Loading...Most people on the planet simply are not interested in history. I’d say that’s true of most American high school and college students. History classes can be dreadfully boring, especially with the wrong teacher — and it is very hard to be a good teacher of history. In high school, I had almost no interest in my history classes. Names, dates, things that happened that had no relevance to anything I was interested in or what I felt like doing day to day. Ugh.
But a good history teacher is a marvel to behold. There is so much about the past that is fascinating, and, of course relevant. And so, as it turns out, I’ve turned into a professional historian. Go figure.
I’ve been thinking about this because of that debate I had on Monday with Peter Williams, a very bright evangelical Christian and a fine scholar of ancient Semitic languages who firmly believes that the Bible conveys God’s Truth, in every way, so that there are no mistakes of any kind in it. Peter is also the author of Can We Trust the Gospels? and C S Lewis vs the New Atheists.
I don’t see this as a historical approach to the Bible but a religious/theological one. Christians who take this view are not interested in studying the Bible the way other ancient books would be studied. For them it is given by God, and so it’s different, and a “historical” approach is in fact inimical to a “true” understanding of it.
Peter – at least as I was hearing him – seemed to me to affirm that view whole heartedly. The “discussion” we had (the moderator didn’t want to call it a debate) will be posted online sometime in the fall, not sure when, and so you can see for yourself if my assessment is right. But it did seem to me that Peter thought/thinks that “history” is a four-letter word.
He contrasted his approach to the Bible with how historians in “university history departments” (the term he used with a bit of disdain) approach their texts. In making the differentiation he actually did make an extremely good point. He indicated that…
The rest of this post is for blog members. If you’re not a member, join now and see what I have to say! You will get five posts a week, 52 weeks a year, going back over seven years. Amazing value for little money. And every thin dime goes to charity. So why not??
This almost seems like erstwhile market-driven pseudo-history. As long as consumer confirmation bias demands that which confirms, there will always be a market for it. The reason I use the word “erstwhile” is that I could scarcely accuse those who engage in this of doing it so cynically. I really do think they believe. And are utterly unaware of their corrupted motives.
This is why these evangelical ‘scholars’ are categorically not scholars. In the past you have defended some as indeed genuine scholars, but if they cannot accurately represent an argument they subsequently claim to have refuted or if they cannot approach a biblical or other text free from methodological and theological bias, they are doing something other than scholarship, regardless of how many hours they spend in a library or whatever academic positions they hold. I suppose one can politely distinguish between a religious scholar and a critical scholar, but is it really scholarship if it abandons critical thinking in a fundamental area of the discipline?
Bart, is there anywhere in the Bible itself where it is stated that the text is divinely inspired? Obviously in Exodus, the 10 Commandments are directly written by God, and I could understand Mr. Williams saying those cannot be questioned (to be a member of a religion, you do have to hold some beliefs that can’t be questioned for any reason, or you don’t have a religion).
But as you’ve pointed out, in the gospels, we’re told very directly upfront that a human being is writing, and has gone to some pains to gather this information–God didn’t just appear in a puff of smoke and hand him the book.
This is different from some OT texts, which while clearly written long after the events described, don’t have any author’s preface, so to speak. It has long seemed obvious to me that evangelicals tend to secretly prefer the OT, and this may be one of the reasons for that. The OT texts are mainly mythology, but the NT, while containing many mythic elements, is further back in the process–it’s more of a chronicle of something that is just then taking form, and so has much more of the dreaded history in it.
A divinely inspired text–or even a text that was compiled with the express intent of appearing divinely inspired–wouldn’t contradict itself so often as the bible does.
2 Timothy 3:16 does say that all scripture is inspired by God (literally “God-breathed”). It doesn’t indicate which books were considered scripture, though (there were debates all the time about the limits of the Jewish Scriptures), and it certainly does not include the books of the NT.
The preceding verse, 2 Timothy 3:15 says, “and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The author, who falsely claims to be Paul, has Paul remind the adult Timothy that when he was a child (what, 15 or 20 years earlier? more?) that there were Christian writings to instruct Timothy in the faith. Did this author really believe there were pre-Pauline Christian writings or is this just another tell of the forgery?
