Loading...A couple of days ago I asked members of the blog for some feedback about the current thread focusing on the development of the views of the afterlife in antiquity – the topic of my next book. And I’m really glad I asked, because it helped clarify my thinking considerably about the direction I am going to be taking in the book. For what it’s worth, it is *not* the direction I’ve been taking this thread. At least it is not in the *style* that I’ve been developing this thread. Let me explain.
When I give public talks around the country, the advance publicity often describes me as “one of the most controversial Biblical scholars” in the field. I’ve always been puzzled by that. I really don’t see myself as very controversial. The scholarship that I present in my public talks, and in my popular books, is simply widely accepted scholarship, the kind of thing that critical scholars of the New Testament and early Christianity have long known and quite frequently simply assume. The difference is that I actually *talk* about it, out loud, to general audiences. That makes me different from most scholars in my field. It’s not that my views are particularly unusual. It’s that I air them to the public.
When I think about popular books that sell well (not just books on the New Testament, or Early Christianity, or religion in general – simply books that sell well), there seem to be some common features (in addition to such obvious things as the fact they are written well by people who are presumed to know what they’re talking about). They are (1) about topics that people are interested in and (2) they often say things different from what people expect to hear because they are at odds with what people already think.
If a book is on a topic no one is interested in, then no one will buy the book. That is a simple reality that the vast majority of authors (i.e., those who do *not* sell best-selling books) have never realized. I myself, personally, have lived among academics my entire adult life – say, for the past 40 years, day in and day out. So I know how scholars think. And most scholars think that if they are interested in something that it must be interesting. You should never, ever go to a cocktail party for academics and ask someone what they are working on unless you (a) know what they do and are genuinely (for some reason) interested in it or (b) prepared to be bored silly.
Scholars of course have their passions. Virtually all of them do. But the vast majority of time these passions are not those of most normal human beings. That’s just the way it is. Even if I’m at a party with other New Testament scholars, or scholars of early Christianity after the New Testament, I usually have to brace myself for conversations about things that just aren’t all that inherently interesting. I could give gory details, but, well, I don’t want to bore you.
So one key to writing a popular book that sells well is to focus it on a topic that lots of people *are* interested in. But the other key (at least one other really key key) is to say something about the topic that people don’t already know, think, or believe, something that most people have never heard of before, even though if they had heard of it they would be interested in it. That’s what makes a book controversial: it says something over which others disagree.
Sometimes, when it comes to the New Testament or early Christianity, authors will go out of their way to be controversial. They’ll say flat out absurd things based on completely sloppy scholarship, either because they are not well-trained, widely read, or intelligent and simply don’t know any better, or because they do know better but simply want to sell a lot of books. All of us can probably think of such books with views that virtually no reputable scholar holds: Jesus never existed! Jesus was married to Mary Magdaleine and had babies with her! Jesus and his disciples ate hallucinogenic mushrooms! Jesus had sex with his disciples! And so on.
The reason I’m controversial is not because I propound wild theories that are discounted or not even entertained by other scholars in my field. It’s because I say out loud the things that most critical scholars know but either don’t say or don’t know how to say to a non-scholarly reading public. When I think back on my “controversial” books, they actually simply relate scholarship widely available in the academy:
Misquoting Jesus: we don’t have the originals of any of the writings of the New Testament but only copies made much later, usually centuries later, that all have differences among them, so that there are some places in the New Testament where we don’t know what they authors actually wrote.
Jesus Interrupted: the New Testament is filled with discrepancies and contradictions and historical problems.
God’s Problem: The Bible does not have a consistent explanation for why there is suffering but numerous contradictory explanations.
Forged: The New Testament contains books written by people who were falsely calling themselves by the names of famous apostles (i.e., they were not who they said they were).
How Jesus Became God: The historical Jesus did not consider himself to be God in any sense, but this was a view foisted on him by his followers after his death.
These are my five best-selling books. And all of them make claims that are interesting to lots of non-scholars with any interest in the New Testament, Jesus, Christianity, or religion at large, claims that are not particularly controversial in and of themselves, but are controversial only because most people have simply never heard such things. (OK, I will admit, in some of these instances my views are a bit more extreme than a lot of my colleagues – e.g., I think more books of the NT were forged than some other scholars do, and unlike them, I’m not afraid to call them “forged.” BUT the basic idea is one that all critical scholars share, and that’s the idea that is new to most other people. And my views even there are well represented in the academy and in published scholarship.)
As I have been talking about the afterlife here on the blog, I have not been packaging my comments the way I will when I write my book. I have instead been describing major issues in the scholarship that will underlie what I say in the book, once I start writing it. The scholarship itself may seem rather dull and uninteresting to some people, at least in relationship to the books that I’ve written. But the book itself, Inventing the Afterlife, will indeed be controversial in the way I’ve laid it out here. It won’t contradict what most critical scholars have concluded based on their research, but it will run contrary to what people at large typically think.
Just as one spoiler: I will be arguing that Jesus did not believe in heaven and hell.
This particular post is free for everyone. If you want *all* the posts — 5-6 a week — you need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong, why not join? It won’t cost much, and all the proceeds go to help those in need!
Ah, I’m glad to see this follow-up, because I believe you nailed the issue you were ‘anxious’ about.
Your recent posts weren’t generating much activity because – as you realized – they weren’t (largely) controversial, but seemed more to be simply background to the real ‘meat’ of where you were going. For example, while interesting in an academic sense, discussing how the ancient Greeks envisioned Hades is not any more exciting now than it was back in high school literature class.
I didn’t see your last post asking for suggestions until just now, but if I had, I would have made the a similar suggestion, with a caveat: what has made your books so explosively popular is not ONLY that they are ‘controversial’, but that they are controversial about a subject most adults in the U.S. THINK they know pretty well (I.e., whatever version of Christianity they happened to have been born into) and is important to most.. The premise of each of your popular books is decidedly NOT what they were taught in Sunday school, and that makes it interesting whether still a believer or not (the latter I suspect being the bulk of your customers – would you agree?).
Your very last sentence tells me you are on the right path.
He finds something to hook people in–something that can be easily summed up in one sentence a layperson can easily grasp–but then around that, he writes a very readable erudite summing up of the latest scholarly findings, what is controversial, and what is consensus. He gives you his opinion, based on the facts, and you know which is which.
That’s why he sells, because we don’t have time to read all the latest scholarship. And subscriptions to some of those journals can be quite expensive.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t read anybody but Bart, if we actually give a damn about the general subject matter. But it does mean he’s one of the people who can guide us through a confusing and often disturbing place, as Virgil guided Dante.
And yeah, this is it. Jesus may not have believed in the afterlife at all. He wanted his paradise here, on this planet we live on (that he probably wouldn’t have known was a planet). No pie in the sky when we die. We make this world our heaven, or we all live in hell.
There we go! So glad to read this post.
Not only do you say out loud what these scholarly views are, but you sharply juxtapose them against mainstream Christian thought/religion, and in so doing bring out WHY it all matters. I deeply care about all of the topics of your books you listed above, and I deeply care about what they all mean and why they all matter in the context of accepted Christian religion.
Okay. I am now pre-ordering this book on Amazon.
Okay, not right this minute, because you can’ t pre-order a book that has not been written.
Can you? I lose touch with the latest developments, sometimes.
“Sometimes, when it comes to the New Testament or early Christianity, authors will go out of their way to be controversial. They’ll say flat out absurd things based on completely sloppy scholarship”
::cough::Richard Carrier::cough::
Oh talmoore! lol
I heard that! And I also read in one of your comments that you plan to write a book about Jesus. I’d assume that would be the historical Jesus. I wish you all the best with that. However, Carrier and others stating that likely there was no historical Jesus may not have been welcome news to you. In defence of Carrier, he is not going out of his way to be controversial and his work is far from sloppy. You may not like the message, but there is no need to shoot the messenger.
I’m only an amateur historian and I already know 10 times more about the historical Jesus can supposed historian Richard Carrier. I’m not saying that to boost my own ego but, rather, to illustrate why Carrier should feel ashamed to call himself an historian.
“Just as one spoiler: I will be arguing that Jesus did not believe in heaven and hell.”
Well, this depends on what you mean by “heaven” and “hell”. If you mean Dantean regions to where souls travel after death, then no, he didn’t believe that. But if by “heaven” you mean a paradisal ‘Olam ha-Ba (either here on a renewed earth or in the sky) to where go the resurrected bodies of the righteous on Judgment Day after the Mass Resurrection of the Dead, with a new Jerusalem as its capital and a new Temple, and so on, then I’m absolutely certain Jesus believed that. And if by “hell” you mean a lake of fire and brimstone to where go the resurrected bodies of those who are judged wicked, where their bodies will be burned on the outside while maggots eat out their insides, only to have their skin and viscera renewed everyday for more torment (not unlike Prometheus), for an eternity, then, yes, I’m absolutely sure Jesus believed that.
Why? Because this is exactly what the Pharisees (and the Essenes) believed at the time, and, according to the Gospels, Jesus viewed the Pharisees as a bit soft in their beliefs, so this would be the least of his beliefs. Indeed, it seems the only place where Jesus seemed to diverge from the received beliefs of the Pharisees is in certain terms. While the Pharisees would refer, in Hebrew, to עולם הבא — ‘Olam ha-Ba (The Next World or Next Age), Jesus would refer, in Hebrew, to מלכות הבא — Malkhut ha-Ba (The Next Kingdom) or, in Aramaic, מלכותא שמיא — Malkhuta Shamiyya (The Kingdom of Heaven). They both refered to the place of eternal torment as גהנום — Gehinnom or Gehenna, the valley just to the south of Jerusalem that symbolized the eternal immolation. My hypothesis is that these distinctions are more regional than theological. That is, I think the terms and ideas that Jesus used were particular to the Galilean region while the terms used by the Pharisees were particular to Jerusalem. When the Pharisees moved shop to the Galilee in the 2nd century they brought with them the terms and ideas of the Jerusalem eschatology, supplanting the terms and ideas of the Galilean apocalyptic Jews.
talmoore,
I agree with you,
> . . .depends on what you mean by “heaven” and “hell”.
but will wait for clarifications
Some type of heaven/hell seems to obviously follow from Dr Ehrman’s description of the apocalyptic characteristic of ‘dualism’ – good/bad, God/Satan, Old Age/New Age, righteous/sinners, etc.
