Transcription
Few scholars can write bestsellers, and among the 33 books he edited and authored, at least 6 of them made it onto The New York Times bestseller list: "How Jesus Became God," "The Triumph of Christianity," "Misquoting Jesus," "Forged," "Jesus Interrupted," and "Heaven and Hell." He is also a "rare breed" among New Testament scholars – because he is no longer a Christian. He is the renowned New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman. I have previously shared some of his books and debates. Recently, I listened to his free 4-hour lecture titled "Why I Am Not a Christian." It resonated deeply with me because I have also gone through a similar transformation and am now an "agnostic." Today, I want to share his story with you, along with some of my own reflections. My intention is not to "annoy" Christians, nor is it to provide "ammunition" for people of other faiths to attack Christianity. I simply want to use Ehrman's experience and my own to explore questions like: Why is "Biblical inerrancy" a terrible myth? Why do many scholars, knowing full well the Bible has problems, still hold onto their faith? Why do Christians believe God is watching over this suffering world? Did God really create hell? What happens after leaving faith?
Ehrman was born in Kansas, USA, into a conservative Episcopal Christian family. From childhood, he went to church with his parents every week and even served as an altar boy. At the age of 12, he received confirmation. In high school, he joined a Christian youth group. The young and charismatic leader had a great influence on him, making him take his faith seriously. At the age of 15, he had a born-again experience. "Born again" is a Christian term. Simply put, it means accepting Jesus' salvation and thus having a new life. He also joined a debate team, and together they won the state debate competition championship. It turns out that his success in debates over the years was due to his early training! However, one interesting point is that in debates, he would strive to find loopholes in the opponent's arguments and counter them. But in matters of faith, he accepted the leader's authority without question, never doubting the leader's words or the authority of the Bible. In fact, this is a reflection of many believers: faith means not doubting! So, he followed the advice of this youth leader and went to Moody Bible Institute after graduating from high school. This is a very conservative Christian college where the Bible was the students' "middle name." Ehrman's love for the Bible was so profound that he would spend one evening a week studying all night, almost able to recite the entire New Testament by heart! It was at Moody Bible Institute that he found his life's direction – to become a New Testament scholar, thus integrating his passion for research, debate, and faith. After three years of study at Moody, he went to the renowned Wheaton College. This college ranks fourth in the US for the proportion of its graduates who pursue doctoral degrees. To broaden his academic horizons, he deliberately majored in literature rather than theology. Those classes truly opened his eyes! At the same time, he also diligently studied Greek, and his interest in New Testament manuscripts grew stronger. Two years later, he graduated from Wheaton and went to Princeton Theological Seminary, a liberal theological seminary. The professors there all considered themselves Christians, yet they did not shy away from discussing the many errors and contradictions in the Bible. At first, Ehrman could not accept this attitude at all, believing that the contradictions in the Bible could all be reconciled. One incident had a great impact on him (quoted from the preface of "Misquoting Jesus"). In a Greek class on the Gospel of Mark, his final paper was about a passage in Jesus' words. When Jesus' disciples walked through a wheat field on the Sabbath and picked ears of grain to eat, they were condemned by the Pharisees (scribes). Jesus then said that when Abiathar was high priest, David and his men entered the temple and, out of extreme hunger, ate the showbread that only priests could eat. There is a problem with this passage because the high priest at that time was not Abiathar, but his father Ahimelech. Did Jesus misremember? Ehrman's entire paper was a painstaking effort to defend Jesus, arguing that from the complex meanings of the Greek words, Jesus was not saying Abiathar was the high priest, but that he held some important role. To his surprise, the teacher of that class, also a devout Christian, simply added a sentence at the end of his report: "Perhaps Mark simply made a mistake." This understated remark was like a "thunderclap" that "enlightened" him! After thinking about it, he finally admitted that his far-fetched explanations were actually "overextended." The truth was likely that Mark had made a mistake! From then on, his perspective on the Bible changed. He pursued his master's and doctoral degrees at Princeton Theological Seminary, where his advisor was Bruce Metzger, a top scholar in textual criticism. When Ehrman left Princeton, he did not leave his faith, but became a