(17 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...The goal of this thread is to talk about the book that I’m working on now, which I hope to have written (gods willing) by the end of this calendar year. We’ll see. To get to that I felt like I needed to talk about how I had changed publishers, and now that I’m talking about that, it occurs to me that I should talk about how one goes about getting a book published.
One of the emails I get *all* the time is from authors who have written a book, or hope to write a book, who want to know how they can get a publisher to take a look at it. The short answer: it ain’t easy.
So first let me do this autobiographically, how I myself got into the publishing business.
The first thing to stress: I had a leg up. I had a PhD at a reputable school (Princeton Theological Seminary) and a teaching job at another one (Rutgers University). The reality is that publishers of scholarly books look for authors who have scholarly credentials.
I know a lot of authors *without* scholarly credentials who think that it’s not fair that they can’t get their books published “just because I don’t have a PhD.” The problem is that word “just.” Getting a PhD isn’t like buying a rare item that you’ve hunted for on the Internet. A PhD requires years (and years) of rigorous, full time, mind-changing, intense labor. Someone who hasn’t done it, simply can’t know what it’s like. It is very, very rare indeed for someone without a PhD to be “qualified” as an expert in an academic field. It happens on occasion, but it simply cannot happen by spending your weekend reading books for a few years. It’s not like that at all.
Most of the people who ask me about getting their book published – on the historical Jesus, on the writings and life of the apostle Paul, on the apocryphal Gospels, on some theory they have about the beginnings of Christianity, and so on – do not have a PhD and frankly, from what I can tell, don’t know what it takes to get a PhD. They’ve read a lot books and think that now they are ready to write their own. But it doesn’t work that way.
The PhD …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN UP! Lots of good stuff here, almost every day, and less than a dime a post. And every dime goes to charity!!!
Wow! Kudos to you. I have a book on my shelves called ‘Paul, the Mind of the Apostle,’ by the English writer, A.N. Wilson, and he certainly does not have a PhD in New Testament studies. It is not a text book but an easy read for the vaguely interested. I would be interested to learn just how useful it is as an introduction to the subject (of Paul). Have you read it? I read it years ago and found it enlightening but I’ve not re-read it – perhaps I should. Wilson’s journey has been interesting: when he wrote that book he was agnostic (having previously been C of E) and then he moved back towards faith but of a fairly vague, wishy-washy C of E variety.
Yes, he was an exceptional biographer, and very good. But not an expert on the NT.
Wow! I thought getting a PhD in physics was tough.
For me it would have been not just tough, but impossible!
Thanks a lot Bart for this post.
I agree, in order to write a scholarly book you need credentials and it’s got to be hard work.
You left me with a cliffhanger waiting for the next post as my dream is to write a trade book.
Just a question: Would you consider writing a one page preface to a trade book if you really come to like it? 🙂
That would require reading it! And the problem is finding time to read all the books people would like me to read for them. Not enough hours in the day!!
In reading this post, three possible reasons came to mind for the proposed situation.
1. In the “old days” there simply were not as many books, there were fewer book publishers, and it was more difficult to get books published. I’m not saying that it is “easy” now, but the market for books has grown as overall literacy has increased and the relative amount of leisure time for the average person has increased to allow for more leisure reading. I myself sometimes walk into a Barnes and Noble, think of all of the thousands of authors represented by the books on display, and find it hard to believe that I am not a better writer with something more interesting to say than at least a few of the authors who have already published a book. I’m not saying that I am accurate in that assumption, but it is an easier fallacy to believe in the modern bookstore than in a store with only 100 books.
2. The internet (Hallowed be thy name!) has made it possible for absolutely anyone to publish anything for everyone in the world to see. This makes it possible for someone whose rhetorical skills and intellectual arguments rank just below those of your average lower primate to have a global audience. One need only read the comments section beneath any online news article to validate this observation. Unfortunately, for many folks this ability to reach the masses leads to the often inaccurate assumption that the person in question has something worthwhile to contribute to the body of human knowledge. And we all know what happens when we assume…
3. The Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that individuals who are unskilled or incompetent in a particular environment often have an inflated view of their own abilities within that domain. In effect, the very skills and cognitive abilities that are necessary to accurately evaluate ability are those that are needed to competently perform the task at hand. To put it simply, many people “don’t know that they don’t know”. Unfortunately, it is very rare for these individuals to actually accept that they don’t know what they are talking about, even when all evidence suggests as much. Not to say that anyone who has contacted you, Dr. Ehrman, necessarily suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect. But for someone who doesn’t see what the “big deal” is about having a Ph.D., especially in a scholarly field of publishing, there is a distinct possibility.
Thanks
Interesting! And what’s especially interesting about your points 1 and 2 is that I hadn’t read your comment before writing today’s post! Great minds….
My wife would say that, in my case, it is less about “great minds” and more that if given enough time, a monkey typing on a typewriter will eventually come up with something that makes sense! But I’ll take any compliment I can get!
