Loading...As I’ve pointed out, most critical scholars do not think that Paul actually wrote the letter to the Ephesians, even though the author claims to be Paul. We will see that is true for five other Pauline letters. I should stress: the fact that most critical scholars think something does not mean they are right. For millenia, “most scientists” agreed the sun revolved around the earth, but that was not evidence. Apart from whether scholarly views are right, why should you think that I myself am right when I say “most critical scholars” think one thing or another? Have I taken a survey?
I dealt with a similar question on the blog years ago. This was in response to my similar claim that “most scholars” don’t think John the son of Zebedee wrote the Gospel of John. It was in response to a reader’s question and follow up. I’d say pretty much the same thing today, about Ephesians. Here’s what I said back then:
******************************
I have received a particularly interesting question that has led to a bit of back and forth between me and a person on the blog.
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thank you for your introduction! Could you please provide a rough ranking of major theological seminaries in North America based on how liberal they are? For example, which ones are considered liberal, which are evangelical, and which are fundamental? Besides, I find these terms somewhat ambiguous, but I suspect they might be evaluated primarily based on views regarding biblical infallibility/inerrancy？
I’m afraid I don’t know them all. You can find out the theological positions of each one by looking them up online. You’ll see that Yale Divinity School is very different from Dallas Theological Seminary!
In my very humble opinion, most scholars should agree that Bart Ehrman is for the most part accurate and nearly inerrant in his profound knowledge of the Bible!!! (LoL) And those that don’t agree must, by definition , be errant and inaccurate in their belief. I say this as an unapologetic fan of the world’s greatest scholar. Even a Duke graduate can accept that a Tar Heel can on rare occasions be worthy of respect!! 🙂 (Ouch I just bit my tongue which was lodged firmly in my cheek !! )
My wife too is a Dukie (teaches English); unfortunately, she doesn’t share your assessment of her Tar Heel husband’s inerrancy….
Prolegomenon is predictive? A scholar guided ultimately by faith will reach conclusions that vary from a scholar guided ultimately by reason. Both are worthy, in my opinion, of reflection and consideration. Indeed, I find that this blog deepens my understanding and appreciation of my faith. There is room for doubt, and even flat out denial; ask Thomas.
A big difference to me would be the reaction of the person’s bosses, his colleagues, and his students if he were to contradict the evangelical view of inerrancy. If it’s “That’s interesting, why does he think that?” that’s one thing. If its “Omigoodness, he said THAT?! He’s sure sticking his neck out!” that’s a very different thing.
I greatly admire Ehrman because he is a scholar in a space that isn’t based primarily on scholarship but faith. I’ve watched so many podcasts of Ehrman sharing his scholarship with audiences that don’t accept scholarship when it comes to their faith, and he is always respectful. Which is to say he respects their faith. I am a cradle Episcopalian, meaning that it’s the liturgy that binds me. When I decided to explore my religion from a historical perspective, I did not fully appreciate the journey I was undertaking. From Bart Ehrman to Dale Martin to James Tabor to Robert Eisenman, the list of my influences is long. The fear among many Christians is that a journey in history will destroy faith, as if knowledge and religion are antithetical. No, what I have learned has not destroyed my faith, it just gives me a different perspective. I am drawn to James the Just (the brother of Jesus). I don’t need to explain why I am drawn to James or its consequences. But I must say that finding and reading Ehrman’s 2013 blog entries on the Dead Sea Scrolls was a great help for me. Thank you.
I just joined your blog–happy to make a donation to charity!
I have a question I hope is related enough to this topic:
Q: In the view of scholars (including yourself), is Jesus’ return to Nazareth as depicted in Luke (Luke 4) a proclamation of a Jubilee, i.e. a general cancellation of all non-merchant monetary debts? And if so, is this something Luke was pushing for or is it what the historic Jesus would have been aiming for as well?
I have heard some information on this concerning the Prozbul, Jubilee, etc. but I’m worried to research it on my own for fear of getting nothing but anti-semitic misinformation or modern political movements–I’m not familiar with repudible journals for these topics or repudible authors/scholars.
Thank you for making you and you fellow academics’ scholarship so freely available!
No, I don’t think there is anything nthe passage that links it to the Jubilee (the Scripture verses cited are not about that); the issue is Jesus’ fulfillment of Isaiah and his own role as a rejected prophet whose message will now ogo tto gentiles.
Thanks for the answer! I wish you a great week 😀
When there is a new train of thought, it cannot be critical scholarship because it hasn’t spread from Yale to Stanford?