liberal Christian. If you are not a Christian, you might be confused by the terms fundamentalist and liberal. To use a political analogy, liberal is like the left wing, evangelical is like the right wing, and fundamentalist, also known as literalist, is like the most conservative far-right wing. The three theological seminaries Ehrman attended roughly belonged to these three camps. Liberal Christians are very flexible; you can not believe in the "virgin birth" or "Jesus' resurrection" and still be a Christian. In Chinese churches, liberals are relatively few; they are either evangelical or charismatic. Charismatics are neither liberal nor evangelical but belong to another camp (some charismatics now also belong to the evangelical camp), particularly emphasizing speaking in tongues, miracles, and other supernatural phenomena. It should also be noted that terms like liberal, evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic do not refer to "denominations" (such as Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc., which are denominations), but rather to "camps." Each camp has several "denominations," just as the left wing is not only the Democratic Party and the right wing is not only the Republican Party. Ehrman always emphasizes that he is not anti-Christian, but rather dislikes fundamentalists or the myths created by evangelicals, especially "Biblical inerrancy," which claims that every word of the Bible is God's revelation. Interestingly, the meaning of the word "fundamentalism" is to adhere to the original tradition. The problem is that the early church did not have the tradition of "Biblical inerrancy" at all. Early creeds mention belief in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the church, but not a single word about "belief in the Bible." In fact, the myth of "Biblical inerrancy" was created by the evangelical movement in the 19th century in Europe and then brought to America. According to this definition, if you do not unconditionally believe the Bible, you are not a true Christian. However, it is interesting that evangelical believers are particularly opposed to Catholics saying "papal infallibility." They say the Pope is just a mortal, how can he be infallible? That's strange. Aren't the authors of the Bible also mortals? They say: although they are mortals, what they wrote comes from God's "inspiration." But Catholics say the same thing. At the First Vatican Council in 1870, the Catholic Church officially adopted the dogma of "papal infallibility." Infallibility (infallible) is different from inerrancy. Infallibility does not mean that everything the Pope says is without error, but rather that when the Pope, as the legitimate successor of the Apostle Peter, pronounces doctrines on matters of faith and morals from his seat in St. Peter's Basilica, he is without error, because this is Jesus' promise to Peter. You can refer to this video. Inerrancy, however, is broader and more thorough than infallibility; it means everything is without error, including the scientific and historical details mentioned in the Bible. If there are errors, they are errors in the manuscripts, not in the original autographs. But since God did not preserve the manuscripts to be transmitted correctly, what reason is there to believe that He truly inspired an inerrant original manuscript? For various issues concerning the Bible, you can refer to this video. One can imagine that both fundamentalists and evangelicals consider "Biblical inerrancy" to be the "moat" of their faith. Once this moat is breached, the castle of faith is likely to fall. Therefore, many believers, even after decades in the church, know nothing about the origin of the Bible or who its authors truly are. This moat is actually very dangerous, much like the myth of Santa Claus. Ehrman's faith collapsed, starting with the shattering of this myth. C.S. Lewis has a very famous quote: "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said, could not possibly be a great moral teacher! You have to make up your mind: either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse!" Lewis was not a New Testament scholar, and he probably did not know that the declarations of Jesus' divinity in the Gospel of John were not spoken by Jesus himself, but were later interpretations by Christians. Therefore, regarding Jesus as a great moral teacher is indeed correct. At this point, you might also have a question: so many New Testament scholars know about the various problems with New Testament manuscripts, why do they still believe the Bible and not abandon their Christian faith? First, it must be explained that these scholars are very intelligent. To study the New Testament, one needs to learn Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German, French, and of course English, because one must not only read the original texts of the Old and New Testaments but also be able to read the original texts of many historical documents. Without sufficient intelligence, it is impossible to achieve this. But faith has nothing to do with intelligence. Faith is like love: either you continue to love the person you love deeply, knowing full well their flaws