The March 29 front-page article "Debunking dogma makes prof a star" brought some strong responses from readers, some of them taking The N&O to task
even for printing the story, especially on the front page. There will be several letters in the upcoming Sunday Forum, but in the meantime, here are some others, online-only:
Bart Ehrman’s classical smokescreen argument about the day Jesus died rests clearly on the alleged contradiction of the third hour of Mark 15:25 and the sixth hour of John 19:14. Simply put, the writer of Mark uses Hebrew computation of time while John uses the Roman. This clears that up.
“Rarely described as God” was Ehrman’s next point, referring to Jesus, yet John 16:12 clearly says further Revelations about him (his divinity) were forthcoming not to mention Thomas declares him Lord and God (John 20:28).
Ehrman next seeks to bash tradition, yet Paul commands the Thessalonians to keep the tradition (2 Thes 2:15). Tradition by the apostles was around before the Bible as we have it today.
I am not a theologian, just a convict who has had his entire life transformed by the “book” the good professor can’t seem to understand. Let us try to remember good theology starts in one’s prayer life.
William Walker
Wayne County Correctional Institute
Goldsboro
---------------------------------------------------------
I had to laugh when I read about Bart Ehrman’s new book on Jesus. There really is nothing new under the sun! If he dismisses Jesus’s disciples as lower class peasants, he has missed the whole point.
The brilliance of Jesus’s ministry was that he made God available to the humblest and most ordinary people, not just to the elitists of his time (or ours).
The Bible is the same way. It isn’t just a historical text, but a rich and complex insight into the relationship between God and man. It uses many lenses — proven historical events, poetry, parable and more — to make God visible and available to anyone who seeks Him.
To judge the Bible through just one of these lenses is to miss all the others, and that, in itself, is a kind of dogma.
Sue Robinson
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Front-page news: UNC professor does not believe the Bible! Sneaker-clad, casually dressed, irreverent and cocky: Hey, you got us again, additional shocking news about a professor from Chapel Hill! Add these all up, and you have one of the great role models for our students! Be a cool dude and debunk the Bible. A college student’s dream professor; the Bible is not true so I am not really accountable for my actions.
At least Bart Ehrman has a capitalist streak in him (don’t say that too loud on campus) by noting that you should buy his in reference to purchasing his books versus other liberal theologians. Much thanks to Ehrman for feeling an obligation to people paying taxes that we have a right to know what he does. I wish he hadn’t reminded me.
Hearing about Ehrman’s story provides me with yet another confirmation that the Bible is true. Like so many liberal theologians, Ehrman touts his roots in fundamentalism as a platform for later-in-life anti-biblical views. Anyone who has truly tasted of the grace of God by trusting in Jesus Christ as personal Savior knows of the great personal peace and joy that come from studying and knowing God’s Holy Word and following its author.
Numerous Scripture references describe Ehrman. Two come to mind: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:21). But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).
Unfortunately, Ehrman apparently has never truly been redeemed. The Bible is just another book on the shelf and debunking it as a way to make a living.
Larry Swanson
Angier
---------------------------------------------------------
The News & Observer seems to go to great lengths to give positive coverage of every religion and belief system with the notable exception of Christianity, the faith of millions of North Carolinians.
You outdid yourself in the March 29 paper with your in-depth article about Bart Ehrman, an agnostic college professor. Ehrman has made a profitable business of publishing books attempting to pick apart the truth claims of the New Testament, the basis of the Christian faith. It was particularly galling that this latest attack on Christianity was published on the front page of a Sunday edition and during Lent.
Frederick McCune
Beaufort
---------------------------------------------------------
For the second time in less than a month, The N&O has featured an article on a supposedly enlightened author debunking the inerrancy of scripture and Christ’s divinity.
A recent article featured Bart Ehrman’s story from being a born-again Christian to a happy agnostic to proclaiming his religion to students at UNC. The first problem is assuming Ehrman ever was a born-again Christian. God’s word clearly states why Ehrman never was a Christian: They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us (I John 2:19 23).
In these days, it’s typical to find a scholar debunking the truths of Scripture. This is nothing new. The Pharisees had a form of religiousness but were spiritually blind and did not recognize the Son of God as He stood before them. Modern-day Pharisees teach the errors of Scripture, but according to Scripture, they are blind to spiritual truth. How far can a spiritually blind person lead others?
Watch out for the cliffs, it’s a long way down!
Gary Swann
Raleigh
Comments
Ehrman and debunking the Bible
Sun, 04/05/2009 - 11:41 — wnewhouseMost of the criticisms of Bart Ehrman expressed in these posts are, I believe, thoughtful and personal. They are also evidence of the entire point of his work. The majority of writers here are not particularly concerned with the relative "accuracy" of Ehrman's scholarship--a good thing, since by all accounts it is hard to be reliably accurate about texts and traditions that go back two thousand years (a point Ehrman himself repeatedly emphasizes). What Ehrman's critics seem to rail against is the very IDEA of critiquing the Bible on scholarly, historical, or literary terms. Their counter-argument comes not from alternative logic or knowledge of the subject, but from a pre-existing assumption that the Bible and/or their own religious traditions are automatically correct (or at least "more" correct than any scholarly approach could be). A typical post, for instance, suggests that Ehrman's supposedly self-important attitude is incorrect because the Bible itself says it must be--an astounding logical fallacy that most Americans would never accept in any topic EXCEPT religion. Ehrman's larger point is not that such interpretations of the Bible (or any other such text) are wrong; his point is that they ARE interpretations, whether the believer chooses to see them that way or not. If there are to be labels tossed around here of smugness and hubris, they would be more correctly applied to those who preach certainty WITHOUT any logical tools other than personal belief. Of course it would be unwise to automatically trust a scholar simply because his readings of the subject have developed over decades of research--no one should accept Ehrman's conclusions simply because he offers them. But it would be, in my opinion, MORE irresponsible to rely on the criticisms of faith-based readers who apparently distrust the very notion of critical thinking where Biblical tradition is concerned. A person who will not consider (not to be confused with "believe") the Bible on any terms other than its own obviously should not be reading Ehrman's work--but perhaps the simple rhetoric of neutral journalistic reporting is beyond some readers' skillsets as well.
dueling fairy tales
Sat, 04/04/2009 - 14:03 — Bakakarasu?! There is no 'there' here.
Why bother to present arguments between points of view that both use a cobbled together fairy tale, written at least generations after any related actual events, as a reference source?
This is like presenting opposing arguments between two "experts" on leprechauns, fairies, and trolls.
Sheesh, what a waste of bandwidth!