If it comes from Yale to Stanford, it can be critical scholarship but if it comes from New Orleans or Dallas, it cannot be critical scholarship?
The Letters of Paul in their Roman Literary Context: Reassessing Apostolic Authorship
by Nina E. Livesey (University of Oklahoma).
Book Description
This study argues that the seven letters of Paul, widely assumed as authentic, should be reclassified as pseudonymous.
Saul persecuting Jesus is Saul persecuting David. Therefore, Saul is not authentic let alone no secular evidence of Saul/Paul’s existence except Josephus mentioning in the second passage after the Testimonium Flavianum a Pauline figure who exploited the pious.
People wrote fake dialogues and fake letters in ancient times. The authentic letters of Paul are another example of fictive letters (Letter of Aristeas about the Septuagint) and pseudonymous, fictive letter collections were popular (Dr. Owen Hodkinson, Univ of Leeds), the Paul and Seneca letters, etc.
Question: the majority of critical scholars reject Scholar’s A thesis because it has not made it from Yale to Stanford is a premature critique?
Are yo usuggeesting that if a professor at Oklahoma argues something scholars won’t accept it because it comes from somewhere other than Yale or Stanford??? That’s not at all right. Scholars don’t care who makes a case for an position; they care about whether the case is any good.
No, the question is about timing. Her book, The Letters of Paul in Their Roman Literary Context, was published Dec. 12, 2024. How much time are you giving for “the majority of critical scholars” to accept or reject?
Her amazon page for her book does not show any Editorial Reviews at this time.
For example, your scholarly book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture has reviews from:
The Princeton Seminary Bulletin
and
The Religious Studies Review.
Question 1 Would publication by Oxford University Press and those two reviews indicate the majority of critical scholars approve of your work?
Question 2 As for timing, in addition to the time for a publisher to accept the manuscript for publication and circulate it to academic reviewers is enough time or is less than 9-12 months enough time for the majority of critical scholars to weigh in?
= = =
Ehrman: All of these programs teach positions on key critical issues that are different from what is taught in the PhD programs at Dallas Theological Seminary,
Question 3: majority of “critical” scholars refers to
a) critical issues at non-theological institutions
or
b) KRISIS (devoid of loyalties)
Well, if they haven’t had time to read the book yet, it hasn’t changed their minds yet.
Q1. No, of course not. We need to realize that OUP and other presses publish hundreds of books a year. That has no bearing on wehether any of them represent the majority view of critical scholars. Most argue against a consensus and fail to move it.
Q2. Most critical scholars will not read it.
Q3. No, I learned my critical scholarship at a Presbyterian theological seminary.
Does anyone do formal surveys? It would be interesting to have tabulated statistics.
So just to be clear, do you consider Craig Keener to be a critical scholar, or not?
And what of NT Wright, the ex Bishop of Durham. Can you be a critical scholar some of the times and an evangelist the rest of the time?
They are both highly intelligend, learned, and prolific authors. I do think they both invariably seem to come to the same conclusion they came in with from a young age, especially Craig. A good bit of his scholarship is critical in the traditional sense; a good bit of it in my judgment is not. He often doesn’t subject his own views to any sustained critique (e.g., on “oral tradition” or on “miracles” or on internal tensions in Scriture.)
So you seem to be saying that, it is not a black and white issue, i.e. either they are critical scholars or they are not.
For the life of me, I don’t see how a bishop can be a critical scholar.
The hobbits Shire !
What a funny and brilliant metaphor!
Raised as an atheist in the most secular country in the Americas, I’ve always wondered why the rest of the continent believes in something that seems to defy common sense:
That a man who lived 2,000 years ago—born of a virgin and a spirit—was killed and then raised from the dead.
In fact, there are many modern cults that believe in rather strange things.
These groups often live in closed communities—something like Bart’s hobbits in the Shire.
But what about people who believe in the resurrected savior? There are hundreds of millions of them.
They clearly don’t live in a cultural Shire… or do they?
Why is it that Americans, whether writing in English, Spanish, Portuguese, or French, all use the same alphabet?
It’s because we use the Latin alphabet—the one used by the Romans.
And we know the Romans ruled over the European countries that later colonized the Americas.
But we didn’t just inherit their alphabet—we also inherited their religion.
The once tiny cult that believed in the resurrected savior eventually convinced a Roman emperor,
and about 1,700 years later, millions of Americans still follow him!