and shortcomings, or you don't believe the other person has any flaws or shortcomings at all, considering them as characteristics rather than defects. Scholars' faith in the Bible also has many levels. Some believe it is indeed divinely inspired, despite various errors in the manuscripts. I remember a well-known scholar saying, "God speaks to me every day through this 'errant Bible.'" You see, this statement is truly powerful. So, how do they know which words are from God and which are not? Is it based on scholarship or faith? Some scholars do not care whether the Bible is divinely inspired. They simply accept Christian values and selectively accept the content of the Bible. For example, this is how liberals operate. Logically, problems with the Bible do not mean there is no God. The believers of the early church did not have the New Testament in their hands, and this did not hinder their faith. Liberals believe in God, but certainly not in the same way evangelicals do. Many liberals are universalists; they believe that an omnipotent God would not provide only one path to salvation for humanity, so they respect other religions. They "happened" to choose Christianity. Some people's strong faith comes from mystical experiences or supernatural encounters, such as miraculous healing, a genuine sense of God's presence, or suddenly speaking in tongues. For them, such experiences are more convincing than the Bible. Ehrman, on the other hand, now believes the Bible is a book written by humans, and Christian history is a history created by ordinary people, with no divine intervention. However, he still believes in a divine existence and that Christ, in some way, showed the path to God. Ultimately, what led Ehrman to no longer believe in God's existence was not the Bible, but the suffering in the world. Ehrman once taught a course on the problem of suffering in the biblical tradition, known as "theodicy." If God governs the world, many people who come to church for the first time ask this question. Old-timers in the church have ready answers: "All this evil and suffering are caused by human sin. God gave humanity free will, and people chose to sin, so they must bear the consequences of their sins." Then, will we still have free will in heaven? Christians will surely answer, "Of course, we will!" Will there still be suffering? Of course not. How can there be suffering in heaven? So, can God give us both free will and no suffering? Then why does current free will inevitably lead to suffering? If God wants to use this "training ground" to refine us, how many Christians have been refined and ascended to heaven? Many Christian doctrines are incomprehensible, so the two most important words learned in seminary are "mystery." That is the ultimate answer to all questions. During his doctoral studies, Ehrman also served as a pastor of a church, preaching, visiting, officiating at weddings and funerals every week, doing all the things a pastor does. Therefore, he has a very direct understanding of various human sufferings. Consider the large-scale natural disasters and man-made calamities in history, such as the Black Death, which killed 75 million people, a flu that killed 50 million people, 10,000 children dying of starvation every day, 5 million people dying annually from unclean water, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed at least 3 million people. These events do not really make us believe that God is watching over the world. Interestingly, many Christian scholars feel they can persuade or defeat Ehrman on this topic. Therefore, Ehrman is often invited to debate them. Sometimes, his opponents leave him speechless. For example, one scholar said that God allowed the Holocaust to happen because by witnessing the horror of the Holocaust, those of us who survived would become nobler people. At that moment, Ehrman was very angry. He said, "I don't think that 10,000 children starving to death in the past 24 hours has made me nobler." Others say that the entire Bible shows God's plan. If you understand God's entire plan from beginning to end, you will find that it is a complete plan. Suffering is part of the plan, and one should not dwell on these sufferings. Suffering is just the "trees," and one should consider the entire "forest." Many Christians might adopt such rhetoric. I often wonder, if suffering is part of God's plan, then heaven must be unimaginable. If suffering is necessary to know happiness, then can a heaven without suffering bring us eternal happiness? A Muslim once said that those unfortunate children, though they died young, went to God. Ehrman then asked him, "Do non-Muslim children also go to God?" He replied, "Probably not." It seems that some Muslims hold the same position as Christians: they believe only their own people go to heaven, and everyone else goes to hell to suffer eternal punishment. I remember a famous saying: "Faith is not meant to explain suffering, but to bear suffering." But upon closer examination, this statement reveals a problem. It seems that faith indeed cannot explain suffering, even if it is a comfort to some. Why do Christians believe God is watching over this world? Because