(13 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...I am having a ten-week long celebration of our ten-year anniversary, from this past April 18, by reposting all the previous April 18 posts, one a week. Many of them I’d forgotten about. This one is about how weird it is to me that people think I’m controversial…. (As usual, I’m a bit tetchy about it!)
******************************
In this post I am going to take a bit of time out to do some self-reflection. An issue I’ve been puzzling over for some time is the fact that people keep referring to my work as “controversial.” I hear this all the time. And truth be told, I’ve always found it bit odd and a disconcerting. This past week I’ve had two people tell me that they know that I “like to be controversial.” That’s actually not the case at all. One person told me that she had seen a TV show where someone had said that they didn’t believe that Jesus existed, and she thought that was right up my alley. I didn’t bother to tell her that I had written an entire book arguing that Jesus certainly did exist. She simply assumed that this was the sort of view that I myself would have and delight in making public.
The reason I find that the idea I’m controversial so strange is that my views about the historical Jesus, the authorship of the books of the New Testament, the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity, the rise of early Christology, and on and on – these are views that are not odd at all in the academy. I *acquired* almost all of these views, most of them in a Protestant Christian seminary training ministers! What I talk about in my writings is what I myself have learned. Very rarely in my popular writings do a I put out a view that is unusual and untested in the academic world (as opposed to my scholarly works, where I try to advance scholarship).
I have put forth unusual views occasionally in a broader context to a general audience, and when I do the response I get from other scholars is very interesting and a bit amusing. If I advance a
This blog is intended to provide non-scholars with information usually available only to scholars about the NT and early Christianity. Why not join? Click here for membership options
Bravo
Don’t change!
I believe your next book on Christian charity will be the most controversial yet. Should be fun!
Just continue to be true to yourself please, you’ll get criticized no matter what, since it’s impossible to fit in everyone’s agenda.
Reading this reminds me of the saying “When you throw a stone into a group of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit.” I know this is a bit of a rough comparison but there are so many sacred cows in Christianity that have had the ability to go pretty much unchallenged in their protected position in the organized church. Your teaching is reaching the masses, it is causing people to react to those who are willing to really consider what is true and what is tradition. For many who have been able to hide behind tradition, your teachings are like being hit with a rock, they have to respond. Keep it up Bart!!! (Teaching, not the rock thing…)
Continue to reach the masses Bart!
I would say your public scholarship is not dull, uninteresting or inaccessible. I look forward to reading you works. Keep up the good work and even if people claim you are controversial I find that being controversial is not one of your goals. Presenting history in engaging reading is what I see as a prime goal of your work.
B…
More than likely it’s a sign of the times. You could say the sun comes up in the east and goes down in the west, and there will be some who disagree and think that’s controversial. I’ll be 85 in August, and I’ve never seen so much controversary about almost everything. Sad commentary on today’s “civil” society.
For me,,,,,,,I appreciate your intellectual and scolarly honesty, and I appreciate you sharing it !
Conservative Christians tend to feel threatened when a scholar comes along who knows a lot about their faith but is not one of them– especially if the scholar challenges their existing beliefs in some way.
It’s understandable: religious conservatives build their whole life, social identity, and hope for the future upon a particular system of beliefs. They believe (often rightly) that their faith has improved their lives. So they want to keep their faith.
if some aspects of that system get challenged, they fear that their whole faith might come tumbling down. Of course, if you base your faith on whether specific historical events happened, your faith is going to have that vulnerability.
In my view, we religious people are better off if we emphasize principles and lessons rather than specific historical events in our faith.
Plus religious people should focus on their way of life instead of ideology!
I still maintain my full faith in God, and I don’t find you the least bit controversial. Actually I find you much more mainstream in your historical theology avoiding the real controversial subject matter. Mainstream Christians will definately view you highly controversial as you reveal the impossibleness of a literal understanding of the text of the Bible. Key word is “reveal” as most all graduates of seminary are definately aware of such, as seminary goes to such extent to rationalize that which is not rational.. I find much more controversial those that try to reconcile all the scriptural contradictions to rationalize that which truely is not rational. Just look at how many interpretations of Revelation there are.. It’s really amusing. Each one is really controversial at least to anyone who holds a different understanding of the text.
People get “upset” if your view undermines the quicksand they built their faith upon.. My faith is not built on anything in the Scriptures thus why nothing I find from you controversial.
A lot of posts are truncated for me. Also, commenting is enabled. It shouldn’t be for me. I think there are bugs in the blog
Normally that happens when someone’s subscriptoin has run out. Click on Help and send a query to Support, and someone will help you out tout de suite.
“So why am I, in particular, under attack for being controversial?”
You’re being attacked because you’re too damned good at relating the facts about Christianity to the general public.
