For as long as I’ve known the name “Rudolf Bultmann” it has been presented to me as something akin to “Darth Vader” or “Cruella De Vil”, i.e., the arch-liberal, the arch-nemesis of the drama known as “critical scholarship” of the Bible. While I am a confessing Christian it has become increasingly difficult over the years for me to trust the apologetics of my brothers and sisters. I appreciate their desire to defend orthodoxy, but I feel an ethical obligation, when possible, to make sure that I am somewhat familiar with the argument being rebutted, especially when the figure is a giant like Bultmann. (This isn’t always possible, for some theories are very fringe and there is not enough time in the day to investigate every claim made by each and every person.) So, I’ve been reading a biography on Bultmann while slowly processing some of his essays. I won’t pretend to be an expert on Bultmann by any stretch of the imagination: I’ve only been doing this here and there for a few months. I will say that Bultmann doesn’t seem to be fitting neatly into the categories I’ve heard attributed to him by others. For example, his essay “Liberal Theology and Latest Movement” in Faith and Theology, V.1 (trans. from Glauben and Verstehen I by L.P. Smith) sounds like the sort of thing my Barthian friends might say. More importantly, while Bultmann doesn’t seem to align well with the liberals of his day there are points when his understanding of encountering the proclaimed Christ makes me feel like a skeptic, like someone tied tightly to the epistemology of modernity. It has been an eye-opening experience.
You may be wondering if I mistakingly titled this post. I did not. While Bart D. Ehrman is no Rudolf Bultmann he is someone who plays the aformentioned arch-liberal, arch-nemesis role for modern Evangelicals. Bultmann tried to find a theological kernel in the midst of the husk of mythology. It doesn’t seem as if Ehrman cares to preserve even this much. So, again, Ehrman is not Bultmann, but they do play a similar role.
I’ve read several of Ehrman’s books over the years. Even when I disagree with what he is saying I find them insightful, provocative, and educational. I know people who have met Ehrman and speak very highly of him as a person. So, while I am quite sure I won’t align with Ehrman’s worldview on many issues I feel like if I am going to pay attention to the current debate over early Christology being initiated by Ehrman and embraced by Evangelical scholars it is only right and honest to read his book.
I will be receiving a copy of How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature —A Response to Bart D. Ehrman in the mail next week courtesy of Zondervan. Today I purchased the Kindle Edition of Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of the Jewish Preacher from Galilee in order to read these books side-by-side. The response volume includes essays from Mike Bird, Craig A. Evans, Simon J. Gathercole, Chris Tilling, and Charles E. Hill — all respectable and respectful scholars. While I am sure there will be a lot of mud slinging and ad hominem attacks in the blogosphere I think the authors who are participating will be fair and insightful. If Ehrman is wrong about this or that point then let’s let the quality of the argument make this apparent. If he is right or insightful, then let’s maintain a posture ready to learn from him. For the patient reader the side-by-side comparison of these two books may prove to be a very educational experience.
Next week I will begin to try to blog slowly through both volumes. I have other things to do, so I can’t promise that the pace will be quick, nor do I plan on being very extensive in my comments, but I do hope to attract others who may be interested in discussing these two books, fairly and kindly. If you’re interested I invite you to join me beginning Monday. If you are blogging about either one of these books I invite you to share your thoughts/links with me so that I can dialogue with you as well.
One final word: I am aware that HarperCollins will benefit from both of these books. Harper One and Zondervan are both subsidiaries of HarperCollins. I’m not mad. If this publishing company is willing to create the space for this sort of debate, and it is a debate that interests a lot of people, then they should get paid. I must say though that this is genius marketing. You can’t lose when you root for both sides!
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian,
Great post, though I would disagree somewhat with your comparison of Ehrman with Bultmann. While Bultmann may be a “liberal”, he is no agnostic, which Ehrman claims to be. Further, Bultmann wrote to inform and lead to the truth, Ehrman writes to fleece the sheep. Nothing Ehrman says is in anyway new, so I am not sure why he keeps getting the attention from the Church. Let him talk in his corner and soon he will disappear. That is the difference between Bultmann and Ehrman, one will stand on the merits of his own original scholarship, the other profits off the ill informed.
@Cliff: Thanks for commenting, though I don’t see how you disagree with me. What you said sounds like what I wrote in this paragraph:
In other words, I differentiated Bultmann’s aims from Ehrman’s choosing to boil down the comparison to the role they seem to play as arch-liberal in the eyes of more conservative Evangelicals. I’m in complete agreement that Bultmann is far more original, far more of a trend setter. That said, we must be careful when discussing Ehrman. There are two Ehrmans: populist Ehrman and scholarly Ehrman. The first can be annoying, but he does something that we may need him to do: he gets the discussion going. The second Ehrman is someone who has earned his respect doing good critical work on early Christianity, text criticism, etc.
I should add as a final point that both Bultmann and Ehrman share something that those of us who are more “traditional” (if you will) should appreciate: they destroy apathy! They force us to ask ourselves about our beliefs. Sometimes we need this.
I stand corrected.
One thought: at what point does popular Bart discredit scholarly Bart?
I have a hard time stomaching Bart’s popular books, especially since he knows better! He is banking off of the ignorance of people. True, this may not be his fault, but the scholarly Bart knows that there is nothing new in what popular Bart is saying.
