Comments on: Questioning Bart Ehrman's (Un)Faith? http://patmccullough.com/2007/03/21/questioning-bart-ehrmans-unfaith/ a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia Mon, 05 Sep 2011 20:53:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Patrick George McCullough http://patmccullough.com/2007/03/21/questioning-bart-ehrmans-unfaith/comment-page-1/#comment-183 Patrick George McCullough Sun, 25 Mar 2007 01:05:00 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/questioning-bart-ehrmans-unfaith/#comment-183 Good issue to raise. I don't think that Ehrman would suggest that history is irrelevant to faith matters (nor would those believing scholars to whom he refers), but perhaps there are different ways of interpreting what we can know from history. Besides that, maybe not every piece of historical study in regards to Jesus and the New Testament plays a defining role in the foundations of Christian faith. And that way a believing scholar and a nonbelieving scholar can talk about the facts or theories of history without disagreeing solely for the reason of a faith stance. Good issue to raise. I don’t think that Ehrman would suggest that history is irrelevant to faith matters (nor would those believing scholars to whom he refers), but perhaps there are different ways of interpreting what we can know from history. Besides that, maybe not every piece of historical study in regards to Jesus and the New Testament plays a defining role in the foundations of Christian faith. And that way a believing scholar and a nonbelieving scholar can talk about the facts or theories of history without disagreeing solely for the reason of a faith stance.

]]> By: slaveofone http://patmccullough.com/2007/03/21/questioning-bart-ehrmans-unfaith/comment-page-1/#comment-182 slaveofone Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:36:00 +0000 http://pgmccullough.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/questioning-bart-ehrmans-unfaith/#comment-182 I'm somewhat confused by that last quote from Ehrman... The sentences “historical scholarship...can't resolve any faith issues” and “Historical scholarship doesn’t determine what we believe” are particularly confounding. Is he saying that doing historical scholarship doesn't necessitate abandoning faith or is he supporting a separation between faith and knowledge/reason? One could interpret those sentences either as it doesn't matter what history tells us, we can still believe what we want OR it absolutely matters what history tells us—history is foundational to our belief—BUT the answers (like the questions) are difficult and allow for variance of perspective.<br/><br/>I am very sensitive to these two readings because I began life as an Existentialist (history doesn't matter, knowledge/reason is separate from belief...a belief is true because it's a belief). It has been a LONG and HARD journey out of Existentialism. And in the very place (Christianity) where I supposed I would finally be free of it, I find it everywhere...calling me back... But let me affirm that it is my enemy—Satan himself—now and until death. I will believe because I am compelled by history and reason to believe...or I will cease to believe because I am compelled by history and reason to abandon my faith. Historical scholarship will always and forever be a defining force in my belief (and consequently my action and behavior based on that belief) no matter the outcome and to whatever end. I’m somewhat confused by that last quote from Ehrman… The sentences “historical scholarship…can’t resolve any faith issues” and “Historical scholarship doesn’t determine what we believe” are particularly confounding. Is he saying that doing historical scholarship doesn’t necessitate abandoning faith or is he supporting a separation between faith and knowledge/reason? One could interpret those sentences either as it doesn’t matter what history tells us, we can still believe what we want OR it absolutely matters what history tells us—history is foundational to our belief—BUT the answers (like the questions) are difficult and allow for variance of perspective.

I am very sensitive to these two readings because I began life as an Existentialist (history doesn’t matter, knowledge/reason is separate from belief…a belief is true because it’s a belief). It has been a LONG and HARD journey out of Existentialism. And in the very place (Christianity) where I supposed I would finally be free of it, I find it everywhere…calling me back… But let me affirm that it is my enemy—Satan himself—now and until death. I will believe because I am compelled by history and reason to believe…or I will cease to believe because I am compelled by history and reason to abandon my faith. Historical scholarship will always and forever be a defining force in my belief (and consequently my action and behavior based on that belief) no matter the outcome and to whatever end.

]]>