Is this article of any interest … New Bible dating based on handwriting study/analysis .. (Miami Herald April 12)
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article71302532.html
I read a book by Chuck Missler called Learn the Bible in 24 Hours. A *friend* insisted it was a work of genius written by someone who was more than qualified to write about the bible and begged me to read it. I didn’t like it at all. It was very apparent that this man was not a biblical scholar, and I just couldn’t take it seriously.
For someone like me who is not going to obtain a PhD related to the bible but still wants to learn, I depend on well-educated people to teach me what I don’t know, and I want that information to be as correct as possible. I like to write about the bible too, so I blog about it as an outlet. It’s free, and I don’t need a credential for it.
Yes Patty, most *Evangelicals* I know stay away from that one… Haha
Oh really?
Wow!
Yeah, well, it’s not as long and hard as being trained in psychiatry!!
Speaking as someone who got half a PH.D (as if there is any such thing) from CUNY Grad in European History, I fully concur. You have to do the work to know just how much work needs to be done–what the rules are, where to draw the line between conjecture and fact.
That isn’t to say nobody without the exact right degree couldn’t contribute valuable insights. Albert Schweitzer, whose work on the historical Jesus I know you admire, had a background in theology and music, not ancient history. But this was at a time when the lines between the disciplines were not so clearly drawn, and he was a very fine scholar, and he was furthermore a genius. And frankly, at that point in time, it probably took somebody with his background and experiences to get away with saying some of the things he said.
What hung me up was that I simply could not master a European language. I think I know rather a lot more about European history and history in general than the average person. It is absolutely my favorite area of study, and I believe it has more to teach us than any other discipline in the humanities. But how could I call myself a scholar of that field without being able to at least read one language other than English? I have no regrets–I feel like the years I spent studying for that degree made me an educated person, and taught me how to write well. But they didn’t make me a scholar. Hell of a kibbitzer though, you must admit. 😉
That’s half of a PhD that I don’t have! I have a lowly Master’s. lol
Then we’re at about the same level, I’d suspect–CUNY Grad’s program was odd, in that if you weren’t getting to the PhD for some reason, you could stop part of the way through and apply for a Master’s. I should have looked into that, but not sure I had the credits yet. I was getting into debt, and not making rent anymore. And not learning French well enough, even though I took classes. I sort of intended to come back and try again, but I never did.
Thanks for posting that! Few people realize what is actually involved in a doctoral program generally, let alone one as competitive as a program in New Testament Studies.
” If you haven’t been through this process, you simply can’t imagine that you have the scholarly credentials to do what someone who has been through it has. It’s just the reality of the case.”
This is true. Nevertheless, don’t you think this specialization has grave dangers?
(Think about how long it took for scholars to publically agree that Jesus’ Jewish context is central to understanding him. This small community of scholars with the technical skills to do all of this work tends to conform to the previous patterns and assumptions set by previous big names; as a result, it is considered a big achievement to overcome initial prejudices after decades of research.)
I’m not saying that experts are always right!!
Thus we can conclude that Bill O’Reilly was not qualified to write his book on Jesus and the only reason he got the opportunity to was because publishers knew that although Bill knows nothing about Jesus his name does sell books. ugh.
See today’s post! (Which I wrote before seeing your comment!)
Just out of curiosity, Bart, how would you respond if Jesus suddenly appeared to you in your office, performed some spectacular miracles, and told you “Look, this scholarly publishing stuff is OK in its place, but I REALLY AM THE SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY. Got that? Now quit this liberal posturing Bart, and tell everyone I came to you.”
So what would you do then?
I’d say, Yes Lord!!!
LOL!!!!!
Dr. Ehrman, of all the Ph.D. candidates who go through your program at UNC who initially identify as “believers,” in your estimation what percentage of those candidates eventually deconvert during the course of their doctoral studies?
I only know of one in my 27 years here.
Very informative. Thanks.
Given the rigourous and arduous labours involved in scholarship, how does it feel sometimes to be in a debate centred on New Testament studies, with one who, although a PhD herself, has not a PhD in New Testament/early Christianity?
I’m not sure I’ve ever been in that situation.
When the early church was rationalizing the concept of the Trinity among themselves did Mark 13:32 (no one knows the hour…not even the Son) cause any problems with conceptualizing the Trinity?