And Jesus’ own words, for instance in Matt 25 and other places, certainly imply some kind of human destination that I think would not be inaccurately described as either ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’.
Even accepting the apocalyptic view that Jesus believed in some kind of imminent and necessary Kingdom of Heaven on Earth,
detailed descriptions of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ which we attribute to Jesus’ mind are going to be pretty speculative. Here are few questions (interesting to me)
Does his view preclude his belief in a some kind of non-physical, spiritual, Kingdom of Heaven?
Is physical resurrection of corpses required for Jesus’ view of Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Is physical death on earth incompatible with Jesus idea of Kingdom of Heaven on earth?
etc
the answers are not obvious.
What we think of as “spiritual” or the immaterial soul is much more a Greek concept than a Jewish one. The closest thing ancient Judaism had to a soul or spirit in the way that most Christians think of it today is the Ru’ach or Neshama (i.e. “breath,” similar to Greek pneuma and Latin spirit). But these are better thought of as what we might call the Divine Spark, that small piece of the divine that God “breathed” into Adam that separates us from the animals, makes wise and intelligent beings — that is, puts us somewhere between the animals and the angels on the Great Chain of Being (cf. Greek psyche and Latin anima).
The actual part of us that ancient Jews thought of in the same way we think of a soul was called the Nephesh, which is closer to the animating “ghost in the machine” that not only makes us animated living things but makes ALL living things alive (cf. the Hebrew Chayya, or life force). This Nephesh is not divine, and when we die it can either cease to exist or go down into the land of the dead (i.e. Sheol), depending on different schools of ancient Jewish thought. By the time of Medieval Judaism, these distinctions were pretty much set in stone. But in Jesus’ day, they were still much more fluid. What I, myself, am certain about, however, is that Jesus held this ancient Jewish concept of the soul or spirit, not the received Christian concept. That’s why he and his followers believed the bodily resurrection was necessary for the World-to-come, because a spirit without a body was incomplete, unlike how Christians today view the soul as complete in itself and the body, ultimately, unnecessary, if not a step backwards. This is more of a Greek notion that a Jewish one.
yeah I get that you are “certain Jesus believed in . . . bodily resurrection”, cause you’ve said it twice. backing it up with some of Jesus’ contemporaries believed in that.
Bart, Re Jesus did not believe in heaven and hell: what about those references to hell in the NT ascribed to Jesus. One example- Luke chapter 16. 19-31 ?
Yup — those are the ones I’ll be dealing with. (With respect to Luke 16 it is a *parable* and is not meant to be taken as a literal description, as I’ll be trying to show.) (For starters: I think everyone would agree that it cannot be taken literally: does anyone really think that heaven is inside of Abraham’s torso?)
I hope your new book on Jesus’ views on the afterlife will also set his views in a broader historical context.
For example, it seems the ancient Hebrews did not have much of a belief in an afterlife (at least until the Babylonian captivity) but the Greeks and Egyptians certainly held beliefs about an afterlife. For example,
the Greeks such as Plato seemed to believe in some sort of a hell and a heaven (the Elysian Fields).
Hell is certainly problematic to any sensitive, justice seeking soul (if it exists God would be infinitely worse than Adolph Hitler in my view) but even heaven is problematic as in what the hell would make us so happy for so long in heaven?(!) My version of heaven would be sipping Starbucks in a Barnes and Noble bookstore but even that could get old after a few centuries! (Rod Serling had an episode like that on the Twilight Zone).
If I may make a suggestion. I’ve given out Richard Elliot Friedman’s book, Who Wrote The Bible, dozens of times to fundamentalists who are starting to question they way they’ve been taught. There is nothing similar for the New Testament. Your books are good, but they don’t approach the subject as carefully and gently as Friedman does. Please write this book. Give us the best scholarship on the New Testament. Walk us through it step by step. We were taught to read the New Testament in a way that harmonized it and smoothed out the contradictions and differences in doctrines. We need a book that pushes people away from the “harmony of the Gospels” and shows the rich and interesting differences and competing doctrine in the New Testament.
Of course I will buy and read anything you publish, and I’m looking forward to the book on the afterlife.
Hmm… I thought that’s what my books *were* doing! (E.g., Misquoting Jesus; Jesus Interrupted; etc.)
“Just as one spoiler: I will be arguing that Jesus did not believe in heaven and hell.”
This particular argument would be very intriguing. Interesting how you going to establish what Jesus believed or not. Because its not the same as arguing what Jesus might have said or not. Sure, you can base your theory on beliefs of Judaism of that time but I am afraid its not enough . Isn’t it possible that Jesus had non traditional views of afterlife?