Do scholars today use computer technology to analyze documents? That could include word frequency count, AI pattern recognition, etc.
Oh yes. Though not yet AI to my knowledge.
You are a highly accomplished Bible scholar who’s been active in the field for decades. You have spent a lot of time reading what has been said in the past about the history of Christianity and reading current discussions as well. When you say “most scholars believe X”, the best response that gives you the authority to make such a statement isn’t that a survey has been taken, it’s because you have your finger on the pulse of the academic trends. You have immersed yourself in the vast literature and ongoing discussions in the field. You are in the know of the currents of thought because you are in the pool (making waves yourself, I might add).
What evidence do we need to show that critical scholars indeed are critical? Unless they have a track record we can use to trace their evolution over time, such as Dr. Ehrman’s trajectory on Revelation, then we don’t know their priors. And even if we have prior statements, how do we know this isn’t just contrarianism, which also isn’t critical thinking?
I think critical thinking is also incredibly important because of another subject that fascinates me: The affordability crisis of urbanism. I see so many people read studies in urbanism and come to opposite conclusions based on their prior ideological commitments. I like to think that I’m reasonable, but I must admit that I came into a Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) position based on my prior biases, not because the movement made such a convincing argument for itself. The idea that we need to make it easier to build homes in cities just makes sense to me.
How do I know I’m not fooling myself? A background in debate is probably helpful, but debate has some limitations.
You know a tree by its fruits.
“On one level I suppose for the same reason that most hobbits who have never left the Shire tend to think that everyone in the world is about three feet tall–they don’t have a wider experience of the world, for example by taking a trip to Gondor or Mordor.”
I laughed out loud at this. Thank you, Bart.
Bart Ehrman rightly reminds us that the consensus of “most critical scholars” does not in itself constitute evidence. Yet there is a subtle irony in invoking modern critical consensus to question the authorship of New Testament texts: the very documents under examination were not written by critical scholars, but by deeply committed men of faith. They were shaped not in ivory towers but within communities driven by eschatological urgency, covenantal identity, and lived spiritual experience.
Modern historical-critical methods offer valuable insights into textual development, linguistic features, and historical context. However, to treat these texts as if they were authored within the assumptions of modern academic neutrality is a profound category mistake. The New Testament was not the product of dispassionate observation, but of theological conviction.
Moreover, the tradition that attributes Ephesians to Paul or the Fourth Gospel to John is not a naïve ecclesiastical myth, but a testimony to the early communities’ perception of spiritual authority and authenticity. It is reductive to dismiss such traditions merely because they fall outside modern scholarly frameworks. The greatest irony remains this: critical scholars would have no texts to debate had it not been for generations of believers who preserved, transmitted, and revered them.
Clarification on my last post:
No, we must not fear the academic world.
But neither should we grant it the crown of absolute authority.
For technical wisdom without emuná (faith) is like a lamp without oil.
At the same time, faith that refuses to be examined runs the risk of becoming dogmatic or blind.
So, what should we do?
Let us learn from both sides.
Let us listen with open minds… and with discerning hearts. P.S.: I have with me and have read all the books published by Bart!!
Bart: Regarding scholarly consensus, is there a consensus among Biblical scholars regarding Mary’s age when she became pregnant with Jesus?
Almost everyone agrees she would have just reached puberty, so 13 or so.
Hello Dr. Bart!
That was me! That was my question! Thank you for answering it. I’ve seen you answer it before, at length, on the blog, but that was quite the consummate addressing! I really appreciated it. I’m in grad-school now, actually, studying Information Technology Management but I am very much interested in your Biblical Studies Academy. I am considering taking some classes after I complete my grad-schooling. Honestly, it was a really hard choice whether or not to pursue an ITM masters or fly to North Carolina and study with you at Chapel Hill. My goal is to to join you on one of your vacationary excursions one of these days!
Any idea how many critical New Testament scholars are, like you, aetheist/agnostic? Do you stand out in that regard?
Very few. I know of only a handful.
There is an acronym in medicine for “consensus”: GOBSAT (Good Ole Boys Sitting Around Talking). Would that apply to some Biblical scholarship as well?
My sense is that serious research in both medicine and biblical scholarship ultimately rests, or at least strives to rest, on evidence and argument, but that sometimes widely held views are not well-founded.
Bart, when scholars say ‘there’s a consensus’ about something, how do we determine if that consensus really exists? Is it based on surveys, publications, or something else?
It’s based on a wide knowledge of the field and the scholars who teach it in major universities, colleges, and divinity schools across the country.