It’s not clear if he means the Jewish Scriptures pointing to Christ or Christian writings about Christ. If the latter, then yes, that would be a clear sign this ain’t from Paul. But it might mean the former.
Many if not all OT prophets frame their prophecies with the phrase “so said the Lord”, or something along those lines. A direct claim that the words we read are straight from God.
I find it strange to hear people say that that the NT is the word of God when, unlike the OT prophets, its authors never make such a claim. Paul’s letters, for example, are….letters from a guy named Paul. He never presents them as any more than that, does he?
Great post. I wished you had made it available to the public so I could share it with some of my friends. It lays the arguments down perfectly.
There is the generate PDF button at the end of these articles. I don’t know how you treat PDFs, but the ones I download tend to hang around — kinda like the Gospels.
Does he also reject scholarly views on the authorship of e.g., 1 and 2 Peter?
Absolutely — he thinks all the named authors were the actual authors.
Does he accept markan priority? If he believes in biblical inerrancy he couldnt accept the reasons given for MP.
I don’t know. But I do know people who believe in inerrancy who think Matthew and Luke used Mark, under the guidance of teh Holy Spirit.
I always have a bit of skepticism about people who call themselves “Scientist” and who also believe in god. To me, Scientists must always follow the facts, no matter where they lead, and people who believe in god ignore the facts and follow their emotions. If they don’t follow the facts, always, they are either going against their nature as scientists or they aren’t scientists at their core. I think of that as hypocrisy and I don’t therefore, trust their scientific achievements (non-scientists can believe anything they want as long as they don’t force me to join in; it’s only people who call themselves scientists I have a problem with). I know you don’t quite feel the same way, at least you aren’t as rigid (harsh) about it as I am. I’d be interested in you addressing the issue sometime: How can a someone be a person-of-reason and still believe in god?
I think it’s important that “reason” comes in many, many forms, and what is common sense to one person is not to another. There’s nothing in the actual definition of reason that requires a person to be an atheist. How could there be, when most of our greatest intellectuals have believed in a superior being?
Very well stated. And I think that you have absolutely nailed the most frustrating perspective of “debating” apologists in that they cloak their positions in the guise of a methodical, scientific, historical analysis and then revert to anything and everything but. I’ll never understand why they cling to the idea of the Bible’s infallibility so strongly. If you care to believe in the Jewish-Christian god, then fine – it’s your choice. But please don’t try and argue with me based upon your own curious beliefs about a book written centuries ago by people who we know nothing about other than they wondered where the sun went at night.
You made me think of epicycles in regard to fundamentalist thinking– you can have an earth centered solar system if you are willing to ignore some data, and be willing to create a sufficiently convoluted ad hoc system to support the data you have. And so the method of epicycles allowed one to predict the positions of the planets with reasonable accuracy when an earth-centered “universe” was dogma, but the system was complex and convoluted, and it would have been impossible under that system to have a unified theory of planetary motion– you’d never have a theory of gravity, for instance. Not even the simple Newtonian version. And so committed believers like the guy you debated have committed themselves to an ad hoc irrational and inconsistent approach to history, even very, very ancient history (paleontology, geology). Their epicyclic systems allow them to deal with any bit of data that conflicts with the core postulate, that the Bible is perfect and literally true and contains no error. But the world they create in this way is completely crazy. No other word for it: nuts. At some point we might have to find a classification for fundamentalism in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, and start treating these people! They’d be even tougher to treat than Borderline Personality Disorder. But I really believe that we should start viewing fundamentalists as displaying a mental health or cognitive disorder.
As a former fundamentalist, I always thought of faith as belief in what you new to be true, similar to the laws of gravity. I believed the Bible, because it looked true: It accurately reflects a lot of truth about the human condition, if everyone loved others as themselves the world would be a wonderful place, humility is preferable to arrogance, etc. And to top it off, the most devout protestant cultures were the most wealthy & peaceful. See the evidence supports it!
