I think that Ehrman is right in one sense–in the last two centuries bibliology has occupied a somewhat strange role as the front matter to all theological work. In the church, too, it has been pushed to the center.
He fails, though, to see a couple of things. The first thing is that there might be a good reason for this exaltation of the biblical text. The role of the text as the medium of divine revelation (coupled with the Spirit’s witness and/or the church’s interpretation) was taken for granted for most of Christian history. When this role for Scripture could no longer be taken for granted in the modern era, it seems somewhat natural that we would develop, articulate, and defend the status and role of Scripture for the church. I’m not saying it hasn’t been overdone, but I am saying that perhaps it is in some sense justified.
Second (and this is implicit above), the role of the Bible articulated and defended in the modern era isn’t always that different from what came before in Christian history. Dogmatic works could start with “God the Father Almighty” or with the doctrine of the Trinity because it was just an assumption that the whole of the work would be rooted in Scriptural exegesis and historical interpretation.

.
Wasn’t it Christ who said, “None come to the Father except through the bible”? Oh. Wait a second. It hadn’t been written yet. Right.
On the other hand, God is so ethereal He doesn’t have a hand in making sure the right words get out? Hmmmm. Let me get this straight – He knows me since before I’m in the womb but hasn’t learned how to communicate except through burning bushes?
In some ways, this kind of discussion reminds me of the engineers who argued day and night about how the bridge was to be built, but by the time they agreed they had an acceptable method, all the materials – delivered on the very first day – had rotted away.

I think he’s right on all points. And his conclusion is the very thing that happened to him. Of course, his deconversion led to his present stance outside Christianity. But I think in his heart of hearts he still wants to believe; I think he’s fighting so hard because he was hurt so deeply.
Dana

Ehrman’s description certainly matches my experience with conservative Christianity. Having been raised in a church that extensively studied the scripture, it wasn’t until a 100-level college course that I began to explore some of the most basic who/what/when about the Bible’s origins.
Although most conservative Christians would deny worshipping the Bible or being a religious fundamentalist, many do in essence worship the Bible as the ‘Word of God’ and believe in a very rigid set of fundamental doctrines. For many Christians, the Bible is the final answer to all of life’s questions and is above question or doubt.
It seems many people reduce Jesus’ ministry to merely a book tour. And yet, if Jesus knew that his followers would put so much emphasis on Biblical writings and interpretations, why didn’t Jesus cut-out the self-serving messengers and just author a few books himself?

I really don’t understand where the idea came from that the authority and even (gasp) inerrancy is some modern invention of a few backward Bible thumpers from the era of modernism, which we have supposedly outgrown. Just a few examples from a few notable theological minds just a bit before the modern era…
Athanasius
We, however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind to the present day.
Augustine
If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, the author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself…in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.
Cyril of Jerusalem
For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.
Hilary of Poitiers
I would not have you flatter the Son with praises of your own invention; it is well with you if you be satisfied with the written word.”
Wonder how Augustine and Athanisius got those wacky ideas?

Norm,
I’d say be careful to become to reactionary. Fundamentalism & strict legalism was largely a reaction to liberalism. Now, let’s not go devaluing the authority of scripture in reaction to fundamentalism.
Besides, how would we even know what Jesus might want if we didn’t have scripture?
I respect the authority and inspiration of scripture, but I don’t worship it. But I do think it’s one of the best ways for us to know God. God chose to reveal himself through it and so we should take it seriously.

Kenny #6-
Well said.

“Are you out to destroy the Christian religion?” “. . . he is answering the question if he is out to destroy belief in the Bible. What do you think of his points?”
Bart Ehrman, if he wants us to think about his points, really wants us to “believe” his points. The professor can’t be content with just having people understand what he understands – it is much more satisfying for the religionist to have people believe what he believes.
He’s hardly different from the physicist and from the philosopher. For example:
Physicist Anatol Rapoport:
Once when teaching elementary physics, I was impressed with the resistance of mature intelligent students to some fundamental facts and concepts. For example, when a man falling in a parachute has reached constant velocity, the forces action on him add up to zero. Beginners almost invariably resist this conclusion. “If there is not resultant force action on a falling body,” they ask, “why does it fall?” Proof by appeal to the fundamental equation of motion is of little avail. They ?believe? the equation, but they believe their preconceptions. (qtd. in Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, by Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike, p. 239)
Philosopher Professor Dallas Willard:
Sometimes I will half jokingly say to [my 101 students] as they hand me their tests after an exam, ?Did you believe what you wrote?? And they all smile. Because they know that the important thing is not to believe what you write but to write the right answers. (“Truth: Can We Do Without It?” p. 12).

