on bart ehrman

Here’s an article posted today at on the agnostic biblical scholar Bart Ehrman of UNC Chapel Hill. I’m quoted in the article because of my take on Ehrman’s work generally and newest in particular, Jesus, Interrupted, in this post from a couple of months ago. 

I’ll collect some thoughts and share a little more later, but I did want to go ahead and post the link. I will also express appreciation for the writer, John Blake. He contacted me about an interview last Friday, which we set up for Monday (he’d come across my blog post in his research). We spoke for about 45 minutes on Monday morning. He was inquisitive and open to my perspective on the matter. Plus, to his credit on a religious story, his interest in my perspective was expressly an interest in the experience of pastors and churches, preachers and their laity, in light of Ehrman’s work and publishing success. 

I’ll share more of what I said on Monday later, but for now I will affirm Willimon’s take—more on that later too.

Published by Guy M Williams

Christian | Husband, Father | Pastor | 8th-Gen Texan | Texas A&M ‘96 | Asbury Seminary ‘01 | Enjoy family, reading, running, golf, college football

7 thoughts on “ on bart ehrman

  1. So, are you going to have to take a pay cut at the church since you are now “a blogger who also happens to be a Methodist minister.”

    If you can just figure out how to monetize that blogging, it might not matter!

    Congrats on being referenced.

  2. Bard Ehrman as all ‘agnostics’ plead that they can not know anything and then make absolute statements regarding some subject. In his case, he makes statements to ‘prove’ that the gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion can not be ‘conflated’ because of the different perspectives of the authors. My response would be, ‘how do you know that?’ Who set you up as judge and jury on how to interpret the bible? I listened to his reasoning why, and well, it is flawed because he has no demonstratable proof for his statements (he can’t go back in time and see what happened). All new testament scholarship is based on circumstancial evidence which can be interpreted a number of ways and theories which may be true or not. Since we can’t go back to that time and see what really happened, we can’t make any type of absolute judgments on anything. So Bart’s statements are actually just opinions. I can come up with several reasons why someone would combine the gospels. Does not mean they are right, just means they are my opinion.

  3. It is interesting that Ehrman insists that he is not a theologian while at the same time making theological pronouncements at every turn which hold serious implications regarding faith or unfaith.

  4. Guy –

    I actually came across the CNN story before I read your post about it. Seeing Bishop Willimon wasn’t too much of a surprise, given the scathing (and on target) book review he did of Ehrman’s latest title in the Christian Century. But when I saw Guy Williams show up a few paragraphs later, I just about fell out of my chair! Kudos to you. Ehrman’s continuing publicity – a publicity which he cultivates in myriad ways – is testament to the danger he represents to the church. I appreciate you taking the time to share your pastoral perspective w/ the CNN reporter.


  5. I remembering clicking on the CNN link and then quit reading because it was Bart. My loss. Way to be an expert quote. (I was quoted by the AP once at a Fed Soc thing so I still think I’m in the lead though. ;-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: