(31 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...Sometimes people say the most ridiculous things. Especially when they want to argue against you. It’s amazing what people can dream up. And not just in politics – just in everyday life. You no doubt have noticed yourself… I want to talk about an instance of this which, for me, gets particularly bizarre near the end of this post.
You probably have this experience too. People who don’t know me say all sorts of things that just make me scratch my head. WHAT??? Interestingly, given my situation, I get vitriol mainly from two sides, which stand at polar opposites from one another. On one side are some fundamentalists/very conservative evangelicals who think I am out to destroy the faith (that side is understandable; at least I myself understand it, having once been a fundamentalist/very conservative evangelical who said nasty things about liberal scholars whom I thought were out to destroy the faith 🙂 ) and the other are some “mythicists” – the ones who think that there never was a historical man, Jesus, but that he was invented whole cloth — who think I’m weak-minded, unwilling to follow an argument to its logical conclusion, or, at heart, a closet evangelical. Yikes.
In any event, I’m not going to spend my time here on nemeses on the left but those on the right. I have very, very good and friendly relationships with lots of evangelicals, including evangelical scholars. But many on the far right really do see me as the spawn of Satan and are deeply concerned that I am leading people straight to the pits of hell.
A few weeks ago I got an email from a fellow I’ve had some correspondence with over the years. A working man, school degree, wanting to get a college education and go from there to do graduate work in biblical studies. One never knows if that is a plausible goal or not, without spending substantial time with a person and getting a sense of whether they might have the intellectual abilities to do it. I myself do not have the abilities to do most of things I’d love to do, from playing second base for the Yankees or qualifying for Wimbledon to teaching astronomy or, well, understanding the first thing about physics. Some people have some abilities and some have others; those who do PhD’s in an area of the humanities simply have a very refined but small slice of remarkable ability. I don’t know about this person.
But I have very much encouraged him to get the college degree, study what he was intrigued by, and pursue his passions. As I said, he is a working guy; I suspect he has a family. His first step was to get into some college courses. He couldn’t move to another place to attend a college or university full time, so he applied and got admitted to a school near where he lives. It is a hard-core evangelical school. It was the one that was an option.
That’s perfectly fine in a sense. He himself has a Christian background. But he has learned over the years a good deal about the Bible that is different from what is taught in that kind of school, and it is causing a bit of cognitive dissonance for him. He’s a genuinely curious guy, wants to know the truth, and is passionate about looking into it. Great!
So he writes me a few weeks ago. He had a conversation with one of his professors and my name came up. His professor harshly warned him against me. Why? Because I “had an agenda.” The student was writing me to ask if I had an agenda.
My reply was very simple. Of *course* I have an agenda. EVERYONE has an agenda. The people you need to look out for are those who claim that do NOT have an agenda. They’re either covering up something for the sake of making themselves look objective in an attempt to achieve their agenda or, more often, they are so blithely ignorant of themselves and totally lacking in introspection that they don’t realize that much of what they think and do is connected with their agenda. Neither option is at all good.
I explained that to the fellow: we all have agendas. In fact, we all have lots of them. He himself has an agenda: he wants to be better educated, for example. Why? Because he is genuinely interested in knowledge and wants to become a better person and possibly wants to get a better job possibly so he can get more of the things he wants in life and make life easier for his family and … and that’s just one slice of his life. His professor who wants to cast aspersions on me has an agenda – for example, to promote Bible-believing Christianity as the greatest truth and to protect his version of Christianity from attack from liberal scholars like Ehrman, etc.
I too have an agenda. With respect to this particular topic, my agenda is decidedly NOT to drag people away from their faith. It is to make people better informed about the NT, the historical Jesus, and the history of early Christianity. I frankly don’t care an iota for what people personally believe, so long as what they believe doesn’t do any real harm to anyone. And it’s true, I think some forms of religion do *incredible* harm. I’m opposed only to the harm, and to the enacted views that lead to it — but whatever people think inside their own heads is fine with me. My real agenda is to have them think about it based on, well, real information.
My view is that anyone who doesn’t have an informed faith has an ignorant faith. Do you really want to be ignorant? Some people do. Not just fundamentalists but also many atheists and materialists and mythicists and so on.
Anyway, I explained that to the fellow via email. He went back and talked to his professor about it. And that’s when it got *really* bizarre. The professor told him that it was clear that my goal was to deconvert students from their Christian faith because that’s why I teach undergraduates. If I didn’t want to deconvert people, I wouldn’t be teaching undergrads.
When the fellow wrote me that I was completely baffled and told him I didn’t know what he meant. Literally, I didn’t know what he meant. This is my day job. It’s what I do for a living. I’m a professor at a university. Why wouldn’t I teach undergraduates? How could I have this job without teaching undergraduates? Why would teaching undergraduates reveal that I must have an agenda to deconvert them?
He went back and asked his professor, and his professor knowingly informed him that anyone who looked into the matter would know that teaching undergraduates puts a faculty person on the lowest end of the payscale. Uh…OK then. This professor appears to think that at a school like UNC, the top faculty can choose to teach only graduate students and get paid much more that way. A top faculty member who chooses to teach undergrads would be taking a major pay cut. And the only reason they would want to do that is because they “have an agenda.”
I was virtually speechless. The ignorance of some people! A professor in the humanities at a research university who can choose not to teach undergraduates and so get paid more??? Good god. And this is coming from a person who teaches in a university? What world is he living in? University professors in the humanities teach students. Surely he knows that. If he doesn’t, I’m afraid it’s probably not the full extent of his ignorance. But I do love the irony, that *I* have an agenda….
Let me just state this as clearly as I can. I think it is perfectly fine for all of us to have disagreements about really important and fundamental things. We do. I have very strong views about numerous matters connected to religion, politics, social programs, current events, and on and on, and I disagree with lots and lots of people. We ALL do. But just makin’ stuff up to convince people of our view, or speaking nonsense because we don’t think people will know better, or just being so flippin’ ignorant that you don’t realize how ignorant you are – none of these is the way to engage in civil discussion to make our world a better place. When we disagree, we should at least have an idea of what we’re talking about.
If you want to read more about this, I recommend Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind.” He argues that Hume was right: reason is the slave of the passion. Slave is a little harsh – press secretary is a better metaphor. The press secretary can’t make policy – his job is to defend it. And reason is very bad at changing opinions – its job is to defend the opinions we make based on other things like how an opinion fits with our world-view and personal identity. And when there are no good arguments to do, the press secretary makes bad arguments. It takes a very very large amount of evidence to get the press secretary to go to the boss and say “This is hopeless. I recommend you change your mind.” And Haidt has the empirical evidence to support this.
That is a great analogy! I heard a very similar point (made by S. Pinker and F. de Waal): We make decisions based on emotions. After the decision has been made, the mind comes up with the ‘rational’ reasons for why it was the right decision. There is a described case of a person who due to some brain injury lost most of his emotional life. His affect became really flat. You’d think that person would be some sort of super decider, driven by nothing but rational considerations. But the opposite happened: He could just not make up his mind about anything, from the mundane to the important. It’s a fascinating perspective.
I completely agree with the comments above by AstaKask and katharinamacke. I especially second the recommendation of The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt.
Also worth mentioning is the documentary (available on Netflix streaming) Behind The Curve — it’s about people who believe the earth is flat. Fascinating to be introduced to them — for the more than 99% of us who know they are wrong in this and related beliefs, it provides a window into the nature of belief and being human.
If ignorance is bliss, then there are an awful lot of people out there who are really happy!! LoL
That’s social media for ya.
I’m very thankful for your work… keep it up!
If you get too frustrated with the blogging stuff, it may actually be easier now to play 2nd base for the Yankees after Cano got popped for his second steroid bust.
I’m watching “ Hot Stove” right now and waiting for word that the Mets have purchased Lemiehu from the Yankees now that they have 20 million freed up to get them another 2nd baseman.
The Yankees are gonna need another 2nd baseman.
I’m sitting by my phone….
Obviously, a hot button issue for you, and I certainly share your frustration. I have found there is no way to reason with a true believer. It’s not simply that they are convinced of their own rightness (most of us are); but, their refusal or unwillingness or maybe inability to believe that they could possibly be wrong. That’s the difference between science and ideology. If you take a scientific approach, you have to understand that your idea might be wrong and, in fact, is almost certainly not completely right. As you obtain more data, you may have to modify your position to accommodate the new information. I think most people are uncomfortable with this approach; they want certainty.
