I attended a debate between Ehrmann and Craig Evans, another evangelical scholar, in Kansas City, MO. Since I have read both writers, and heard them speak, I wanted to see the debate, which was on the reliability of the biblical accounts of the resurrection.
Both were strong in some areas and weak in others. There was an overflow crowd, so–lots of interest locally.
Ehrmann was strongest (and Evans weakest) in his listing of “discrepancies” in the various biblical renderings of the crucifixion/resurrection story.
Ehrmann was weakest in his use of The Telephone Game to explain how the story of the resurrection came to have some varying details (which women came to the tomb? etc). “The Telephone Game,” for those who have played it, is not a game you play because you WANT the story to be passed around intact. The addition of details or corruption of the story is part of the fun.
But the spread of the biblical story was a different matter. I can think of at least one Native American activist who is miffed with “Western culture” and its skepticism about oral tradition, and anthropologists have chronicled a number of civilizations that managed to pass stories of importance along intact for many generations.
As for Ehrmann’s assertion that the art of crucifixion was unknown for that era—this is plainly untrue. There is evidence for this in other places. His debate “opponent”–Evans–made a good point in noting that the poor were more likely to be crucified and less likely to have a burial that preserved their bones–though we do have at least one example from the time of Christ. The rich were less likely to be crucified and more likely to be well preserved in tombs and ossuaries.
Ehrmann is an angry guy. I do not “buy” his assertion that he lost his faith because of his concern that many have unhappy lives. It is a laudable concern, and one that has been pondered by many. But within the framework of religious faith, this issue can also be handled.
Something else happened to change his faith, but he is not admitting it publicly.

I can’t answer all of your questions about why God did certain things, but I think I can offer a bit of a challenge to the “angry teen” god you mention. Though the Old Testament has a couple of passages that I couldn’t possibly answer in a blog comment, the general picture I find of God in the Bible is one where he has created the world, given humans a chance to be in relationship with their creator, and humans have generally chosen to do their own thing and to remake god in their own image.

So the question is, if you or I were god, what would we do? It’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback, and perhaps it’s tempting to do so with some of the Old Testament passages. However, I’d suggest a look at the prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. God gave them tough assignments to call the people of Israel back to both justice for their neighbors and correct worship of God (particularly a kind of worship that didn’t involve sacrificing children). These prophets shared their messages in nonviolent ways, calling the people back to God.

I’m not sure I can think of a better way to do things. But God took things to the next level through the incarnation of Jesus. Would things be better without God’s intervention on earth? Perhaps the followers of God have done terrible things, but keep in mind that there are many who follow the example of Jesus and carry out relief work through groups like World Vision and Samaritan’s purse, as well as through many local charities. The Salvation Army was started by people inspired by Jesus.

So while the story of God has some tough parts to understand, there is a clear movement toward self-sacrifice and service to others, particularly when we have a proper understanding of ourselves in relation to our creator.

Or perhaps the Bible is in serious need of a damned good editorial board to give it a good going over to fix all the junk,and dig out some of the tiny pearls of wisdom you can actually use for something worthwhile.

Because I for one am fed with God’s incessant whining and moaning to all who would listen about much he can’t stand his kids. “God, grow up already!”

To which perhaps he’d reply : “You are right my Son, I set a terrible example, but atoned for MY own sins on the cross”???

Thank God for the real God. Of which this world has been taught nothing of… As yet.

I should first of all mention that NT Wright and Bart Ehrman have engaged in a very interesting discuss about this very topic that will do far more to clarify things that what I can say. You can find it at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/ (via: http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/the-problem-of-pain-beliefnet-blogalogue).

I should also note that in the midst of reading the blog dialogue, Ehrman stresses that he really did have a relationship with Jesus, something that I doubt in the above post. I am still uncomfortable with the terms he uses to describe that relationship, as it sounds a bit too intellectual, but hey, I’ll take his word for it!

Regarding Ehrman’s scholarship, he does some very excellent work, however, I believe that NT Wright catches his in one of his key mistakes. He assumes that the writers of scripture are trying to answer the same exact questions he is posing. In other words he reads the prophets as trying to answer his theodicy question regarding evil. Wright states,

“I don’t think much of the Bible is actually addressing the question, ‘Why is there suffering?’, but rather the question, ‘What is God doing about it?’. When cause-and-effect sequences do occur, as in Amos etc., I read them within the prophetic call to Israel and the warnings, proper to humans in general and covenant people in particular, about the consequences of not going with the grain of the creator’s purposes.”

There are more qualified people than myself who fault Ehrman in some key places, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t brilliant and sincere in his search and scholarship. I think he uses his scholarly tools well, I just believe he’s emphasizing the wrong things or perhaps pointed in the wrong direction in that process. Perhaps he’s even searching for the wrong things. In other words he’s coming from a conservative tradition that requires a neat and tidy Bible, when in reality we need a reliable Bible, not necessarily a perfectly neat and tidy Bible. Instead we have a God who is involved in our lives, a reliable Bible, a tradition passed down to us, and a global faith.

Part of Ehrman’s beef with God is the reliability of scripture along with the theodicy issue. If theology is faith seeking understanding, which I believe it to be, then the first step is a relationship with God. Sorting out the details will come in part, but Christianity is about an encounter with God. I’m not presupposing anything of God. I’m talking about being overwhelmed with the presence of God.

That has happened to me and continues to happen. I can’t prove it to you. I can try to flesh God out through scripture, but if I only rely on scripture and not this ongoing relationship with God, I am left with a pretty flimsy faith.

So I have no doubt that Ehrman is sincere or that he is not a brilliant scholar. I’m sure he could run circles around me in a debate! However, I still think he’s wrong because he’s trying to stuff God into an Enlightenment-sized theodicy box that doesn’t line up with the questions and answers offered in scripture. He is more than welcome to find Christianity inadequate as an answer for his questions, however I can also say as a Christian that I believe he’s looking for the wrong thing from scripture and that the picture painted by scripture of our world and the way things are is quite different from what Ehrman brings to the table.

OK, this is a huge topic and I’m sure I could write all day! I’ll defer my arguments to NT Wright in that Belief.net postings. I think he’ll do a much better job at this!

Thanks for dropping by!

Bart Ehrman (one “n”) lost his faith in the God, ” . . . proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, the one who is actively and powerfully involved in this world.”

As a baptized Christian I find his arguments well-grounded and eloquently stated.

One may disagree with his conclusions about the nature of the God described in Christian scripture and tradition . . . but I find it most difficult to fault the scholarship upon which those conclusions are based, or the integrity of the man who reached them.

It seems to me that your speculation that one can leave “. . . all theology and doctrines behind until later. Because our hope is first and foremost in God . . . ,” presupposes both the existence of the deity in question and some insight into its nature, no?