I thought today I would write about what a pleasure it is to have deeply delving conversations into biblical scholarship with Dr. Bart Ehrman, such as the one that is coming out on YouTube this week of January 27, 2025. Bart has been a teacher of mine for over 20 years; meaning I have read just about all of his books, and watched all of his public debates and lectures.
There are many scholars I have studied over the decades. I simply find Bart to be the most lucid, articulate, objective, and vastly knowledgeable scholar out there. Although I am sure there are many scholars who simply haven’t crossed over into the public domain that I am unaware of. It’s also quite fascinating to me that Bart is an atheist/agnostic, as his whole life has been dedicated primarily to scholarship of the New Testament. He once publicly gave a great explanation of that: “When it comes to whether I believe there is a God, I am an atheist. When it comes to whether I know there is a God or not, I am an agnostic.”
For anyone who has watched Bart’s debates over the years, mostly with Christian scholars, I find that Bart comes in with a great advantage because he is an atheist; I have found it tends to make him far more objective about all things related to biblical scholarship. Whereas conversely, the devout believer scholar often has a disadvantage because they tend to not be objective; their beliefs get in the way. Often times in those debates the devout Christian scholar is setting out to do the impossible: prove a belief that can’t be proved. For example, trying to prove as historical fact that the Resurrection happened.
For me this is a debate that is over before it starts. You can try to build and present a case for the Resurrection. You could even say: here is my case that the Resurrection can be proven historically. What you can’t say is: here is my case that proves the Resurrection happened. It doesn’t matter what is recorded for “witnesses,” it doesn’t matter that, as a matter of fact, Christianity would not be here today if so many people hadn’t believed in the Resurrection, it doesn’t matter what ever bits of history can be piled on to indicate the Resurrection happened. The plain truth is that no one can prove a miracle happened 2,000 years ago. If only we could have the bravery to admit that and relegate our beliefs to beliefs. It seems only a need of the ego to declare that what is and can only be a belief is not a belief but a fact.
One step further, I believe in “God.” But as I say in my book: “God is a vocabulary word.” I certainly don’t believe in the Zeus-like old man sitting on a throne in heaven, or a Judge ready to send us to heaven or hell, or any of the age-old conventions. One of my beliefs is: It would be a truly insane God to require any of us to believe in that which can never be proven. Many of the core beliefs of Christianity for example, to me, can be likened to thinking we will saved or condemned based on whether we believe that Jesus walked on water. Did it happen? I don’t know; neither does anyone else. It would be as wrong to say it definitely didn’t happen as to say it definitely did. In my opinion, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they like. If only we could refrain from going that next step to declare: everything I believe is true—is fact, and you who disagree are therefore wrong.
If only we could get beyond such thinking, a peaceful world is waiting.
Beyond the opinions about the debates stated above, I also am often impressed that Bart is always respectful of other people’s beliefs. I have never seen him aloof or arrogant based on someone holding beliefs that he does not or cannot believe in based on the evidence alone. He brings the truth to the table, that is all. On a funnier note, for those of you who also have followed Bart over the years, you know his background: in his youth he was a born-again evangelical, he went to Moody Bible School, Princeton Theological Seminary, and was on his way to becoming a preacher. What a preacher he would have made! When he gets riled up in a debate and asks his very pointed questions for the opposing scholar to address or prove, or when he calls them out on fallacies in their arguments, he can speak with the thundering cadences of a preacher on the pulpit. I have often thought of him as a preacher of truth.
While he might not like at all that I would say this, in my mind God appreciates Bart more than most of the holy men I’ve ever been aware of. For God is truth. So Bart is inadvertently singing God’s praises every day.