It’s often stated that Bart Ehrman lost his faith because of his revelations in scholarship, particularly text critical work. For example, take a look at the quote from Daniel Wallace that I earlier referenced on this blog and to Craig Evans new book Fabricating Jesus (see pp. 25-31). In a recent interview with Biblical Archeology Review, he makes a clarification. Perhaps he’s made it elsewhere; I don’t know. Ehrman lost his fundamentalist outlook on Scripture due to his critical work with the Bible. In his words, “I shifted from being an evangelical Christian to becoming a fairly mainline liberal Protestant Christian.” What made him lose his faith, however, was the question of theodicy, that is, the question of why suffering exists in a world created by a good God. Ehrman became dissatisfied with “conventional answers” to the question, particularly the contradiction of answers that he saw in the Bible, and he “couldn’t believe in a God who was in any way intervening in this world, given the state of things. So that’s why I ended up losing my faith.”

It’s an important distinction to make and one that I wasn’t aware he made. The “enlightened Christians” among us (I’m indicting myself here) might be tempted to assume that Ehrman is misguided in his choice because he did not know how to shed his fundamentalist way of looking at the Bible without shedding Christianity entirely. We might say, “Well, of course inerrancy is wrong. You don’t need to ditch the faith because inerrancy is false!” From my perspective, if we do this, we’re setting up Ehrman to be a kind of “faithless dolt” straw man: his reason for unbelief is silly, so therefore, his unbelief is silly. But I think that Ehrman has raised a valid theological concern here. There are some pretty good answers to the theodicy question out there, but no one has the perfect answer. My undergrad adviser, Mike Cosby, liked to say of Job that he asked the “unanswerable question” and he got the “Unquestionable Answerer.” I like that way of looking at it, but it just highlights the idea that we have no good answer. Furthermore, throughout the discussion, Ehrman raises some valid points about needing to have good “reasons” to choose one faith over another (or faith over unfaith, for that matter). I guess what I’m saying, then, is that I’m not sure Ehrman’s unfaith should be the subject of our critique, at least not in the context of biblical scholarship.

I also appreciate Ehrman’s tone. It does not seem to me that Ehrman is anti-faith, but simply agnostic. He would like to believe, but doesn’t feel compelled by the reasons to believe. He doesn’t appear to hold it against those who do believe. On whether one cannot be a believer in biblical studies, I think he has a helpful and balanced perspective:

Historical scholarship calls into question certain beliefs and can call into question faith. But it can’t resolve any faith issues. There are historians who agree with everything that I think about the historical Jesus, about the New Testament, about the development of Christian doctrine, and yet they’re professors in theological seminaries training pastors. If you ask them, they will say, “Yes, Jesus is God. Historical scholarship doesn’t determine what we believe.” So I think what’s important is that people engage in historical scholarship. It’s better to have a knowledgeable faith than an ignorant faith, and it may be that it will change faith, but it’s not necessarily going to lead somebody to agnosticism.

The article is actually a four-way interview, or discussion, about faith and biblical scholarship. The other participants are “James F. Strange, a leading archaeologist and Baptist minister; Lawrence H. Schiffman, a prominent Dead Sea Scroll scholar and Orthodox Jew; and William G. Dever, one of America’s best-known and most widely quoted archaeologists, who had been an evangelical preacher, then lost his faith, then became a Reform Jew and now says he’s a non-believer.” It is a very good read, recommended.

Thanks for the heads up, Danny.