Simple is easy; complex is hard.
“… When we disagree, we should at least have an idea of what we’re talking about.”
From your lips to God’s ears!
… Oh, wait.
Some time ago, I helped a female friend with her thesis in Criminology. She discussed her dissertation about Versace’s murder and, by the way, never mentioned my contribution. Can you believe that? Then you realize why people get mad.
Anyway, I recall one serial killer having an agenda made of human skin.
It was a terrific way to keep up with his job.
P.S.
If you don’t understand my irony, then you can trash it as usual.
I wonder if the fellow might have been extrapolating from true stories he heard about the plight of adjunct faculty?
Possibly from his own experience?
All these years as a blog member has made me a more informed believer and much more accepting of others who believe differently or don’t believe at all.
Ok Bart,
I can handle a lot of your views. However you have crossed the line! Playing for the Yankees! My god! The Royals maybe. But not The Evil Empire!
Yeah, I know. I hated them back in the George Brett days. But when I moved to NJ I became a big fan. Best team money could buy!
My late brother-in-law (a life-long Manhattan resident): “I don’t care about baseball at all. Except for the Yankees. I hate them.”
Yup, clearly not from the Bronx.
If he can’t move, I think he’d be better off taking some correspondence courses rather than go to a hard core evangelical school if he is not in fact a hardcore evangelical. It would just be 4 years of frustration and idiotic conversations like the one related here, then a degree probably not recognized by many secular grad schools.
As a former professor, I could not agree more with your comments!! It is baffling that anyone in the academy could think this way. I appreciate your attempts to reestablish some reality.
Dr. Ehrman, you’re clearly right that there are people who prefer ignorance – we see it on a massive scale regarding even the recent election. I think much of it is a very human need to belong, to seek an identity, and we see this from ancient people’s behavior in Scripture as well as modern newscasts. It gives us a sense of power and authority that we fear we lack, so we “make stuff up”. I agree the world would be a better place if our beliefs were based on real information and I thank you for your efforts to bring that info to the world. My favorite saying, if you haven’t heard it before, is “One single piece of verifiable evidence would destroy atheism.” It applies to a broad spectrum of other baseless claims, too. Feel free to use it if it helps!
All I can do is empathize. I taught writing (graduate and undergrad) in a university for 30 years, and since I’m upfront about my leftwing politics, I’ve been accused by those online who know my politics and my profession that I’m an ardent indoctrinator of students.
It happens I make a point of NEVER discussing anything political in the classroom, and bending over backwards to allow my rightwing students to feel comfortable, because politics has very little to do with writing (on the undergrad level) but I would face this accusation (often expressed sneeringly) from a variety of antagonists online, and my conclusion is that they’re so sure I must do this because that is what they would do themselves if they had the platform I had to reach naive and trusting undergraduates.
it really says much more about themselves than it does about you or me.
It’s always interesting that some people believe they can do a better job of defending their god than their god can do of defending him/her self.
Some Christians identify themselves as “liberal scholars” or at least go along with the label, because their theology is liberal tradition. As you are not Christian (hence subscribe to no theology), do you prefer the label “liberal scholar” or “secular scholar”?
“My view is that anyone who doesn’t have an informed faith has an ignorant faith.”
If all persons of faith fall into one of the two categories – informed versus ignorant – then most people throughout history belonged to the latter, as they cannot be said to know much about the history, intellectual thought, philosophical justification, or even sociological facts of their religion beyond their immediate circles. In premodern times, many people were illiterate, or were too preoccupied with everyday life to study the scholarship available in their day. Even today, when literacy is universal and information accessible for who seek it, many people have other important priorities.
I think someone can be fully committed to their faith, but are neither informed nor ignorant (in a pejorative sense) because religious faith is far more than being propositional; it is a way of life, an attitude to the world, a way of interacting and serving members of the faith community.
I am secular with respect to religion, and liberal with respect to most everything else. So I see myself as both secular and liberal (just not religious liberal, since I’m not religious)
Greetings Dr.Eharman,
I’m new to the blog so please forgive the context of this question if it is out of place. In your book How Jesus Became God you described that Jesus predicted the imminent apocalypse would arrive within his own generation, before his disciples had all died(Mark 13: 24-30). Could you comment on the different interpretations, more specifically rendered by Evangelical scholars, of the meaning of the word generation? I’ve read some commentaries which say that the meaning of the word generation could be two fold: those living at one time or to a group of people descended from a common ancestor(in other words Jesus is saying that the apocalypse will take place before the entire Jewish race passes away). This last meaning seems to be necessary for fundamental evangelicals since Jesus’ prediction did not come to pass.
Thanks!
Yes, it’s true the word can mean that. Most words can mean lots of different things, and the way you decide what it means is based on its context. In this particular case, the disciples want to know when the end is going to come. This is a personal interest of theirs. How long do we need to wait? Throughout his teaching Jesus indicates that the time is nearly up and that people need to be ready for it. In that context, I don’t think it would make sense for him to tell his disciples that the end will come before the Jewish race has disappeared from the earth. He appears to be giving them a warning about how soon it will be (read the rest of the chapter). It will be within your own generation! (Notice: the rest of what he says doesn’t make sense if he means: before there are no more Jews left. His apocalyptic scenario is *predicated* on the idea that there will be Jews at the time — so there would be no reason to give as the climactice moment a claim that there will be Jews still!!
This professor has a strange idea of what teachers do. The best teachers I know love to teach undergraduates – they are at the beginning of the process of discovery, and the joy of teaching is in helping them along that road.
Sometimes people give me friction for quoting you in bible studies saying, “this guy is an atheist, not even lead by the spirit, what does he know?” I always say “well a broken clock is right twice a day” lol!
Actually one of the reasons I always want to know what you say is because you’re not catholic. Or Baptist. Or Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Lutheran, or anything and consequently don’t have a bias in that respect, but sometimes your background bleeds through a little (premillennialism etc) I would hold your views in greater suspicion if you were beholden to one of those groups.
Back in your evangelical days, did you ever feel like God had spoken to you? Were you “lead by the spirit”? Ever take up any serpents? Just kidding about the last one ?
All the time. Never handled snakes (that would be “testing God”!). But did speak in tongues etc.
Wow! Mildly surprised. I assume the tongues you spoke in were unintelligible? I have always maintained that this was not the case in the era of the n/t (acts 2).
2 questions:
1 would you agree that the tongues phenomenon in the nt was indeed the ability to suddenly and miraculously speak in a foreign but none the less human and intelligible language? Like if all of a sudden I, while vacationing in Russia or somewhere, could suddenly speak or understand Russian?
And 2, modern people who claim to do such things are rather conditioned to speak gibberish and lead to believe that the emotional frenzy they have been stirred into is a manifestation of the spirit of God?
1. That’s true for the book of Acts, but does not appear to be true in Paul’s actual churches. (Probalby “languages of angels” as in 1 Cor. 12 and 13
2. that would be a psychological evaluation, rather than a historical statement. But it was my experience, yes.
People elect ignorance when they make judgements without propper information. You tend to handle people’s knowledge deficits well and your style has motivated me to read your books and listen to you on youtube. Misunderstandings and judgementalness will likely continue to be with us, I believe. They push us away from each other. Not what the world needs, especially right now.
Bart, it’s slightly off topic, but do you see the stifling of different viewpoints at UNC that are reported elsewhere? By that I mean the stifling of conservative views, conservative speakers, ideas that go against current liberal orthodoxy, and not just in the biblical field? It certainly seems to be true elsewhere and it seems to be infecting the so-called hard sciences where even mathematics is said to be racist, for instance. Eliminating one side of the debate, rather than engaging with it, seems like an admission of, or fear of, weak arguments. I know you do not do that – not implying that at all!
I don’t see any actual stifling of viewpoints. It’s true that most professors at UNC — as at virtually all the top universities (for one reason or another) tend to be “liberal.” But almost all the ones I know encourage thinking rather than toeing the line.
Bart,
Very well said. Anyone who has read many of your books as I have – and watched many of your talks on YouTube and in the Great Courses series – and participated here on the blog knows how even handed you are. You admit when you change your mind or make a mistake (something few do I’ve noticed). You let the ideas go out into the big arena of ideas and let individuals decide for themselves what to think.
