.

It all comes down to rather if you are willing to trust the early Christian's and their interpretations or if you are willing to trust modern jews who have spent 2,000 years reinterpreting their own scriptures in response to both Christ and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Modern atheists and agnostics are all to willing to trust the modern jewish perspective on this despite the rather obvious biases in this perspective.

Most importantly, though, is basing your entire case for "Christ didn't claim to be divine" on the fact that modern jews don't interpret their messianic passages that way is the proverbial house built on sand. All of the hard evidence stands against it.
Macarthur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:



It all comes down to rather if you are willing to trust the early Christian's and their interpretations or if you are willing to trust modern jews who have spent 2,000 years reinterpreting their own scriptures in response to both Christ and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Modern atheists and agnostics are all to willing to trust the modern jewish perspective on this despite the rather obvious biases in this perspective.

Most importantly, though, is basing your entire case for "Christ didn't claim to be divine" on the fact that modern jews don't interpret their messianic passages that way is the proverbial house built on sand. All of the hard evidence stands against it.


Quote:

I get the feeling that many of you agnostics and atheists simply have not read Ehrman's books with the same critical lens that you now read the bible.


I noticed some irony with your first post which is directly above, but then you thrown in the first quote above. I hope the irony is not lost on you that you have made pretty strong claims of biases.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I see no irony at all in consistently pointing out the flaws in certain perspective's biases. I suppose you are trying to imply that I'm lost in some bias of my own? You would be sorely mistaken. I'm about as close to objective on this topic that can exist in this realm.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

But I would caution anyone, regardless of worldview, to be careful of trusting any source just because it aligns with your preconceived notions.
pot, kettle.

7nine
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you seriously suggesting that I'm doing that? Please elaborate. I'm all...eyes.

I'm honestly a little taken aback by such a petty jab from you 79. At one point in time I considered you the poster closest to my own perspective.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Silent For Too Long said:

Dr. Watson said:

Silent For Too Long said:

We know the contours of Jewish messianic beliefs in the 1st century.

We most certainly do not. 2,000 years of rabbinic writing intentionally distancing themselves from any semblance of messianic thought has substantially muddied those waters.
Quote:

Quote:

The only writings we have before Mark are from Paul, and we also know Paul and the other apostles often disagreed. It seems like a huge leap to assume they all shared the same theology about the nature of Jesus when you can't provide any evidence and the whole of Jewish thought points in a wholly different direction about the messiah.

When I can't provide any evidence? Don't be absurd. My evidence is the whole of Christendom. Virtually unanimous agreement by all the earliest writings. Your side is trying to assert an ahistorical reality with zero evidence backing it up. The burden of proof is clearly on you.

And, again, your final statement isn't even remotely as "clear" as you seem to think it is. There are plenty of OT prophesies that point to a messiah with with a divine nature. DD just shared some in this very thread.

It all comes down to rather if you are willing to trust the early Christian's and their interpretations or if you are willing to trust modern jews who have spent 2,000 years reinterpreting their own scriptures in response to both Christ and the Bar Kokhba revolt. Modern atheists and agnostics are all to willing to trust the modern jewish perspective on this despite the rather obvious biases in this perspective.

Most importantly, though, is basing your entire case for "Christ didn't claim to be divine" on the fact that modern jews don't interpret their messianic passages that way is the proverbial house built on sand. All of the hard evidence stands against it.


By all means, point to the non-Christian Jewish texts that predict a Messiah in the sense of what Christians claim about Jesus. And the writings you claim to support your view of a consistent Christology are written years and decades after Paul in the midst of huge debates over the nature of Jesus. One would think there would be a more cohesive theology around Christianity in its early years if every apostle believed and preached the same thing about Jesus.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texaggie7nine said:

Quote:

But I would caution anyone, regardless of worldview, to be careful of trusting any source just because it aligns with your preconceived notions.
pot, kettle.


It really was not a personal jab at all. My intention was more to point out that confirmation bias is real for everyone, on all sides. I honestly tend to find christians, when reading "christian authors" that write about historical fact, to be quite susceptible to that problem.

I approached this question years ago with intent on finding hard evidence to support my view that the Bible was accurate and the true word of God. I really like listening to Bart because he seems to have gone through a similar journey. So I will admit that I probably take some of what he says a little too seriously because of that perceived shared experience. However as I branch out looking for other authors, it is really difficult to establish a sound judgment on their ability to negate any of their own confirmation bias. It's like I almost would have to find someone that started a book wanting to believe one truth and ended up making the case for the opposite.

This is why I seem to believe "experts" on the matter more when they have played the game from both sides. Even then though, once they leave one side they tend to become entrenched in the other and accept the same stories that their side pushes. Not much different than politics.

I will say that the most convincing voice I have heard lately that has drawn me back to at least appreciating and seeing the bible as far more than a work of fiction is Jordan Peterson. The whole Jungian perspective was always something I dismissed without looking much further into it, but Peterson is quite the salesman.
7nine
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The problem with Jungian archetypes is that you can make them say whatever you want them to say. They are so broad as to lack any objective meaning aside from what the writer ascribes to them.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good post. I was being overly defensive.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:




By all means, point to the non-Christian Jewish texts that predict a Messiah in the sense of what Christians claim about Jesus. And the writings you claim to support your view of a consistent Christology are written years and decades after Paul in the midst of huge debates over the nature of Jesus. One would think there would be a more cohesive theology around Christianity in its early years if every apostle believed and preached the same thing about Jesus.
Wouldn't any messianic text be non-Christian and Jewish? At any rate, DD just did so above.

The debates you speak of about the nature of Jesus were almost universally centered on how his divinity factored into the total equation and effected his relationship with God. I did not mean to imply that everything was consistent among the early Christians, as everyone with even a passing knowledge of the situation knows they debated about many things. However, the very "lowest" status that the vast majority of them afforded Christ was a divine subordinate only to God the creator.

The Ebionites are the only faction that may have viewed him as messiah only and they are, by far, at any stage of early Christianity, the minority. In addition, everything we know about them was written by their detractors.


So that's about the best evidence you have. One possible faction of early Christianity that possibly supports your position. Whose only evidence we have that they even existed was written hundreds of years later by their detractors. But, who knows, maybe they were the only honest guys in the bunch?
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.