Looking forward to your new book.
Expert a firestorm because that’s what you’re setting yourself up for. (Spoiler)
If he can stand all the Jesus deniers exploding with fury when he told them there was an actual living person named Jesus who was actually crucified, whether they like it or not, he can stand anything.
If your book is based on historical facts about the afterlife which concludes that Hell, as identified in the Bible, is simply an invention of man, then those who believe in a God that is fair and just will be devastated. This is because justice, as generally understood in most societies, demands both rewards and punishment for one’s actions.
If Christians read your book and begin to question Hell and/or determine that there isn’t any Hell/punishment, then they must also come to grips with the fact that the likes of people throughout history like Hitler were subject to worldly punishment alone. In which case, Hitler and the rest of his kind who have passed on simply cease to exist – and the God of the Bible has no further plans for them.
Simply put, most Christians not only want a Hell, they need a Hell. They need a Hell to both punish evil people and validate the perfect justice of the God of the Bible that they serve.
The positive thing your book may do is help people overcome their belief in myths about Heaven and Hell, an all-powerful “God” as well as other mythical promises about answering prayers and protecting the poor and downtrodden living on this earth.
I obviously won’t be dealing with what *really* happens to a person at death, just with where the ideas of heaven and hell came from. They could be true, wherever they came from! But I certainly have my own views about the matter…
When I started running into problems with the Bible in the mid-80s I couldn’t find anything that wasn’t either apologist books at Christian bookstores or very academic stuff at the library, I could not find anything like Jesus interrupted or misquoting Jesus at any bookstore -it was quite a wasteland for that kind of material -at least where I lived.
So I would imagine when your books came along it would seem quite controversial for the average publisher in the average book stores.
Yep. If you want to generate controversy, you’ve picked the right subject. Our modern Western civilization is obsessed with denial of death. That’s why so many people are interested any kind of undead stuff like vampires, zombies, ghosts, the occult, spiritualism, Eastern mysticism/reincarnation, UFOs, alien abductions, near death experiences, etc. TV and movies, not to mention video games, are inundated with superhero stuff, i.e. with mythical characters many of which are impervious to pain and death. Your new book certainly will stir this enormous cultural pot (or is it a giant cesspool of ignorance) big time.
Yes, very good adaptation based on what you have seen on the blog’s responses to the afterlife posts etc.
I was going to comment on the other blog post; I do find the topic of the afterlife (in general and how it developed) less attractive to me personally.
However, with it now tying in to how/and what (historical) Jesus thought/taught about the afterlife, it definitely has a lot more intrigue.
I applaud you in this fresh rethink and revision.
“I have not been packaging my comments the way I will when I write my book.”
Scholarship can be a bit dry. I’m guessing that’s the reason for the minor hiccup on the blog.
I do believe that this is an important book to write and it’s needed. What’s really going to be key is presentation; something you’re very good at.
Way too early to think about just yet, but I tend to agree with your (former?) publisher for the anti-Semitic book despite the enthusiastic comments here. Readers, especially Christian, can personally connect to your other bestselling books in one way or another, but a book about anti-Semitism may feel like they’re being shamed. Someone mentioned that Christians *need* the book. I said they (as well as the rest of us) *need* the afterlife book but that’s because it personally affects their lives and there’s a desire to learn more. They can’t just need knowledge; they have to want it as well. So, it’s controversial but not in the same vein as your other books.
Then again, your current publisher may feel differently! I’ll read it of course, but I don’t see it appealing to the masses the same way the afterlife will.
The title has caused such a stir that it’s become its own talking point. It could be one of those things where people publicly state their refusal to buy it, then turn around and secretly order it on Amazon.
Curiosity kills the cat. ????
I think that “Inventing the Afterlife” is indeed a catchy title, but to my ear sounds a bit misleading. Perhaps misleading is too strong a word – more like along the lines of Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing” books (Kennedy, Reagan, The Rising Sun …ad nauseum) – but that’s obviously where any comparison ends! 😉 The title has a punch – no doubt, but what developed into later Jewish and Christian differentiated views of the afterlife isn’t unique in the history of world religions. The idea that the concept sprang from the experience of physical persecution also sounds a bit sketchy (to me), but this is one reason I’m looking forward to reading the book!
I don’t know if Bart has any cats, but he let one out of the bag when he said of his proposed new book: “Just as one spoiler: I will be arguing that Jesus did not believe in heaven and hell.” … That should draw some interviews!
I’m confused about the ‘spoiler’. Are you going to follow up on Jesus’ view of the afterlife in the blog? Do you cover this in any of your books written so far?
I’m debating how much to reveal on the blog!!
Can you at least say, are your thoughts on Jesus’ view of the afterlife common among critical scholars?
Yup, I will probably get to that!
About revealing your argument, I realized I may have suggested you were going to do that on the blog which I didn’t mean at all. It’s understandable you shouldn’t or wouldn’t want to!
Is it really so mysterious? Jesus probably believed in an imminent inauguration of the Kingdom of God, perhaps with some kind of resurrection of the dead, but nothing like the subsequent belief in disembodied souls eternally populating heavenly realms, playing harps and sleeping on pillows of clouds, while other souls were being tortured in everlasting flames by pointy-tailed demons for lustful thoughts. Or do you something more controversial to say?
For most Christians today, that itself would be controversial enough.
Keep it to yourself IMHO. No good can come from premature bean spillage.
When I was a kid, I enjoyed watching sports on television. With great anticipation, I would wait to listen to any after-game interviews. Hearing the stars talk about the game and adding their own perspectives was a unique and rather rare experience at the time. Obviously, I’m referring to an age before Twitter. “I was waiting on his slow curve”, “We never quit believing in each other”, “The coach gave the greatest half time speech I’ve ever heard.”Winners never quit.” The list goes on and on.
I also had another passion. I loved reading the newspaper before walking to school every morning. I would read the exact same words that I had heard the day before, but in writing, they took on a whole different aura. They often sounded profound and heroic. Something that could be put above the entrance of any locker room. The issue was that when spoken, they didn’t sound particularly meaningful, powerful, or inspiring at the time. Just normal locker room banter. Which brings me to the written texts that we have today. Do you think our current pedagogy, with its emphasis on the written word, makes hell more populated, scary, common, eternal, etc. than that which may have been originally intended by the authors of the NT? Thanks.
I’m not sure it does. In the Middle Ages, when most people couldn’t read, there were *horrible* things widely believed about hell — much more graphic than what most people think of today.
There you go – that is exactly what I was trying to recommend in my other comment. I guess I just couldn’t see it in the way you were framing your afterlife articles here.
Also, while I didn’t add it, part of what I appreciate is exactly that It’s clear you’re not making stuff up or sensationalizing, that instead you are just bringing out controversial truths, perhaps even well known in some circles, but not in layman’s knowledge. That’s why I feel comfortable referring your scholarship to the more religious I know in my life. You aren’t a crank, and even if they disagree they can see that. You’re the kind of author that even my fundamentalist brother can respect and disagree with, rather than just dismiss.
He does say though, “You’ve been reading too much Bart Ehrman again haven’t you?”
In John 3:16, it doesn’t say those who believe in him should not be tortured forever, it says they should not perish (APOLETAI). So John didn’t believe in hell. What about heaven?
Yes, John comes close to thinking of heaven in the way that it eventually developed, a blessed place the followers of Jesus go to when they die.
Another idea for content BTW:
It might worth going over the fundamental change in relationship that is represented by a god that rewards and punishes on earth, with no real afterlife, vs. a god rewards and punishes with heaven or hell in an eternal afterlife. It strikes me that the former invites an active relationship – you can have a disagreement and argue with a god of the material world when you know that punishment is at most limited to your lifespan. It fits well with the Old Testament imperfect “I am a jealous god” and truly makes god more like a real and almost “human” father.
On the other hand, a distant, otherworldly, all perfect being that can subject you to eternal damnation, even on the basis of thought crime, is hard to have a relationship with. The relationship is so massively tilted – he is not just going to spoil you crops or make you die in a foul way if you piss him off, he’s going to damn you eternally. How can you ever feel comfortable with such a god? How can you have a conversation when he is always right and by being wrong you are at threat of endless punishment?
It changes the dynamic of the relationship completely.
It also is asking for you to suck up. I don’t know how many times my Christian friends have implied I should essentially not be true to myself, that is to save my own soul, worship with “faith” a being that as they describe would be willing to inflict eternal torment on countless billions just because they happened to be born to parents who brought them up with the wrong religion. A god who instills his chosen creatures with lust, then makes it criminal for them to feel it. Or for that matter a god that creates some such that they wish to love those of the same sex, and yet would damn them to hell for acting on the same love. Instead, they wish me and others like myself to be false and sacrifice the same moral compass that in theory their god instilled in us, just so that we can share in their same glory (or rather, eternal pleasure, rather than eternal pain).
No, an imperfect Judaic god of this earth, is a god you relate to, even if you might hate him. An eternal perfect god of the afterlife, one that is always right and will punish you eternally if you are not the same, leaves little room for real relation.
If you think that Jesus didn’t believe in heaven or hell, have you reconciled that with thinking that Matthew 25:31-46 goes back to him? Saying that the sheep receive an eternal reward and the goats are eternally punished sounds a lot like heaven and hell. I understand that perception might be a product of being so used to the idea of heaven and hell, but what else do you think explains it?
Yup, it’s one of the key passages I’ll be dealing with!
It’s probably about the end times rather than heaven or hell, remember the parable is about a final reckoning not just what happens after death. If you read the (non-gnostic) Apocalypse of Peter or the jewish part of 2 Esdras (aka 4 Ezra) you can see that in the 1st to early 2nd centuries, the punishment for sinners was viewed as happening after the resurrection of the dead.
wow! this new book of yours is going to make a big wave!
“Just as one spoiler: I will be arguing that Jesus did not believe in heaven and hell.”