there are many ready-made "standard answers" available. Either accept them, or maintain distance from the mystery. The wisest answer to the problem of suffering is: I don't know. I don't know why there is suffering in the world. I don't know why God allows these things to happen. Abandoning a belief system is a very serious matter for anyone, especially for someone as deeply immersed in it as Ehrman was. When he was a Christian, he believed he had found the truth, been saved by God, was surrounded by infinite goodness, and lived a meaningful and purposeful life. More importantly, he believed in the resurrection and was not afraid of death at all. Leaving his faith meant losing all of this, as well as the social connections established in the church. Christians usually participate in small groups to study the Bible and share prayers together. Logically, this group should be the most intimate support team for a believer. However, it is strange that many believers, when feeling down, often choose to confide in non-believers rather than members of their small group or any brothers and sisters in the church. Why? The reason is simple: they worry about being seen as "weak" or "unspiritual" by other believers. So, losing social connections in the church is not that terrifying. To Ehrman, the most terrifying thing was: what happens after death? What if this decision is wrong? Where will the soul go? Will this loving God really create a hell to torment those who do not believe for eternity? Ehrman published a new book last year called "Heaven and Hell," which explores this very issue. In fact, the concept of hell does not originate from the Hebrew Bible. Those who do not follow Jesus will simply cease to exist forever. Ehrman no longer believes in the existence of the soul. He mentions a famous example from psychology: a person had a steel rod pass through their brain during construction. Although they survived, their personality changed drastically. What does this show? Our personality, memories, thoughts, feelings, desires, and everything else originate from the neurons in the brain. They cannot be separated from the brain. This means that the soul cannot continue to exist after death. If there is no soul that exists eternally, and life only lasts for a few decades, is this not a disheartening matter? The view of the 2nd-century Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius comforted him. This emperor was very open-minded: he said, "I was not troubled by my non-existence before I was born, so why should I be troubled by my non-existence after I die?" So, Ehrman took the most important step. He encouraged himself with a quote from Augustine: "You do not have to be afraid to pursue truth, because truth will not mislead you, and you will not be punished for believing in truth." This is a video I released a few months ago that was severely overlooked! These two popular psychologists, one a self-proclaimed Christian and the other an atheist, debated the topic of whether we need God to give life meaning. I strongly recommend you watch it. Back to Ehrman, is he an agnostic or an atheist now? He says he is both. Not knowing if there is a divine existence in the universe is called agnosticism. Not believing in the existence of God is called atheism. In other words, agnostics discuss whether they know, while atheists discuss whether they believe. Knowing and believing are concepts from two different domains. For believers, the meaning of life is to please God, or "to glorify God and enjoy Him." To put it plainly, it is "love God and love people." So, can one still love others after leaving God? Non-believers might find this question utterly absurd. Do the atheists in the world not have love? Christians believe that love comes from God, and those who do not believe in God are incapable of loving, just like a device without electricity. But many atheists do have love. Well, you use solar power; you don't need power cords and wires. Is not the innate human capacity for love like solar power? All we need to do is accept it and then give it. In fact, everyone believes in something. The difference between people is not whether they have faith, but what they believe in. Ehrman is now a humanist. He focuses only on this material world created by the Big Bang and is determined to do his part in this world. He has a blog, and membership requires a monthly or annual fee, but every penny is donated to the charities he supports. So far, he has donated over $1 million. He publishes two or three articles here every week and tries his best to answer every member's question. Honestly, I truly admire him for being able to spare so much time to meet the needs of his members. If you wish for him to personally answer your questions about the New Testament and Christian faith, then join his blog. I have put the link below. The video where he shares his story is also below. It is much more detailed than my explanation. He reminds everyone that life is not a "rehearsal" and there is no afterlife. We should both enjoy life and live a meaningful life. Being able to help others realize their meaning might be the most meaningful life of all!