I was willing to believe the resurrection and all the wonderful things that come with it because of all the other “evidence” that I felt supported Christianity to be true. So true I was willing to believe in Hell (but with a really big hope I was somehow wrong). But after reading your books, the evidence against inerrancy overwhelmed all else. Freed to think how the world works without the Bible gluing it all together, I realized all the other truths about the human condition are not falsified simply because I now view the Bible as a human document.
My questions for you are
1. Is faith a belief in what you believe is most likely true? (similar to history being what most likely happened)
2. Do the most ardent believers who can’t be persuaded simply incorporate “evidence” as I once did as more persuasive than what the biblical text actually tells us?
3. Are those who claim that you must have “eyes of faith” to rightly understand the Bible actually gnostics who must have some secret enlightenment that informs their beliefs?
These are all questoins of definition, I think. “Faith” can indeed an agreement with a propositional statement (what you “believe” is true.) It can also mean “trust” or “confidence” (“I believe in you”). And yes, everyone in one sense imagines they are looking at evidence, even if this is hidden from the sight of others.
I guess the short answer to your question (that you already know) is that yes, History is a four-letter word and unfortunately in today’s America, so is Science or any academic discipline that runs the risk of challenging long-held views.
Regarding your related post from yesterday about why people cling to long-held beliefs that do not alter with age even when faced with a likely truth that does not match, I’ll throw out one other possibility that I do not remember if anyone posited, and that is that maybe they are willingly and knowingly lying even as they face the truth. Some to themselves maybe, and for some, just to others. We don’t like to contemplate the thought that our friends, or at least those that we regularly encounter lie on a daily basis. Some lie about big things, some about very small, but they do…some more than others.
As they grew up and honestly believed and began to study, write books, teach at Universities and surround their very existence, community and livelihood to the system of belief they grew up with, but slowly began to encounter the possibility that some of those things might be built on sand, consciously decided at some later point to go ALL IN and for the sake of pride, money and recognition for standing their ground and profiting from it both within their community and on the grand stage of radio debates, etc will say anything, even the most ridiculous, in order to maintain the charade.
I personally believe that some of the more famous “converts” to evangelical Christianity that have written books and movies about their conversions MIGHT be doing just that (some of whom you’ve debated). The Marjoe Gortner effect. Maybe its because I cannot fathom that humans can be that ridiculously ignorant, but I do think it is at least a possibility for some.
Keep up the good work in the pursuit of knowledge and the truth and thank you for spurring thought provoking and difficult questions.
Reminds me of Walter Martin and his “Kindom of The Cults” Book. He could rip everyone else to shreds, but wouldn’t apply that same level of critical thought to his own Christian beliefs.
Ah, a classic!
There is an interesting 3 star review of William’s book at Amazon by a Phelps Gates, with one of many interesting parts being:
“This book does not argue for the strong (and easy-to-refute) inerrantist position that the gospels are true, without errors. It makes a much weaker claim (p. 120), namely that the gospels can be “rationally trusted.” What does this mean? Williams is a little vague. Certainly the gospels contain facts which only the most extreme of skeptics deny, such as that Jesus existed and was executed around the year 30. But which things in the gospel actually happened and which did not? Williams never gives a firm answer.”
My sense is that it’s because he thinks that there can’t be any mistakes of any kind in the Bible, but he knows if he says this he will not be seen as academically respectable.
I’m loving these posts! (And as a History teacher I of course love history and hope I bring it alive for at least some of my students – no excuse for history to be boring as far as I’m concerned!).
Peter’s book doesn’t sound like one I want to own at this stage in my life but I really look forward to reading your future posts in response to it. When I was a Christian I used to read books like that a fair bit. Of course it’s been suggested that apologetics is written for people who already believe. And there’s the question of why God would need to depend on apologists anyway! Why make it so hard to believe? If Christianity’s claims are true then there ought to be abundant evidence for them – our eternal destinies are supposedly at stake, after all! Perhaps Christians think it’s some kind of test of faith. I don’t know what to do with that because it’s not compatible with my understandings of love and goodness. Nor do I see why faith in this sense would so important to a god anyway.
How do you think Peter would respond to your post here, Bart?
I don’t know — but he’s on the blog, and so maybe will!