To state clearly, convincingly, and interestingly that the evidence for the Resurrection is weak enough to reasonably question its historicity is something that isn’t to be spoken of publicly in polite society :-). The Eastern Orthodox Church still manifests remnants of a pre-modern worldview and can handle a lot of ambiguity in the biblical and non-biblical Christian traditions (such as the Virgin Mary being raised in the Temple until puberty or her body being translated to heaven at death — some say historical, others say it doesn’t matter; no big deal), but to treat the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, second Person of the Trinity, as anything other than a historical fact is a line that can never be crossed. That there might be good reasons to question it is, well, out of the question. The refrain from multiple voices of authority on their podcasts: “don’t read Bart Ehrman.” I kind of don’t blame them. I didn’t go near your books until I felt ready. Reading your books was a step on a long journey. And I still keep quiet about it.
Sounds like the Orthodox Church is very selective when it comes to what is historical and what is myth regarding Jesus, Mary and co!
Dr Ehrman, I think the the most jaw dropping thing I personally came across in any of your books was the possibility that Jesus may have had a twin brother, Thomas. I think I had vaguely read something similar in a sensationalist book I had owned in my teenage years, but coming from you, a reputable scholar, it seemed much more real and believable. So I kind of get the controversial thing. But nevertheless please keep doing what you do 🙂
I believe it’s a case of them knowing you’re right, they feel threatened and this is their only avenue of protest.
James (Australia)
Thank you for your research. Your dealing with touchy subject. I only discuss the Bible with my husband and this blog BC I don’t feel like getting punched in the face..lol.
“ haughty” is a good thing Isaiah 3:16 and daughter of course is H1129 child of H120. And I love the scab from V17 traced to 1 Samuel 2:36.
Funny how easy it is to spot who really seeks the Lord with their whole heart.
Jeremiah 29:13-14
And ye shall seek me, and find me when ye shall search for me with all your heart. I will be found of you, saith the Lord: and I will turn away your captivity.
During my time in the church there was ZERO discussion of textual variants, analysis of the pseudo-Pauline letters, the variety of views in the early church, etc…etc… THANK YOU for being one of the few scholars who puts this information out there for us lowlifes, who the church won’t trust with actual scholarship, but just want to rehearse the accepted doctrines.
If you could travel back in time to meet Jesus in the days before the crucifixion, would you warn him not to go to Jerusalem, or say or ask him anything in particular?
I’d ask him LOTS of things. We’d need a year or two. I’d want to know what he really thought and who he thought he was….
That question reminds me of Back To The Future 3!
I preferred 1 and 2….
Bart, when evaluating ancient documents and texts etc, how important is palaeography?
It’s extremely important for some things (and not others). It’s the priciple way we have of dating a manuscript, and knowing a manuscript’s data is vital for evaluating the text that it presents (not to know if what the text says is *true*, but knowing what the text orignally may have said and how and when it may have been changed). It is, of course, a highly technical discipline.
1) Are you trained in palaeography, or any of your students who have gone on to get big in the field?
2) I have heard some fundamentalists say that palaeography is pseudoscience that ignores the fact that people can copy writing styles…. How wrong is this assessment?
3) What are your thoughts on Jean Mabillion or Bernard de Montfaucon (great Roman Catholic scholars and fathers of paleography)?
1. I had some rudimentary training (by mentor was skilled in it), but not hard-core. I can have a pretty good but very rough idea when a manuscript written.
2. Totally wrong.
3. I’m afraid I don’t have any.
We’ve had a palaeographer guest post on the blog — Brent Nongbri. Look him up with a word search and you’ll see some of his posts.
Are you familiar with Montfaucon and Mabillion?
Yes, but only by reading *about* them. I never plowed through their work myself.
You’re clarity and directness is compelling—you don’t “tip toe through the tulips”…you cut a bunch of them off and hand over the bouquet! Yes, I see why some eyes widen or narrow when you do that but good heavens, if it’s not interesting what’s the point? You always make it interesting and when your enthusiasm bubbles up while making a particular point, well, that’s very contagious. No mask can prevent it—many also come down with a serious case of Seriously Interested!
“(these same scholars pull their punches when they are talking to a public audience)”
I think this has been the case for a long time. It does seem like the internet has helped with this issue.
Why have scholars pulled back when talking to the public?
I know pastors pull back because their lively hood depends on it. But scholars should not feel that same pressure to keep a paycheck.
Most of the scholars of the NT are themselves faithful and committed Christians, who also do not want to ruffle feathers since it would take so much time and effort to explain even the simplest thing that runs contrary to what most peole think – e.g., why the stories of the Virgin birth are problematic historically. If you just *SAY* it it sounds threatening. It would take about four hours (more?) to explain it.