You follow the truth where it leads and approach Biblical studies/Christianity much like a good scientist approaching her/his interests.
Thank you !
Steve
I think you have been generous and patient in your correspondence. Isn’t reading and evaluating opposing views an essential part of education? Will reading Marx turn one into a communist? At any rate, I hope the young man will persevere and achieve his goals. By the way, my favorite professors were the ones with whom I argued, and who liked the fact I was arguing with them! None of them warned me to “stay away” from this or that.
But I share your frustration. You attempt a “meeting of the minds” and some people seem unreachable.
I suspect that the distinguished Winston-Salem philanthropist Mr. James Gray would have been offended and hurt if the recipient UNC Bible scholar of his generous endowment gift elected not to teach undergraduates.
Certainly offended! It was the entire point of his endowment.
The tongue can be a sharp sword, no doubt, and most often we use it to bash others, friends, family, co-workers, public servants, community, church and scholars. Although I personally struggle with belief, I love the teachings of passages in Scripture. Oftentimes, I wonder what this world would be like if everyone was more ingenuous and adhered to it’s teachings. James 3; 1-12 NASB, warns of using the tongue against one another. Pay special attention to verse 8-10. The same tongue that praises also curses. James, concludes with wisdom from above,verses 13-18. “But if you have bitter jealousy and [i]selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, [j]natural, demonic. For where jealousy and [k]selfish ambition exist, [l]there is disorder and every evil thing”. James concludes, ” And the [n]seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace [o]by those who make peace”. I think Bart, your scholarly adversary, should re-read these passages. I am not surprised by his comments and neither should you be! Civility has been lost over the years.
Wow. I gotta wonder about that professor. Maybe these religious schools really do operate differently than secular schools.
I got my undergrad degree (computer engineering) from a University of California campus, and UC schools are research universities. There were engineering professors who embraced teaching undergrads, and those who did it because they were obligated and their hearts weren’t really in it. But they all did it.
Even engineering students are required to take some humanities/social sciences units, and I took introductory classes in various things from professors, often full professors and certainly all tenured professors, who loved sharing the bones of their discipline with undergrads who weren’t even likely to choose that major.
My masters work (geology) was done at a California State University campus, and CSU schools are primarily teaching schools. There, I heard rumors that certain disciplines used only adjuncts for lower-division classes, but it certainly wasn’t true of my department. We did have some adjunct people, but only because there wasn’t money to open tenure-track positions. Every tenured or tenure-track professor taught lower-division as well as upper-division classes.
In short, I think your correspondent’s professor needs to get out more.
A brilliant post! Most authors make longwinded exposes to convey basic human flaws and illustrate their full depth. In this blog posting you have accomplished both succinctly.
a few years ago when i began seriously studying ancient history/religions(since they are so intertwined) i ran across you through the great courses program, and appreciated your knowledge and delivery very much, joined your blog and really appreciate most posts and own several of your books. i identify with your views and read to LEARN. since i was agnostic to begin with never even considered that you had the agenda of attempting to change anyones views. it has been all about the knowledge for me, something i have definitely realized how little most christians have about their religion and furthermore do not wish to learn. thank you for the time you devote to all of us.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer said,
https://meconservativevoice.com/2017/08/13/bonhoeffer-on-stupidity-the-entire-quote/
In his biography he said he could work with ignorant but not with stupid.
Just a comment. I have a related story about a nationwide Catholic radio show I was listening to a year ago. (I sit back and enjoy these shows for the entertainment.) A woman caller phones the famous apologist host to ask if she should read a book she found at her local library. As soon as she mentions the title “Jesus, Interrupted,” the host instantly says (with detectable dismay) “Bart Ehrman … He’s a blind guide … credulous. The book is designed to deep six your faith in the integrity of the Holy Bible. It would probably hurt you, not help you if you read the book.”
Ha! Catholic? OK then!
I am reminded of a similar story about a nationwide Catholic radio show I listened to a year ago. (I sit back and enjoy these shows for the entertainment.) A woman caller phones the famous apologist host to ask if she should read a book she found at her local library. As soon as she mentions the title “Jesus, Interrupted,” the host instantly says (with detectable dismay) “Bart Ehrman … He’s a blind guide … credulous. The book is designed to deep six your faith in the integrity of the Holy Bible. It would probably hurt you, not help you if you read the book.” Millions were listening.