Since it is relatively short I’d like to try reading Peter’s book, if I have the time. I’ve read an overview of each of the chapters.
I would be particularly interested in reading Bart’s responses to the points made in it.
All good points. Why aren’t they persuasive to all who read them? Hmm? I once wrote a summary of about a dozen of your trade books and enthusiastically distributed it widely hoping for feedback that would modify my understanding of the world. I was amazed at the responses I got back, even from atheists. A whole lot of anger and dogmatic certainty. Clearly, this discussion is very, very important, but I think the bottom line is that humans are an amazing species, but are not completely reasonable and rational and often make things up and then fervently believe what they have made up in order to get them through the dark times. A lot of times, with the human species, emotion is more powerful than reason. Isn’t this the underlying premise that gave birth to psychoanalysis?
Even Paul said to be a “Berean” and make sure the scriptures were true. As an evangelical Christian for 52 years who “gave it al”, learning Christian history led to my deconstruction. I understand now why I was not taught any of it in the Southern Baptist Church. I am learning that some Christians can the most flagrant liars around (not all … I know)
Dr. Ehrman,
I am glad you had a “discussion ” with Dr. Williams on this topic. As I mentioned before, the type of book he wrote were the kinds I memorized in order to refute scary schloars like yourself. But because of your rationale, demeanor, and whit, I was able to see the arguments not as a crusher of faith or hope but as a testament to truth and honesty. Keep up the good work.
How does a scholar so committed to faith become so prominent in the field? It seems counterintuitive to honest scholarship. Basically, how do you really trust that person’s commitment to scholarship?
Thanks, Jay
I suppose by evaluating his or her work. Peter’s technical studies in Syriac are top-rate, e.g.
This general topic is my obsession in recent years. Raised in the Missouri (Lutheran) Synod and ELS/WELS adjacent, I was taught Biblical infallibility and literalism, but questions overcame faith by my late teens. (I’m now in my early 40s.) Why would we think the Bible is perfect? Because it’s inspired. Why do we think it’s inspired? Because someone pretending to be Paul said so. How did that person define scripture (and since he isn’t even the apostle Paul, why should we care what he said)? He didn’t. What, specifically, does “inspired” mean anyway? (Literal truth? Truth on spiritual matters only? The best possible ideas at the time? Verbatim words from the Holy Spirit?) Questions pile on questions, and the answers seem to be questionable conclusions of faith piled upon questionable conclusions of faith.
Combining this with Dr. Ehrman’s previous post, for many religious people, it comes down to tradition, and that tradition (at least in my childhood church) was conflated with actual knowledge of reality. The leap of faith seemed a bigger and bigger leap the more I looked at it. And it also seemed like a pointless leap, a leap in the wrong direction.
It really is irrational to accept a book, any book, as absolutely true without subjecting it to the same critical evaluation you use in all other areas of life, but hard to convince believers of this. Not just fundie Christians. Mormons won’t question their book but instead trust “the burning in the breast” as they call it. Many Muslims accept the Quran as absolutely true without question. Religion has a strange and powerful effect on otherwise clear minds, although I and many others have been able to work our way out of such thought processes, so its power is not absolute.
Excellent post!
I had a chat with Peter Williams a decade ago, at a day seminar held at a conservative evangelical church in London, where two other bona fide evangelical scholars, Simon Gathercole of Cambridge University and Dirk Jongkind (Tyndale House) delivered talks. The theme was largely a popular presentation of elements of Richard Bauckham’s “Jesus & the eyewitnesses”, and a contrast of apocryphal gospels versus the canonical gospels. I asked Peter whether textual and historical analysis of the gospels was a double-edged sword (i.e. it shows there is both reliable history as well as unreliable fiction in the gospels). It was one of the early events that confirmed my view that evangelical apologists often present views in their talks to lay audience which they would not in their scholarly works, and they often deliberately omit materials and arguments inimical to the evangelical worldview, but which are widely known in academic circles. From listening to talks and chatting with evangelical apologists over the years, I have learnt they often expend a great deal of effort attacking positions which nobody is defending, in order to make the Christian/evangelical worldview appear superior in eyes of their evangelical lay audience – be in concerning evolution, morality, the Bible, other religions, cosmology. In the end, these apologists end up short changing their followers.
Near the end of my time as a Christian I began to wonder, “Why does God need ME to explain to people what the Bible means? Or any other human. We make mistakes. Couldn’t he do a far better job of explaining what the Bible means himself?”
To my simple mind, the historical approach to texts is the ONLY way to correctly understand them.
The problem too often, however, are those that posit their views of the texts as “history” and do not recognize how their own biases influence their interpretation of the text.
If a scholar has a wrong understanding of something, that confusion will often lead them to misunderstand the text they are trying to interpret. Honest scholars and historians are willing to acknowledge their errors and/or weak theories…too many so-called scholars today only will accept those texts and those archaaelogical evidence that supports their wacky theories….and they are just as bad the those that only accept their reading of the gospel.
I follow Dr. Ehrman because he is an honest, truth-seeking scholar and lecturer. How blessed we are for his work and knowledge…even if I disagree with some of his conclusions.
“Convince a man against his will, you have not convinced him still.” If one is willing to accept the mental lobotomy required to accept an inerrant Bible, then one is provided with a remarkable sense of safety and security in a land where we “are creatures much afraid in a world we have not made.” One is given a filter that screens out any historical or other evidence that would threaten this sense of eternal security. The price is very high, the loss of our very humanity, but obviously many are willing to pay it. Ironically the prophets, Jesus, and Paul all seem to have promised that security was the last thing we should expect.
It is just not enough to press like for blog entries such as this. I must include a big written THANK YOU. It is frustrating beyond belief for young kids to look up to adults who gaslight them with this exact non-sensical “logic.” All in the same breath they ascribe to themselves great critical thinking skills. The emperor is naked here, yet somehow the most honest, obvious questions asked are ignored by the bullies intent on…what? It is the motives for the attack on the questions that I would like to understand. Is it just fear?
When I read this, it made me think of the recent mini-series Chernobyl. In a historically accurate retelling of the minutes following the disaster, staff try to tell the boss the nuclear reactor core has exploded. He says that’s impossible, you’re crazy, he ridicules and threatens them, and orders them to go back down and check. They do, but obviously don’t return, overcome by radiation poisoning. More people come in to tell him the reactor exploded, that they have overwhelming evidence (chunks of insanely radioactive graphite that were part of the core are strewn on the roof). He replies, again, that such a thing is impossible and reassures himself by the fact the radiation detectors are only at 3.6 — ignoring (or unable to accept?) the fact the maximum reading for those detectors is 3.6 and radiation levels really are high enough to spread contamination across Europe.
People have an amazing ability to cling to their version of reality and shut out any other voices.
I think history and ancient books are important. They can help us understand what was going on. The Bible may give us insights into how people were evolving morally. Ancient philosophers learned and taught others and they continued to evolve. They were not claiming to be God.
Parables are not history They contain other lessons. Some people believe the Bible is God’s Word. I think there may be some good words in it and there are also stories and beliefs that are not good for us.
There is light and dark. The dark is not God’s word. The dark is probably creating sinners, inequality, and suffering.
So many are in religion and like the communities, traditions, and rituals.
We need to empower ourselves by changing our own beliefs and actions so we stop sinning. Tell ourselves the story we want each day. We don’t want to suffer. We were born equal and good. We can be kind and do good.
Speaking of four-letter words, I would not curse your enemies, The enemy we have to each overcome is sin and hating others. If we are cursing others, we are building hate.
We can learn from history and the Bible. It is better to eat healthy food. We need to be able to recognize healthy and unhealthy food.
Christians can triumph if they can learn they were born equal and good, they learned to sin and they can change for the good. You are not responsible for other people’s sins. You also don’t go to heaven because of someone else’s success. You were born a child of God. You can return to God. Best to do it while you are physically alive on earth.
When someone breaks the record for running a sprint, others soon follow. Once you know it can be done, you can do it too,
Each day we can create good or we can sin.
So I decided to join some different communities: Reform Judaism, Catholic, Christian, and Coptic.
I am reading “The Triumph of Christianity” and “Forged”. Planning to also read “Misquoting Jesus” and “Jesus Interrupted”.
Also reading Jewish texts after the Fall of the Second Temple.
Thank you for the post Dr. Ehrman. In your opinion, at what point do you think the truth may be at times damaging, if at all? I love history, and I love the truth, but I will not tell someone they look fat in an outfit if they ask me if they indeed look fat in that outfit. The truth can often hurt feelings, and I believe some people need faith because it gives them more hope and peace than if they learn the truth in all things.
I believe in a text (perhaps Enoch?) that Abraham was shown the truth by an angle on the creation of a star, and he could not handle it, and asked that he not be shown anymore because it was too much, and caused him grief. He simply learned things he was not ready to learn was the point. In truth, ignorance can be bliss to those who are simply more happy not knowing, for fear of finding something that damages a deeply held belief.
Have you ever been disposed to not tell someone something you know or believe to be true, because you feel it may cause more damage than good to that particular individual? Thanks.
Yes, sure. But then I’m no longer doing history! So what you say at any time depends completely on what you are trying to do.
Thank you for your response, and for taking the time to answer so many questions. Now get some sleep!
At some point I began to think that if the Bible is absolutely true in every way, then opening it up to critical thought would lead one back to the inerrant/infallible view. Wouldn’t it? If that’s true wouldn’t conservative evangelicals be supportive of such efforts? We understand the Bible is not and evangelicals seem to know that critical analysis won’t lead to to their conclusions. Which seems like a good explanation of why they fight against it so hard.
Circular reasoning and straw man argument – two fallacies for the price of one!
I find that the basic flaw in the Biblical literalist position is this: They want the Bible to be read as history, but they refuse to let it be evaluated as history.
Hi Bart,
I’m finishing up an historial novel that intends to show how Jesus may not have been crucified yet the story develops that he was. I focus on Paul’s letters and his travels recorded in Acts for the purpose. I think your presented idea that Jesus was crucified but was not entombed or risen on the third day could be knitted in to the same Pauline narrative. But in that case Jesus would have not been the elevated Master, rather just some typical nut who imagines he is God. For example, Jesus turns over the moneychanger tables while saying we must love our enemies (a contradiction) and the Crucifixion backs it up that there are really bad guys in the world (yet are our brothers). It is Hollywood, the good guy and bad guys.
Upon researching Paul in depth, I feel I am able to place all 14(!) of his letters in appropriate places during his travels. Acts shows Paul to be a flat figure, not changing over time, and my research indicates that this is the main reason that only six of his letters are deemed authentic by many historians. If we see Paul as changing over time then I think the letters nicely show and conform to that. I have fully six of his letters being written AFTER he is released from captivity in Rome. These are: Titus, Timothy 1 & 2, Ephesians, Philippians, and Hebrews (the latter he dictates to Luke (my book is historial FICTION) on his death bed. Just Philippians is an undisputed letter, the other five are generally the most disputed ones, I think.
I’m suggesting that historians are or may be theologically influenced but don’t realize it. Paul had to have died at end of Acts even though Acts doesn’t say that — but ends there with Paul imprisoned in Rome. And I believe it’s Thessalonians where his theology changes just slightly between letters one and two, causing historians to reject two as Pauline written. We can also look at Peter 1 and 2, which (in my book) are forged for an intended purpose. I couldn’t write such a book except as historial fiction of course. But I’m having fun with it and am learning things that I never even wanted to learn.
Thanks for this. Very well said
Yes, I do agree with Professor Ehrman’s views on Peter Williams’ approach to New Testament scholarship, as outlined above. Furthermore, I wonder how Peter manages to deal with the Bible’s clear historical inaccuracies, such as Quirinius not actually being the Roman governor of Syria at the time Jesus was born (it was a man called Varus, notorious for a later military disaster in Germany) or the fact that a world-wide census (highly unlikely in itself) could not have possibly included the Jewish subjects of Herod the Great, who was an independent client king responsible for his own internal revenue system?
Oh, trust me. He has answers!
Hi Bart, first time caller, long time reader/listener.
Is this not along the lines of the epistemological Gettier problem (justified true belief) of how we come to know what we know? Maybe there is comfort in certainty? Some persons don’t like not knowing therefore they will steer their knowledge ship straight for what they were taught to believe, and bale straw men out of their confirmation bias desires to line the road to certainty. History is not necessarily a linear progression, so I find exploring along the side tributaries to be fascinating (especially as related to how Christianity came to be). It is a shame, as you note, most students are not interested in history.
Here you are discussing history and theologically based knowledge and justification yet, personally, I sense this problem has become more pervasive in our society. Are we teaching/impressing critical thinking skills to our children or have we set this aside because over the last 50 years education focus seems to have shifted to ‘job/career’ training predominantly? Not sure, still ruminating on this, and I could be wrong,….
BTW; I really appreciate your work. Someday maybe I’ll find a place to post about my 58-year life travel from roman catholic to agnostic/atheist (Really have a difficulty with labels).
With respect to American evangelicals,T.M. Luhrmann (an anthropologist) wrote a very good book about how their faith is made “real” on a daily basis through simple devotional exercises. Her book is “When God Talks Back” (ISBN 978-0-307-27727-5) and pages 89-92 explores just this issue: Why are they indifferent to history?
Speaking more generally, religions are in the “meaning creation” business. People are buffeted by personal tragedy, anxieties about the future, social inequality, etc.. They want confidence and positive social fellowship NOW with rituals and beliefs simple enough to persuade a wide range of people. Religions offer that. And when they lose that ability, they die out fast, to be replaced by more “accessible” beliefs.
History —- the scientific kind, not the collective breast-beating stories offered in high school —- cannot offer meaning at the same level. That doesn’t make “serious history” bad or useless. It’s very important. It will always be, however, a minority taste.
History is great. There are many excellent books around these days, each dealing with some aspect of history – characters, events, discoveries, you name it. It’s hard not to walk into a good book shop and not walk out with all books in their history section, (including all books in half the other sections). Then the problem becomes reading them all. And of course, there is the problem of being able to afford all the books in the first place. 🙁
This is one of your best-written and best-argued columns among the many very fine ones of late. I particularly liked “it is not rational to anyone else.”
Hello Dr Ehrman, hope you are doing well. This is unrelated to the post but I have some questions I want to ask. I looked through the blog posts and don’t seem to find it addressed elsewhere . (Sorry if it has been discussed already, I’m typing this up on my phone)
What is your opinion of the Greek Critical Edition(s) of the New Testament? From what I’ve read the scholars seem to indicate that they are only “certain” of about 60% of the text.
And what do you make of those who say the Gospels were originally in Aramaic/Syriac? Such as the Peshitta. I find the argument compelling.
And finally, how good is the historicity/evidence for the work of the early Church Fathers? I know Philip Schaff has a 40 volume collection of their writings. But how good are the sources for (to use as example) someone like Polycarp?
1. I think the current Greek editions are just about as good as we’re ever gonna get, barring some fantastic discoveries (such as the autographs!) 2. No way, in my view, that the Gospels were written in Aramaic. Maybe I should post on that. In any event, the Peshitta is from five centuries later. 3. We have an actual letter from Polycarp, and a letter written to him, both of them authentic, an account of his martyrdom, along with a later writer (Irenaeus)who claims he studied with him So we are pretty well secure on him. For each father there is a different level of attestation.
Hi Dr Ehrman:
Do fundamentalists and secular scholars of the bible mix with each others in academic societies or groups or have each other separate academic circles. How would you describe the situation?
Yes, the Society of Biblical Literature comprises all kinds of believers and non-believers, though mainly the former. Fundamentalists would make up a small slice of the former, and they tend not to associate with the others, at least on intimately friendly terms.
Me again.
“What I mean by that is that throughout the book Peter cites arguments against the reliability of the Bible and then shows why the arguments are completely flawed. The problem is that the arguments he sets up and demolishes are not arguments that anyone (that I know of) actually *makes* about the unreliability of the Bible. They certainly are not arguments that I myself have ever made, even though I get cited throughout the book.”
But then we have exactly the same kind of problem with young earth creationists. The anti-evolution arguments they so often present don’t deal with the theory as actually presented by scientists. They deal with straw versions of the theory.