Very interesting! Did Jewish ideas about the righteous souls being “taken up” to be in God’s presence have an impact on later ideas of heaven?
I’m thinking of Wisdom 4:10-11,14 especially (c. 50 BC)
“There were some who pleased God and were loved by him,
and while living among sinners were taken up.
They were caught up so that evil might not change their understanding
or guile deceive their souls.
…
for their souls were pleasing to the Lord,
therefore he took them quickly from the midst of wickedness.”
Yup, I’ll be dealing with Jewish notions.
Expect! 🙂
You talk about books that say, “Jesus was married to Mary Magdaleine and had babies with her!” You say that this is “flat out absurd [thing] based on completely sloppy scholarship, either because they are not well-trained, widely read, or intelligent and simply don’t know any better, or because they do know better but simply want to sell a lot of books.” However, your colleague at UNCC, James Tabor, has written books on finding the family tomb of Jesus that indicates that Jesus had a son with Mary Magdalene. He is a highly regarded scholar in the same university system as you. Is Dr. Tabor “not well-trained, widely read, or intelligent and simply [doesn’t] know any better, or because [he does] know better but simply [wants] to sell a lot of books.” Have you read his books? Do you think he is wrong about the Jesus Tomb? If you think he is wrong, please explain why you think that.
Ah, right — I forgot that James argued that. OK, he’s the exception to the rule!! And yes, I think he’s wrong about Jesus’ tomb.
His statistics regarding the rarity of that combination of names being found in one tomb seem pretty convincing. Too bad the orthodox Jews took the bones and buried them in an unmarked grave before an examination could be made for signs of crucifixion of those claimed to be Jesus’ bones.
Dr Ehrman, I think that you disagree with Dr Tabor, Whose prime interest is Paul and Pauline Christianity, apropos the Epistle of James, you think it is pro pauline, he think not, and on the verses that admonish women to be silent, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, you think it’s an interpolation, he thinks it can be explained in the light of the vacillating character of Paul that surface from a place to another in his literature. Do you still disagree about Epistle of James, and the women’s silence verses in 1 Corinthians.
No, I don’t think the letter of James is pro-Pauline at all. I think it is directly arguing against a later form of Pauline thought.
Jesus did not believe in heaven and hell!! That answers one of Bertrand Russell’s objections to being Christian. In “Why I am Not a Christian,” his final reason is the immorality of Jesus, as witnessed by his belief that those who did not follow him would be consigned to hellfire (at his command, no less).
After reading most of your books, certainty the 5 best sellers mentioned in this post, it is crystal clear to me that the historical Jesus did not believe in heaven and hell, as an apocalypticist, he was expecting the arrival of Kingdom of God, here on planet Earth. That as a surmise, is amply apodictic to me. Thanks professor for your commitment to public tutoring. All the best for your much anticipated Inventing the afterlife book.
Wow! That Jesus did not believe in Heaven or Hell is quite a “spoiler.” I guess Jesus was waiting for the coming of the apocalypse and the kingdom of God making things “right” on earth.
Now for my big question: If all of this stuff is widely accepted by academics to be the way it is, why is none of it, at least in my experience, taught in our churches which are supposed to be about “truth”? I have been struggling with this question for decades. Could it be that reason and evidence do not influence very many people and that indoctrination and faith “trump” reason and evidence? Moreover, if people are indoctrinated with stuff, Sunday after Sunday, as little children, then that stuff they were taught is really almost impossible to change in them. So, do little kids need to be taught in another way?
Ronald Taska,
I suggest the reason why many of the controversial issues pastors learn in seminary/universities are not taught to the congregants is pastors can be fired from their job but tenured professors are much more secure in their positions (I am a tenured physics professor). There is a wonderful quote going back to des Cartes that goes like this, “A man is incapable of comprehending any argument that interferes with his revenues.” I know, it sounds sort of Marxian but there is some truth to it!
Richard carrier once said that the monks that had the Nag Hammadi scriptures we’re in the process of writing one, and that’s how we know they were made up. Is this true?
You’ll need to rephrase the question. I’m not sure what you’re saying is claim is.
Controversy is in the eye of the beholder. I saw no controversy in the five books you list, where, as you state, you reported on existing mainstream scholarship.
On the other hand, I perceived “Did Jesus Exist?” as very controversial. Not so much the title, but the content.
Bart,
Just to revisit that summary of the thesis of “Misquoting Jesus” — you said, “there are some places in the New Testament where we don’t know what they authors actually wrote.”
This is, indeed, uncontroversial if one means that we do not know exactly how the authors expressed a particular thought at a particular point, right down to an orthographic level. But — as an exercise — if one were to take in hand NA27 and remove everything in double-brackets, what part of the remaining text would you say says something different — not so much where the exact form is concerned, but regarding the thoughts being conveyed — from the original?
I actually don’t think I said anything controversial in Misquoting Jesus. That was one of the reasons I was so surprised so many scholars objected to it. I did note that they never indicated what I said was wrong…
On NA27, very interesting question. Someone should try it sometime. My point is of course not that the textual variants end up presenting a radically different religion; it is far more subtle than that, but in my view, really important, involving, for example, such things as whether the Bible contradicts itself; whether Luke has gone out of his way to eliminate Mark’s understanding of the atonement (why would he do that?); whether John explicitly identifies Jesus as the unique God; and so on and on.
“All of us can probably think of such books with views that virtually no reputable scholar holds: Jesus never existed!”
I have heard the rumor numerous times that scholars will not admit that Jesus didn’t exist because they fear losing their jobs. It sounds like it could be very true, but after a couple of correspondences with Mason and reading some of Hoffman, who seemed to be intrigued by the mythicist question himself, I think it is just a rumor. Although I will say I read a blog post by Michael Bird who said a mythicist wouldn’t be hired. I’m assuming he means at Ridley, but he is also evangelical (I think) so that is expected.
I freely admit I’m intrigued by the argument, even though I remain unconvinced by it, and I would love to see current, NT scholarship on the topic because it’s relative to today. It might not be a hundred years from now, but I believe it’s important to answer the questions of the generation in which we live in.
You’ve written a trade book on the topic, but the whole thing can’t be summed up by one person. Other NT scholars need to communicate to the lay audience as well, especially to the younger generation. There’s a generation of nonreligous young people who are grabbing onto the mythicist argument and before you know it, the NT field will be in a reactive position rather than a proactive one. They are circulating arguments that Socrates never existed and some of them are even falling into mythology, as in, believing in multiple gods and goddesses. They have an odd mixture of hyper-skepticism and mythological fascination. I do not see much of an awareness of these things.
Arguing for a mythicist position certainly would have no effect on *my* academic position.
One of the first, if not THE first to conclude Jesus never existed, was the brilliant Bruno Bauer. Teaching that conclusion got him fired from Bonn University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bauer#Argument_against_the_existence_of_Jesus
No, the view was first propounded by a couple of French scholars during the French Revolution.
Bauer seemed to be controversial in more than one arena. Perhaps the mythicist position was the last straw.
Any familiarity with these scholarly refutations?
http://www.bede.org.uk/price8.htm
He made very little impact on scholarship, as it turns out. But I haven’t read widely about the controversies.
Of course, he made very little impact on scholarship for reasons I’ve identified earlier. 1) the message send, and received, by his firing and; 2) the religious nature and sources of the scholars who populate “scholarship”.
I”ve noticed that mythicists often seem to think that people won’t accept certain views because it will get them fired. That’s certainly not true in an American context (that’s the point of tenure). Saying that a mythicist would not be hired in a religious studies department (I’m not sure that’s even true, but suppose it were), is like saying that a creationist would not be hired in a biology department. But in any event, just with respect to Bruno Bauer, I should point out that David Friedrich Strauss also lost his position because of his radical views, but his book The Life of Jesus is widely seen as one of the most influential books in the field in modern times. His firing didn’t affect that.
Obviously, tenured faculty is protected from being fired for just holding unconventional, or even controversial viewpoints. But given a new hire situation with a choice of two equally qualified individuals, one holding to the conventional historicity viewpoint, the other an outspoken mythicist, my bet is that the hiring nod will likely go the the conventional candidate. If you were on the selection committee, what would you do?
Actually, by equating mythicism with a creationism you’ve provided the answer. I’ve not seen such an extreme statement in the historicity argument before. I assume that truly reflects your belief based on a rational and unemotional analysis?
The reason they would not be hired is not that they hold a view per se. It’s because the view is both central to what they teach and widely held by experts to be completely bogus. The same department would not hire a New Testament scholar who was a fundamentalist Christian either. I understand that you don’t think that the mythicist view is bogus. But fundamentalist Christians also feel persecuted because they think *their* views aren’t bogus either, but are the absolute truth.
Bogus. Equivalent to creationists and fundamentalists. Feeling persecuted for invoking “absolute truth”. I got it! Let me create a couple more for you: mythicism is based on ideology and ignorance! The climate change deniers of NT scholarship!
I can’t speak for all mythicists, but there is nothing “absolute” about mythicism. It is a statement of probability based on factual information we can share and look at.
We came to different interpretative conclusions, but you question the legitimacy of mine. Too me, the difference between a nobody Jesus who got himself elevated to God post-mortem, or a fabricated one based on a mystery religion is inconsequential.
But to you it is not. You have a serious personal stake in the argument . I do not.
Well, given your strong statements, it certainly *seems* like you have a personal stake! I really don’t think my stake is personal at all. I just believe in good history — taking a mythicist view wouldn’t affect my personal life at all, so far as I can tell.
I wouldn’t put fundamentalism in the same category as mythicism really. A mythicist knows full well that his views are fringe but also required to teach according to the scholarly consensus of a historical Jesus. Anything outside of that in a classroom setting is inappropriate, and if he’s been trained properly in the NT, he should know that. It’s the same way with public school teachers who are required to teach evolution even though they may believe in creationism. It’s in direct conflict with their personal beliefs, but their job is to teach the standard, not their own views.
A fundamentalist is a whole different ball of wax in my opinion.