Professor Ehrman
I was born in the middle of WWII in Yugoslavia. It cannot be said that it was the “Biblical Belt”, but now, as a Croat, I can say that we have come dangerously close to your region.
My grandparents were religious. Father and mother are not.
I have been an infidel ever since I became aware of myself.
So I’m an atheist and an agnostic, just like you,
with the difference that only now do I learn in detail from you what Christianity is, how it originated, and so on.
And it is precisely the knowledge I gain from your lectures that strengthens me in atheism and agnosticism.
It seems to me that you are telling your critics in vain that your agenda is “NOT to drag people away from their faith” but only to educate them in the subject.
Doesn’t education and acquaintance with the facts in NT lead a person to understand that all this is just a beautiful fairy tale?
Explain it to me a little!
Forgive me in my English. Zlatko Pleše would surely translate my letter better than Google!
Your English is terrific! Thanks for the note. Yes, education can indeed lead people to change their minds (or else it’s not really education). But that doesn’t mean they will change their minds about everything. Most of my friends who are New Testament scholars agree with me on most of my views of the Bible, but they still identify as Christian. And they despise fundamenatalist Christianity at least as much as I do. But there can certainly be such a thing as an informed, intelligent faith. I left the faith not because of my scholarship but becauses of trying to understand why there is so much suffering in the world if there is a god in charge of it….
You certainly can shake one’s faith. But as always- it is good to hear both sides of the story and make decisions from there.
Thank you for your reply.
I can understand that people who are lower and less educated
can accept the fairy tales presented in the Old and New Testaments.
But your colleagues, and especially scientists in the natural sciences !! ???
Like Vladimir Paar or Tomislav Terzin and many more ???
You have your reason, but is it only logical to disbelieve ??
Aren’t other reasons, and you know how many there are better than me,
just enough for educated people to see that they are like
children who believe in Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan, Santa Claus, …..?
I would like you to address this topic in one of the posts.
I think the problem is that whatever our own view is seems so obvious and other views often so *crazy* that we can’t believe someone actually holds them. But, no, these people do not think they believe in Peter Pan. They instead think that you don’t know what you’re talking about. 🙂 (Seriously)
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
I saw in one of your responses that you spoke in tongues. I had heard people speak in tongues when I was involved with Fundamentalists. I feel that it comes from a form of self hypnosis/convincing.
I would live to hear your thoughts on what the NT meant regarding speaking in tongues and your thoughts about your doing it.
Best,
Kevin
Maybe I should post on that! but yes, I agree it’s a matter of self-convincing.
Dr Ehrman
I agree 101%. These religions did lots of harm than good and so many people either chose to be ignorant about this or they are actually under a spell.
I have contacted my childhood friend to organize her church because I would like to sponsor a lecture (the gig that I asked you about before) about early christianity and historical jesus etc. As soon as I mentioned you, she just froze and completely abandoned the idea. I am very sure she has no idea of who you are, and because of that she rejects this idea. She only wants to lecture materials/modules from within their church. This is why I haven’t emailed you yet, I need to think of a back up plan.
If you can imagine my frustration! It’s driving me nuts!
If I don’t care about them, I will just leave them alone in that dark room. But I do, I just don’t know where to find a crowbar to pry open their heavy doors that’s been there since the Spaniards colonized us in 1565 till 1898, and it’s been handed down up to present time.
I feel like being David against a 100 Goliath. Yikes.
But.. you are my slingshot?
I have a friend who use to be a massive fan of yours when was a Muslim convert, however some years back he became a Swedenborgian and no longer is as much of a fan of yours as in the way he use to be. One thing he does bring up when Muslims argue based on your books is that you are just one scholar and that there are other scholars in the field that don’t subscribe to your views.
How would you respond when some one tells you that there are other scholars that don’t hold the views you do as a form of discrediting your position and what you have to say, essentially rendering you isolated and alone in your views regarding the Bible’s textual integrity among other things?
I’d say its an incredibly silly argument. There are scholars who disagree with *their* views too. Does that automatically make them wrong?