You are “controversial” because you are saying things that many people who are interested in the broader topic do not want to hear. And you are “controversial” because such people actually hear at least some of these things from you when they might not hear them from others. At worst, I think the necessarily condensed format of video presentations, especially the “debates,” sometimes creates a somewhat stronger sense of tone and does not allow for nuance and side arguments of context. One might also suggest that in some cases, you present with a much greater sense of certainty than is perhaps warranted or necessary, but that is probably mostly in cases where someone also doesn’t like the point you are making in the first place.
Dr: Ehrman,
I was just curious if any famous celebrities or entertainers follow the blog? (No names required. ( Just curious….
Apart from you, not many!
To what degree can the concept of hypostasis be used to explain and understand and justify the Trinity as defined by Nicene? It’s the best explanation I’ve come across. Christ is an hypostasis of the Word and the Holy Spirit of what I will call the “divine breath of life”. Hypostasis is also somewhat similar to personification. The Trinity is made up of three “persons” in one God—though maybe “person” and “personification” are not so similar in Greek or Latin?
Is the Father also an hypostasis? Or is the Father simply “God” from whom the other two hypostases are derived—albeit eternally derived rather than preceded by “God” (the Father) in time?
Is hypostasis problematic with respect to the equality of the three persons of the Trinity?
This is an exceedingly difficult and nuanced issue (set of issues) — not possible to be unpacked here as a comment. If you want to see a very very brief treatment, see my book How Jesus Became God. If you want a fuller explanation, I’d suggest something like Rusch’s book The Trinitariant controversy. the terms “hypostasis” “person” “substance” and so on come to have very precise definitions and what they meant in the fourth and fifth centuries was not what they meant in the second ….
I recently read your (on again-off again) thread about the Trinity from a year ago. I found it very interesting and enlightening. But I’m still not clear about the Holy Spirit. I had been thinking that the experience of the Spirit began as a sense of the continuing presence of Jesus among his followers-after his death-that then evolved into a distinct Trinitarian person. I think I’ve read that that understanding is suggested in one of Paul’s letters.
On the other hand, I believe you emphasize that the Spirit was talked about in the Hebrew Bible as an hypostasis of what I will call the “divine breath of life.” And that the presence of the Spirit was expected by Jews to be very strong, even dominant, in the end times, eg, when the Kingdom of God arrived. And that the early Christians bought into that understanding.
Can you clarify any misunderstandings or inaccuracies contained in the above?
I posted on that as well. The Spirit of God originally shows up in the OT (Genesis 1! and lots of other places); since Jesus said the Spirit woudl come as “another” comforter, it came to be thought that he must be equal with Christ who was equal with God and therefore the three of them were in some sense equal. BUt not the same.
Very interesting Bart. I think your diagnosis of your critics is right on the money! As for your own diagnosis, it strikes me that there are several:
1. Seeker with passion for truth – courageous enough to kick away the very theology you built your faith and social life upon
2. Almost unforgiving anger with your younger self for being naive enough to have been an evangelical inerrantist
2. An Natural Educator – A lover of teaching and revealing unexpected truths and changing minds
3. A competitor – you love to win, to be right and to be the best 😀
5. Passionate for goodness and distressed at suffering and evil in the world and hence a sense of disbelief and maybe anger toward the very notion of a supposedly benevolent omnipotent God.
The big one is coming….. to be continued….
Yup! So far I think I” agreeing….
Continued … the final and most serious diagnosis:
6. An obsession with studying the enigmatic and paradoxical historical Jesus – a human being with flaws, an apparent failed apocalypticist who ended up dying the most appalling, most torturous and most ignominious death after being betrayed by one and abandoned by the rest of his closest friends. Yet, after a number of these friends and others experienced some kind of resurrection appearances, this man Jesus inspired the greatest and most beautiful theology and the most benevolent ethics the world has ever seen (who else could be a more worthy of historical study – “yet we esteemed him not”)
How did I do? 😀
Yeah, I’m not sure how much of an actual obsession it is for me. I know peole for whom it really is an obsession — it is the one thing they have devoted their entire scholarly lives/research to. I’ve never published a scholarly book on the historical Jesus and most of my books are actually about something else.
Your books and posts have gotten me back into Bible study, although much different than in my evangelical youth. I read the books of other authors as well and mull it all over. It is very enjoyable and fulfilling. I find that your writing is more clear, well reasoned, and understandable than most. Controversy? Saints preserve us!
Tom Johnson
Bart- I have a very different take on the word “controversial”, from the world of environmental litigation. Under NEPA, people who don’t want a project may claim that there is “controversy” over a specific issue. If there is, additional analysis is required. In this world, the more scientific views that can be found to be “controversial” the better, as if the judge requires more analysis that both delays the project and causes more words to be written, which then can be engaged in the next round of litigation on the next analysis. At the end of the day, it means that a judge has agreed with plaintiffs that something is “controversial” because certain people Don’t agree. Certain people whose views the judge deems valid enough to make the decision on controversiality.