If Robert Price was seeking a job, and he was told he had to teach according to mainstream scholarship, he’d know exactly what you meant. Carrier? No, (for more than one reason) but basically he wouldn’t meet the qualifications for the teaching position anyway.
A mythicist *should* be able to separate his own beliefs from his teaching practices, but if you feel it’s not in the best interest of the students, then so be it. I can’t argue with that.
Interesting point(s).
Amazing – you refer to mythicism as bogus and its followers equivalent to creationists and fundamentalists. And you refer to me as making strong statements?
I am tempted to respond in kind, but this type of exchange goes nowhere. It has become obvious that, not only do you not do not see the slightest legitimacy in the mythicist model, but also find it objectionable. Have my pro-mythicist comments been irritating to you?
As the blog owner you have the right to control content in any way you want. I will continue to comment on your blog as I see fit, unless you tell me otherwise.
No, not irritable at all. Feel free to comment in any way you like! As long as you follow good blog etiquette — which you always do — there’s not a problem. I welcome all views, even ones I think are wrong!
Comment:
Yes it is apologetic, but have you read any of the scholarly refutations he listed? Voorst’s is from 2000; Jesus Outside the New Testament.
——————————————————————————————————————-
Of course, I’ve read van Voorst – and so did Carrier! Did you read Carrier’s refutation of van Voorst’s refutation? Ha.
Pg 5 in your library copy of OHJ, and many other places…
At least he’s being honest about his opinion. He could have just placated you, but he didn’t.
The comment above was meant for Tony. The replies are so long, I can’t tell who I’m responding to!
Comment:
Bauer seemed to be controversial in more than one arena. Perhaps the mythicist position was the last straw.
Any familiarity with these scholarly refutations?
http://www.bede.org.uk/price8.htm
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks for the link. I went to the Home Page and found the following: “Welcome to Bede’s Library – reasonable apologetics and other matters”. That should have told me enough, but I had a cursory look at the sources he quotes – (going back to 1912!) – and provides his fawning support comments on.
This is highly biased, one sided, selective quote and commentary, Jesus historicity propaganda. The link to a response by Earl Doherty did not work. I’m sure there must be hundreds of these sites on the internet. All to provide assurance and comfort to religious and semi-religious believers that these nasty and low IQ mythicists are wrong, wrong, wrong!
But, I keep asking myself, why is it necessary to keep publishing mythicist “refutations” if he historicity of Jesus is such a slam dunk, no brainer absolute certainty? Is there really irrefutable evidence for a human Jesus? Or, are these refutations a result of the deep discomfort that the notion of a fabricated Jesus creates.
Yes it is apologetic, but have you read any of the scholarly refutations he listed? Voorst’s is from 2000; Jesus Outside the New Testament.
I’d say most of the refutations on the internet are by the lay audience.
I can’t turn to page 5 in my library copy of OHJ because I took it back to the library. And I don’t plan on checking it out again. 🙂 And I know you’re fond of Carrier, but I think his book has its fair share of errors.
I think your books are meaningful because they provide answers to people. When clever and analytical people start reading the Bible they will sooner or latter realise that its content contradicts with the Christian tradition and that the tradition cannot be fully derived from it. This is especially disturbing for protestants that believe in the sola scripture principle.
These people are then faced with questions like…
Am I insane?
Is there anybody out there that think the same?
I think, your books make a difference for the ordinary man because they help them to realise that they are not insane and not alone.
I have been been studying Christian no-Heller and universalist sects for the past years. I find their reasoning believable and logical but I’m really missing a critical scholarly opinion on what to think about afterlife. I’m hoping that your new book can give some answers to such questions.
People might buy one book for the sake of controversy but they will buy the second book because they found the first one meaningful.
Off topic Dr. Ehrman … this end of the world prediction was not only sent to me by an American Christian friend but also mentioned today by a Maya girlfriend: http://www.newser.com/story/248828/this-saturday-may-be-the-end-of-the-world-researcher-says.html
I was so pleased with myself that from reading your blogs and I wrote back to my American friend accordingly debunking the article he sent me by again applying the information I have gleaned entirely from reading your books and blogs!!
I have a lot of current reading to catch up … but with the Yucatan receiving the tail end rains and lightning from the last four Hurricanes .. the likes of which I have NEVER experienced before, it’s been a challenge on line (our food costs have risen 40% largely due to gas/oil turmoil). I am meditating for those who have had it much much rougher. Thank you for your kindness, the gift of your brilliance and integrity.
I think I should add that my long time close Christian friend has not responded since .. he usually does not like it when I do this 🙂
So sorry to hear about all the troubles (on our news, and now from your note). Please be safe and well.
Why is the hallucinogenic/psychedelic theory so common these days? There is a vey popular book called “The Immortality Key”. It basically makes the argument that psychedelic substances were very common during this time. How do scholars normally respond to this?
The vast majority don’t buy it. My sense is that even though a couple of people have written books about it and some peole have read the books, it’s not a particularly common view.
I see. And based of your research, I’m going to assume you don’t either
Right.