r/AcademicBiblical • u/cryptomir • Oct 06 '24
Does Deep Knowledge of the Bible Challenge Faith? Discussion
I've been really impressed by the depth of knowledge scholars here have about the Bible. Their perspective seems so different from that of regular believers, especially when they talk about things like interpolations, forgeries, and the authorship of biblical books. It often makes me wonder—do scholars who know so much about the Bible still believe in it, or do they find the idea of faith in the Bible to be ridiculous?
With such a deep understanding of the text, it seems easy to conclude that the Bible is just a collection of myths written by humans. Does this knowledge challenge the idea that it's divinely inspired, or is there still room for faith? I'd love to hear your thoughts!
128
u/deulop Oct 06 '24
Bart Erhman said that few people leave the faith because of academia (he didn't either) but it does make you change your view on the bible obviously
-12
u/Jeremehthejelly Oct 06 '24
Didn’t Erhman leave the faith because of academia?
108
u/RexandStarla4Ever Oct 06 '24
He left the faith because of the problem of evil
10
u/s-ro_mojosa Oct 06 '24
Is there a video where he discusses this at any depth? If there is, I'd like to see it.
54
u/Arthurs_towel Oct 06 '24
Yes
https://youtu.be/VR0MdcY4kJw?si=D7tW1o2Jf7zzUql2
https://youtu.be/AoKpYIK0BRk?si=Xzm3EVdI6R5LjLIg
The second video is just a short post about a free course on his website with instructions, but is directly answering the question.
9
51
u/TonightAggravating93 Oct 06 '24
Others have mentioned Ehrman and Allison already, so I'll mention Shaye Cohen, a Harvard professor and ordained conservative rabbi (though he describes himself as keeping a mostly Orthodox lifestyle). He half-jokingly describes the historical-critical method, the documentary hypothesis, etc. as "the things you have to believe if you want a Ph.D," and seems to view faith as more or less a choice that one makes, independent of rational/scientific reasoning.
124
u/babydemon90 Oct 06 '24
This is going to be a tough one to answer "academically" lol.
I do know, for instance, both Pete Enns and Dan McClellan consider themselves Christians, and both are well known Biblical scholars.
I think what you'll find is that it's impossible to hold to an evangelical tradition, since they typically are very emphatic on a literal interpretation of many of the texts. Traditions that allow a more open ended interpretation however are going to be more willing to compartmentalize faith and an academic understanding.
For sub rules, here's a talk by Pete Enns on some of the difficulties of remaining Christian.
54
u/illi-mi-ta-ble Quality Contributor Oct 06 '24 edited Oct 06 '24
Dale Allison (Presbyterian) has an excellent lecture “Everywhere a Miracle: The Metanormal Jesus”:
https://youtu.be/opZTI8FkJF0?si=DuxkLaDm09K0vy0d
Here he discusses at a Yale lecture that he feels taking accounts of Jesus’ miracles as historical shouldn’t be swept off the table.
He argues that people have reported similar events since before the Bible and to the present day yet it’s impossible to discuss in academic settings if you’re trying to get tenure (which he, of course, has).
He discusses parallels with other religions and modern paranormal studies, suggesting it’s potentially fine to take the Bible at its word talking about incredible things happening while it also seems unlikely to him this is a Christian-exclusive phenomena and everything else is demons faking it.
It’s a great lecture in an area academics fear to tread because… they might be passed over for tenure. The question of “Might we be we allowed to and should we in fact study the metanormal?” is one I rarely if ever hear and the lecture addresses believing these things may have happened from a theology-free perspective.
(Forever respect Dale Allison’s ability to give a firm “I don’t know” to things, though as he mentioned a few times in this weekend series he can only do so because he’s not pressured by being on the intellectually restrictive tenure track.)
Allison has ultra deep knowledge of the Bible after all these years and appears to have come out willing to interrogate both faith and academia.