No worries, it just seemed to me that we were more in agreement than disagreement, so I thought I should give that paragraph some qualification. As to whether or not the popular Bart discredits the scholarly Bart, I don’t know. I think we might say that the scholarly work of Bart puts into question the value of the popular work. In other words, if one is more level-headed and the other more sensational than the first critiques the second implicitly.
Of course, there is something to being a “business man” and rhetoric will interest people more than hard data. If a text critical issue that doesn’t bother confessional scholars is discussed with level-headedness and simplicity than the public may not show interest and if no one cares, why write? It then becomes necessary to make more out of something that is actually there is one wants the subject to receive any attention at all. I don’t know if this is a rebuke of Ehrman, but it does seem to be a rebuke of the consumer.
Thoughts?
The great Charles H. Spurgeon “loved the American idea of the separation of church and state.” He favoured the disestablishment of the Anglican church from the British government. Spurgeon was sensitive to problems the poor experienced as a result of the industrial revolution in the West and he favoured the abolition of the elitist House of Lords that disempowered ordinary Brits. He publicly supported most liberal policies to address poverty.
Spurgeon preached in support of making government low-income housing projects humane and encouraged Christians to vote for governments committed to the alleviation of poverty. Most surprisingly, Spurgeon was a fierce opponent to war. He believed that war was “an enormous crime” and “regarded all battles as but murder on a large scale.” (1857 sermon “Independence of Christianity”). Spurgeon was politically active, but on the left side of the British Political spectrum.
Though Wesley helped William Wilberforce end the slave trade, and advance prison and poverty reforms, and though he supported the ordination of women priests, Wesley remained, quite adamantly, a life long Tory (British right).
Through the lens of the American political dichotomy, however, Spurgeon was a conservative hero (and a Calvinist) despite this raging liberal politics, and Wesley a raging liberal despite his right-wing politics. Let’s face it – this particular lens tends to ‘warp things’.
Even so, the American left needs Christian’s to remind it to take God’s Holiness seriously and not to allow their faith to become a façade for humanism just as the American right needs Christian’s to remind them holiness has a purpose, and that is to exhibit Christ-likeness as we serve the poor and destitute, remaining committed to the defence of the widow, and the fatherless.
Hopefully every party in Western democracies have Christian representation, and hopefully these representatives are working out their salvation first in the Kingdom Christ rules. If so, our freedom is in good shape!
I meant to add I’m looking for to this series of posts.
Doesn’t popular Bart make claims that scholar Bart knows to be false? I can’t think of specific examples at the moment, but I’ve definitely read things in the past that made me feel he was intentionally trying to deceive the masses…things in his popular works that contradict what he has elsewhere acknowledged.
Anyway, I will be reading both of these dueling books. Looking forward to the discussion! And we must give credit where credit is due: to ZonderBird! The response book wasn’t the publisher’s idea, but Michael Bird’s. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2014/03/christology-wars-in-the-news/
@Jennifer: I can’t think of specific examples, so without those I wouldn’t feel comfortable accusing him directly of it. I do think he is less stringent regarding truth claims in his popular books than his scholarly ones, but this is true of confessional scholars as well. For example, a confessional scholar may write an article on “Jesus as exorcist” for a journal. She may discuss the literary function of exorcisms in the Gospels and the historical probability that people believed Jesus to have the power to do exorcisms, but because of the scholarly constrains of academia she may not dive into her own beliefs, her theology. She won’t say, “I think Jesus actually did exorcisms!” because that is not the question being asked. Later, she may write a book for Christians about Jesus where she intends to talk from believer to believer, or apologetically as a believer to skeptics. She may there say “Jesus had the power to cast demons out of people.” We wouldn’t say that she is contradicting herself. We would say that the type of book, the audience, the questions being asked by that publication allow her to move from a more restrictive conversation to a freer one. Maybe we should think of Ehrman as doing something similar?
@Jennifer: I should add that I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the book as well. And yes, I think Mike Bird does deserve the credit here. I like the idea. I think it will be good to have both books available at the same time rather than reading a “response” two years after the original book.
@Andrew: Indeed, characterizations of “conservative” and “liberal” may be broadly true, but they are merely generalizations, handles we use to try to get a grip on something or someone. I get why we use them and I don’t mind that we do as long as we are self-aware and admit that our labels are always nuanced.
Excellent points, Brian! I need to be more gracious 🙂
@Jennifer: We all do!
I look forward to following your thoughts on these books Brian. I’m working through them too. The thing is though, I’m wrestling with the idea of reading other people’s posts until I finish the books myself… don’t want to hijack others’ insights. However, I don’t want to miss out on all this good discussion going on around me too!
@Lindsay: I’ll try to provide minimal commentary at least to open the door for others to comment, Maybe just point out interesting observations. Hopefully the “good stuff”, the spoilers, will come in the comments!
I was actually thinking the same thing as Lindsay: that maybe I shouldn’t read others’ thoughts until after I write my own, so that I don’t driscoll other people’s stuff 😛 but I also don’t want to miss out on the good discussion…dilemma, dilemma….
@Jennifer:
Well, the best way to avoid driscolling is to make sure you link back to the posts you read when you write your own. That way you’ll remember who you’ve interacted with and they’ll see that you have something to say as well!
Reblogged this on James’ Ramblings.