I think its best to avoid extremes on this question. Ehrman, if I recall correctly, doesn’t believe the resurrection really happened. If that is what he means in saying you can be a Christian and not believe the Bible, then I disagree with him.
On the other hand, the position of infalliability or inerrancy is another story — an overreaction, I think. For example, read what each of the gospels says about where the disciples first see Jesus after the resurrection, and which disciples were there. They give different answers, and can’t each be true. Or, for example, did the cleansing of the temple occur in the last week before the cross, or early in Jesus’s ministry? Again different answers. To me, that doesn’t lead me to throw out the Bible, but neither does it mean that I can honestly call it inerrant.
I’m glad that there is a massive middle ground between Ehrman and inerrantists; people who find the Bible as evidence of the truth of the resurrection, and also as authoritative.

As Eric points out, Ehrman apparently doesn’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead. According to a review of Ehrman’s book “God’s Problem” (reviewed at http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/36-2/hedges.html ) Ehrman writes, “”I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things.” I get the impression that Ehrman would be quite pleased if people would stop believing in the Bible, orthodox Christianity, and for that matter, any notion of God that bears any resemblance to what Christians everywhere have affirmed. I don’t hear much truth in Ehrman’s agenda.

Thanks for your courage, and for the Truth you speak. You have been able to find the words for so many of us who are searching…
- Jerry DePoy Jr.

If in fact the purpose, the point, or the intent of Bart Ehrman is to say that “Jesus Saves, Not the Bible,” or that “to make faith in the Bible the most important tenet of Christianity is a radical, modern and invalid idea,” then he should be commended by every true believer in Christ. When he asks: Do you agree? I can say without reservation: Yes!
This issue had not long ago become one of the points of contention between myself and the fundie cohort at an Evangelical Free church I am still a member of but no long attend on a regular basis. “Belief in the Bible” was clearly “trusting the Word of God” which was equated with trusting God, and having “faith in the Bible” was considered equivalent to a saving faith in Christ or believing in Christ. My pointing out that we nowhere find in scripture anyone having FAITH specifically in God’s Word or that “believing in the Bible” was necessary to salvation never seemed to cut through the veil of what seemed to me to be idolatrously replacing God with our received scriptures.
That having been said, I am quite sure that B. Ehrman doesn’t believe as I do that “Jesus Saves,” but I think he is right about the historical development of this confusion between believing in Christ and “faith in the Bible.”"
I am not so sure B. Ehrman is not doing high service to the Church when he says in his final words: “And so, biblical scholarship will not destroy Christianity. It might de-convert people away from a modern form of fundamentalist belief. But that might be a very good thing indeed.”
All the best to all in Christ,
Richard W. Wilson; body of Christ, St. Louis, MO, USA

I think he’s being a bit disingenuous. He keeps trying to imply in his books and public appearances (though he fails in his books because, as Mark Roberts puts it, he’s too good of a scholar) that we have no idea what the NT is supposed to say. If so, that leaves us with, at best, a very liberal Christianity that says we can believe whatever we want because we have no authoritative scriptures. That road always leads to diminishing, if not denying, the role of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ in our Faith.

When his son was getting ready for college my boss sent for university information, he was amazed that pretty much all christian colleges had as their statement of faith #1 their belief in the Bible, not God.

I suppose it may be naive of me to ask how we can have faith in God or Christ or even know anything of substance about God or Christ apart from the Word written. So faith in the Bible is not in some sort of opposition to faith in God, but a necessary component of it. Else we are all grasping at smoke. Divorcing faith in the Bible from faith in God is a false separation.

Dan,
I totally agree and made the point myself. Unless you believe that Bible is the inspired word of God and the authority for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” then what are you left with?
Is it true that some’s view of scripture can become idolatrous? Sure. But some of the comments here almost seem at the opposite extreme.
How do you know the God you worship and serve apart from scripture?

William Cheriegate,
I think some churches and schools mention that they believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God because putting “Christian” in your name doesn’t mean much anymore. I’d certainly want to know what a church or school’s stance on the Bible was.

Abraham had faith without the Bible. Moses had faith without the Bible.
To say you can’t follow God without the Bible is to place the Bible on the same level as God. Of course you can have faith in God without a book. Is God that powerless that He cannot work his will regardless?
It is impossible for any book to hold the complete thoughts of God for our lives. God reveals himself and his will to us every day through our experience, our reason, our prayer, our discernment, our open hearts.
I’m not saying throw away the Bible at all, He will not, can not, fit into a mere book.
The Bible is the authority on Jesus, faith in him and the resurrection, but outside of that are there are moral lessons in it that cannot be found elsewhere? (There may well be; I’m trying to think of some right now.)
In any case, atheists can and do live moral, upstanding lives without the aid of a book to tell them what to do. Generally we know that we’re supposed to love our neighbor without a book.