Sorry for the long story, but bottom line is that in my world being controversial means that people (certain, important) disagree with you. My response would be “who thinks I am controversial and on what basis?” With a tone of bemused curiosity. Might lead to an interesting convo.
Apologies for strange capitalization, it’s my iPad.
Like you, I am a professor in the UNC system at a branch location. My field (management) is very different from yours, but as you say in your blog, “scholarship in all fields can be incredibly dry”. That is true, unless of course, one is passionate about the subject, which you obviously are.
What you are doing is what scholars call, a review (or survey) of the literature. I have read three of your books, and I see you doing that in your writing; you are reviewing the literature in a way that a wider audience can understand. I see very little of your opinion in your writing. You are just laying it out there and letting the reader think for themselves.
But what makes YOU controversial is the subject matter, as it resonates to the very soul and core of life itself. Where else but in NT studies, can you get clobbered for simply repeating what others have said?
Well, in our state, evolutionary biology 🙂
In my field, you can get clobbered by repeating what x says, or what her nemesis, y says. It’s equal opportunity clobbering.
Hi Bart,
Matthew 12:30 New International Version
30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, …
You are controversial because you are not a Christian, and therefore what you write will be seen by some Christians as a desire to make the Christian faith weaker rather than stronger. Everything you published as a Christian could be seen as a Christian trying to help Christianity. Now those publications are seen in a different light.
Bruce Metzger was a Christian and therefore not controversial in the way he would have been if he had not been a Christian.
I believe you are a seeker of truth and understanding, with a desire to inform others of those things your intellect and research have revealed to you, and that you have no other agenda nor motives. But you will remain controversial because you are a non-Christian who publishes books about the Christian religion and therefore Christians will continually question your motives.
So you have a choice: remain controversial or become a Christian. 🙂
Dennis
I’ve been subjected to the Big Lie regarding my Christian beliefs for the past 70 years. And I was one who studied for the priesthood and studied other religions! It took a priest to give me permission to take a moratorium from God and all His demands for three months. This gave me the freedom to wrap my head around the big lie. And so I put myself in the shoes of those who watch your video blogs and hear you laugh at some of the absurdities which they consider to be fundamental to their belief system. No wonder you come across to them as being sensationalist and controversial! I wish someone had mocked me about my beliefs – or at least challenged them – a lot earlier in my life.
Strength to your pen! People who do good scholarship and DON’T share it with lay people should examine their motives, IMO. Great scholars are able to tell their grandkids what they do.
In our pentecostal/fundamentalist church in California, the teenagers approaching college age were warned, from the Pulpit, as follows: Do not take Philosophy in college. If you do, you will lose your Christian faith. Even as a dedicated Christian teenager, I thought this absurd. Was the pastor really that afraid of a college course? And, did he really think that the teachings of Jesus we were indoctrinated with several times a week (by him) and our salvation experience were both so flimsy that one college course would undo them? Could we not withstand another point of view? If Christian Apologists are confident in their theology, wouldn’t they provide the scholarship they know, without their theology, so each person could decide based on that scholarship?
Thankfully, Dr. Ehrman provides just that!
I love what Kirbvtown says, especially,… the stone in a group of dogs…perfect!
People criticize university/college researchers because they explore through research and reach novel conclusions. Sometimes these conclusion challenge conventional belief of people who don’t research and don’t reach novel conclusions. This is why the intelligentsia are often targeted for killing or suppression by authoritarian regimes and ultra conservatives.
Also, if church practices are analyzed as anthropological practices, then the same reinforcements exist in churches as in academics. That is, read, contemplate, pray (as in exert emotional and cognitive energy toward a subject), fellowship with others (as in have a social life with like-minded people), etc. So, I say enjoy the college experience because the practices are similar, just a different setting.
I think a lot of what is perceived as controversial has to do with your positioning yourself (more in the past than now) as a foil against evangelicals and other very conservative Christians. It was a great way to sell books and gain notoriety. You are a marketing genius!
Ah, I wish I had thought more about marketing. My idea was to make books informative, accurate, and interesting. If I were a REAL marketing genius my next book would be “Why I Am Now an Evangelical Again!”
Bart, so for controversy. Would God be arrested, tried and convicted in states such as Oklahoma, Texas, etc. for instructing priests to test a wife’s faithfulness, per Numbers Chapter 5? If unfaithful and pregnant the procedure causes a miscarriage. Certainly seems like a violation of such states abortion restriction laws.
I understand if your response is “no comment”.
I’m waiting for a knowledgeable and courageous politician to make this argument.
I think most states have a policy against taking God to court.
The mood of the public has changed, not your writing.
Media has been tailored to such a degree that fewer hear dissenting opinions and when they do, they judge the information based on the political alignment of the speaker. It is a poor time for epistemology and sound reasoning in general.
You are controversial for the same reason the boy who told the king he had no new clothes on was controversial.