For some, yes, That’s why the passage was sometimes changed (especially in it’s matthean version)
Dr. Ehrman, I’ve made the foolhardy decision to devote several years to writing a Novel about Jesus. Now, since it’s a work of fiction, I’m under no pretense that it’s a scholarly work, but I am making the effort to have it be, at the very least, historically plausible. (Alas, since I only have a lowly masters degree, and not even in religious history but the social sciences, I’m one of the “unqualified” people you’re talking about.) That’s why I’ve read most of your books. That’s why I’ve read lots of JD Crossin and Geza Vermas. What’s why I’m up to the third volume of Meier’s A Marginal Jew. That’s why I’ve read all of Josephus (Jewish War, Antiquities, Against Apion and the Life), all of Philo (all 1600 pages!), all of the canonical, deutero-canonical and extra-canonical ancient literature, including all the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments (and since I’m Israeli I was able to read the entire Hebrew Bible in Hebrew), all manner of biblical archaeology books, near east history books…let’s just say I’ve done a lot of reading! And, like I said, I’m under no pretense of being a New Testament scholar, who has walked through the fire as you have outlined above. But I have done my fair share of academia, so I’m well aware of the process. Be that as it may, as I said, it’s only a novel, which I’m sure works differently from a scholarly non-fiction book. But the way I see it, if Reza Aslan — whose PhD isn’t even in religion, let alone NT history — can write and publish a NYT bestselling non-fiction book about Jesus, then I’m not sweating getting my work of fiction at the very least in front of some agents and/or publishers.
OK, so when I read the part about the Ph.D. program, I began to daydream what it would be like to be on the admissions committee with all of these bright young candidates and that you could only select one from this group. Then I thought, I’d pick the candidate with a $10K cheque stapled to their forehead and a note that said “there’s more where that came from”.
Ha! That’s probably why you’re not on the admissions committee….
I’m working on my third master’s program and would have to agree with Dr. Ehrman on this topic. I’ve seen thousands of books that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Most books ramble on and lack scholarly references. Many of them contain logical fallacies with speculative conclusions that are based on faulty data. Other “apologetic” books contain outright lies, threatening those who dare question authority. An author who holds a PhD from an accredited institution will have the tools to produce an acceptable product. Even then, the author may choose to be lazy and arrogant; giving in to the urge to write a best seller rather than teach us about truth that was observed with repeatability and scrutiny. I’m looking forward to reading Ehrmans book soon after it is published and trust that it will be a well-supported and well-articulated dispensation of truth to those of us who are less gifted, yet willing to die to find it. I only ask that assumptions are clearly stated and biases are openly acknowledged, even if the author is well established as one of the most brilliant researchers that ever existed.
It always amazes me how some people dismiss scholars like they are nobodies. My Jehovah Witness brother wants to think that he knows the Bible, but unfortunately, he knows the Bible the way his religion has taught him to read it. He readily dismisses other scholars of the Bible as looking at the wrong thing or whatever insane excuse for not giving a PHD professor any credibility. I also have a minister friend who does the same thing simply because she disagrees with your conclusions. I said, “How can you dismiss a conclusion that you have not even read?”
There are many books published and not all of them are scholarly and make cogent arguments like your books. It still is a challenge to get published no matter who one is. Thanks for an interesting insight in getting the PHD.
Hello Bart
Very interesting . christian apologists should know this facts and also they should know we have same thing for koranic studies . with exception to be admitted to university you have to pass oral exam on koran and usually the future scholar begins his career at the age of 4 or 5 at Madrassa . the imam who knows koran by heart his job is to pass the whole koran or better to say to dowload koran into his students memory like you download computer file to a disk. They learn it from him orally in Arabic and this before they know how to read or write arabic . the students mother tongue could be Farsi , Turkish , Berber , Swahili , Hurdu and so on so koran becomes for them like second mother tongue . By the time they reach 9 or 10 they know the whole koran by heart. some of them cant even remember when it was in their lifetime they did not know koran just like you and me we cant rmember when we did not speak our mother tongue. The amazing thing these kids recite koran with perfect prounciation better than me , but they dont understand what they are reciting because Arabic is not their mother tongue.
Bart- What does it all mean if this much education has 1 of 2 outcomes:
Assuming the Bible is true and really the word of God we should follow it’s path. Why is your transitioned Atheistic views matter for such a complex leadership and teaching role?
Assuming the Bible is all rubbish, Roman corruption or the Seduction of Satan. Why perpetuate the purpose?
I think that this is a false either/or. The choices are much more complicated than either “literal inerrant word of God” or “rubbish”
Somewhat tangential, but still pertinent: truly scholarly books are largely accessible only to other scholars. The general reader may benefit, but to fully engage with the scholarship and to approach it critically the reader needs a similar exposure to and appreciation of the sources. A facility with languages may prove critical, especially when one needs to run down the cited sources to confirm or question an interpretation or treatment of the source texts.
Scholarly books may be considered “best sellers” when they sell in the hundreds. For example, here is a link to Brill’s list of books in Biblical Studies and Early Christianity. Note how specialized they are, and then gasp at the prices!
There may be only a few dozen people on the planet who can fully engage with some of these books, and many can only be found in university libraries or collections at specialized research institutes. There is little economy of scale in scholarly publishing, so prices tend to be quite high.
Over time, advances in scholarship may become more widely known through trade books such as those Dr. Ehrman writes, but there is often a disconnect between what scholars are thinking and what the wider public may think. Unfortunately, the disconnect is sometimes ascribed to elitism in the academy, and there is some truth to that. However, the larger cause is that a layperson’s appreciation of deep scholarship must necessarily span a chasm of background and knowledge.