Sorry, I meant to say:
I’m not saying throw away the Bible at all. But God will not, can not, fit into a mere book.
I’d also add that the Bible is a sacred book, for prayerful study of it can help us understand God’s will for us. But it isn’t on the same level as God and *He* doesn’t need it.

Abraham and Moses were also in direct commune with God (special revelation). I think we can see that there was a difference. He also had Moses (if you accept the traditional view) and others write down the involvement of God in human history. You can surely have faith in God without the Bible, but is your faith correct? How do you measure that? Muslims have faith in God too. How do you understand that God is loving and merciful without scripture? Because you could look at the world and say, as atheists do, that if God exists, he must be cruel or uncaring. So His general revelation doesn’t appear to be adequate. Many non-Christians say they experience God, but they are miles apart in their same conclusion about who God is. So general revelation and experience are clearly inadequate.
No one here has said that everything about life or God can be found in the Bible. I’m not trying to limit God. But I do believe that he purposely revealed himself in the Bible. At least part of himself. The part he wants us to know. And that in itself makes the Bible incredibly important.
Do de-value the Bible is just as bad as idolizing it, in my opinion.

We don’t need to elevate the Bible to the first “fundamental”. We don’t worship the Bible, we worship God. However, just because the Niagara conference got its priorities in the wrong order doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate how God inspired His Word and kept it pure through the centuries. God loves us and desires to reveal Himself to us. When I read the Bible God reveals more of Himself to me. I trust the Bible because it proves to be trustworthy, which, incidentally is the same reason why I trust God in the first place.
Besides, what is Christianity without the deity of Christ? Who said Jesus doesn’t claim deity or that his followers didn’t think he was the son of God? I don’t believe in the deity of Christ just because it’s in the Bible. I believe it because nothing makes sense without it. Again, it’s trustworthy. What does Mr. Ehrman want us to do? Reject Truth?

Ehrman one suspect knows better. He must know his Origen well enough to realize that the distinction he makes between the Incarnate Word of God and the Word of God in or as the Bible-isn’t necessarily one that the early church would have made. It is the same Word of God. In that sense the Bible was very much an article of faith in the early church. Erhman is being disingenuous…who knows why?

What’s sad to me about Dr. Ehrman is that his crisis is predicated on the shared epistemology of both the fundamentalism of his youth and the the historical-criticism of his training.
He’s just traded one set of conclusions for another in the same framework of knowledge.
The pastoral dimension of his story is what fascinates me…
That being said, his textbook that surveys the NT is lovely.

while i think the Niagara priorities strike us as mistaken from this point in time, I think it’s important for people (critics and supporters) to remember that those statements are really occasional in nature–bound to their particular situation. They are reflective of particular concerns…not universal conciliar statements.

So the reason for the Bible is so that we know that God isn’t as cruel and uncaring as our experiences may tell us?
I thought God was good and loving far before I had any interest in the Bible. In fact, I thought just the opposite: that God was good and loving but those who followed the Bible were bad and hating.
The Bible can be a weapon and it has killed many people, my friend. I refuse to believe that the true Word of God will kill; the Word became flesh.

Even the drafters of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the “gold standard” for conservative evangelicals today, deny that belief in strict inerrancy is necessary to be a “Christian.” Article XIX of the Chicago Statement says:
“We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation.”
See http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
So, Ehrman is plainly wrong if he insists that conservative evangelicals today equate “belief in the Bible” with saving faith in Christ. (BTW, to those who think the Bible is the only way to learn of Christ, I’d point to St. Paul’s experience of conversion).
Obviously, all evangelicals today think the authority of the Bible is a vital concern, and all orthodox Christians today agree that Christian faith implies some kind of belief that the Bible is a uniquely normative source for faith and practice. I’d daresay that very few, if any, orthodox Christians agree with Ehrman’s views about the inspiration of the Bible. But, even many evangelicals disagree about precisely what this means (see, e.g., Fuller Seminary’s statement of faith), so to claim that it is necessary to have one specific understanding of what the inspiration and authority of the Bible implies in order to be a “Christian” is absurd.

A new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ, now being prepared for paper publication but available on the web for some time, doesn’t ‘debunk’ the Bible as such, but using a great deal of non canonical material, demonstrates that the Bible is not a revelation now does it contain a revelation of itself. That is a theological illusion. Redefining all the tenets of Christianity, this new teaching will pose a very real threat to the credibility of existing traditions. Free review copies at http://www.energon.org.uk