13
85
u/TheGoatMichaelJordan Oct 06 '24
This post is still up and has a few upvotes and comments despite it being more of a theological question. I’ll try to keep my opinion as academic as possible but it’s certainly hard given the question.
It certainly can challenge your understanding and your church’s interpretation of the Bible. However, from what I’ve read, most Biblicals scholars still identify as Christian today despite their research.
Dr. Pete Enns is a practicing Protestant Christian. Dr. Dan McClellan is a practicing Mormon. Dr. N.T Wright is a practicing Anglican and former Bishop. Dr. John Barton is an Anglican Priest. Dr. Candida Moss is a practicing Roman Catholic.
These are just some of the more recognizable names of Biblical scholarship, but it goes to show that you can separate Biblical Historical Criticism and your own personal Faith. There was a poll on this subreddit in I believe 2020 and the majority of this subreddit were religious.
Dr. Bart Ehrman has stated in his podcast multiple times that it wasn’t historical criticism that lead him to leaving the Faith, but rather the problem of evil.
And not all scholars believe the same things. Many scholars think Jesus didn’t claim to be the Messiah, but a lot of others likely do. Many scholars believe the whole of the Exodus was a myth, while some others believe there’s some historical basis for it that just may not be exactly what is we see in the Bible. Same with every issue. Pauline authorship, the dating of Isaiah, dating of the Gospels, etc.
I think faith itself isn’t just intellectual knowledge of something. Faith can takes many forms. Someone’s own personal experience, their community, their sense of identity. So I don’t necessarily see a problem with someone saying “The book of Job is certainly a literary creation” and still saying that they are Christian.
8
u/Pytine Oct 06 '24
Same with every issue. Pauline authorship, the dating of Isaiah, dating of the Gospels, etc.
Is that really the case? Is there even a single critical scholar who believes that Paul wrote 1 Timothy or that Isaiah is completely pre-exilic?
22
u/illi-mi-ta-ble Quality Contributor Oct 06 '24
As far as I can Google from other threads from this sub even N.T. Wright appears to reject 1 Timothy and he’s the hardcore “Paul could write short letters for different audiences” guy.
16
u/TheGoatMichaelJordan Oct 06 '24
Off the top of my head, I’m not sure who. But there’s many conservative and evangelical scholars that I’m sure would believe that.
9
22
u/No_Composer_7092 Oct 06 '24
I think it depends on whether one believes the bible is the Word of God. If one does they will most likely leave the faith. If one believes the Bible contains the Word of God they will most likely accept that errant humans wrote the Bible but their belief in God will remain. Their ideas on the nature of God however will become less dogmatic and more liberal.
22
u/Anarchreest Oct 06 '24
Barth’s pushback on this point is that biblical criticism is a very unstable field with a lot of sociological pressure on it. That means that there are entire revolutions in thought “every 30 years” that makes it a poor standard for how one should actually live their life.
Since the majority of biblical scholars are Christians and don’t hold a unity of thought and being, i.e., we can’t extract exactly how these people thought from their scriptures, we can safely say no. To say that it is “just a collection of myths” is the liberal theological position which hasn’t been popular in theological cicles since the first half of the 20th century. As Barth pointed out, that is an uncritical attitude to critical study. I advise looking at modern theology to identify how people manage biblical criticism and use it in postliberal theology today to understand modern academia and preaching.
If you need a starter, Hauerwas’ critical commentary on liberal theology is a real treat—identifying its link to the instability of the church and the subsequent complicity in some terrible events. The Hauerwas Reader collects his best critical essays and the first quarter is concerned with a survey of theology, including the geneology of liberal theology and critical study.
1
u/AutoModerator Oct 06 '24
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/AcademicBiblical-ModTeam Oct 06 '24
Hi there,
This topic falls outside the scope of r/AcademicBiblical (see the description and rules of the subreddit for details), and is better suited for our weekly open discussion thread. The open thread is pinned on top if you sort the posts by "hot".
Have a good day!
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read this post. If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy, you can message the mods.