I reckon that Neil Carter (Godless in Dixie) is correct. Apologetics is not to present arguments to convince non believers, but it’s purpose is to present arguments to believers in order to impress them. To make them feel good because their faith has some really good supporting arguments.
The problem comes should a believer try to present said arguments to people on the outside, people who happen to know something.
Two quotes attributed to Voltaire come to mind-
“History is the joke the living play on the dead.”
And, “To pluck men from the realm of superstition is to do them no kindness.”
So I once asked a group of conservative Christian’s if Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus in around 35 cE, why was it hard to believe Joseph Smith met him and Yaweh in Vermont in 1820? I learned that day that I are a heathen!
Right!
I attended a church meeting a few months ago at which a leading NT scholar spoke (I had better not name her as she is fairly well known here in Britain – I have one of her books). She is a committed Christian and argued that St Peter most likely did write the books attributed to him in the NT as he must have been able to speak Greek out of economic necessity, as a Galilean fisherman. I should have queried this (but didn’t) by saying that selling fish to Greek speakers is not quite the same as writing a complex piece of prose. I can order a meal in a Parisian restaurant but would struggle to write a theological treatise in French. I do think critical thinking can suffer, even amongst scholars, when religious beliefs are allowed to encroach on academic research. Another argument I have come across frequently is that Peter could still have dictated the books attributed to him, even if he himself couldn’t write Greek.
Yikes. I think scholars need to read more than just the New Testament and scholarship written by scholars who just read the New Testament…. I think you’re completely right on this.
So, if some hack today revises the Bible in his/her own way, and five hundred years pass, it was divinely inspired, presumably because many people regard anything in antiquity (whatever constitutes antiquity) as sacred? It seems there’s a deficiency with understanding the modernity of the past. I feel there’s a romanticzed aspect to perceptions of ancient times that clouds rationale. How do apologists decide whom was divinely inspired and do they regard anyone in modern times as such?
They trust that the Spirit directed the church to know which writings were inspired, and no one since then has been inspired in the same way.
The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel is another example of a strained attempt to prove the veracity and reliability of the gospels.
I’ve often thought there was a word for the debating technique in which you destroy an argument that your opponent never made. Best I can find is “strawman”. Doesn’t really do it justice. Anyone out there have an answer?
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it.
So how does confirmation bias work? People already have preconceived ideas from the beginning and to confirm them they tend to collect evidence and remember information selectively and interpret it as a whole in a tendential manner. These biases appear particularly in important emotional issues and in established beliefs.
The term confirmation bias was coined by the English psychologist Peter Wason. He also carried out a study that finally demonstrated the phenomenon of confirmation bias.
Bart I am wondering if it is an accurate assumption to put the scholarship of Strobel and McDowell in the same category of pseudo scholarship as Williams?
No, no — not at all. Peter Williams is a bona fide very serious scholar in his intellectual work, the real deal. (For example, Greek and Syriac manuscript traditions of the New Testament). He’s a real linguist. It’s just when he gets on theological issues that he takes positions critical scholars would considerable untenable. Strobel and McDowell are not scholars in any sense of the word.
“OK, that’s fair enough if that’s your religious view. But you shouldn’t pretend it’s a scholarly view, an intellectual view, and academic view. It’s not. It’s a religious belief.”
Excellent! I think your approach, to mostly suppress bias views, is what makes your work so appealing. Apparently, Christians don’t have this luxury, because if their attempt at objectivity resulted in contradictions to “God’s Word,” they earn a one-way ticket to hell. Or worst, they find themselves unemployed.
However, some non-religious historians are approaching history the same way. They allow their political views to dictate their historical narrative. When historians allow the narrative to veer off because of their lack of self-discipline to suppress personal views, religious or political, it dramatically diminishes the academic discipline of history.
History cannot write itself, as historian Carl Becker stated: “To establish the facts is always in order, and is indeed the first order of the historian; but to suppose that the facts, once established in all their fullness, ‘will speak for themselves’ is an illusion.” Still, personal views must be acknowledged and checked.
Here’s a new article by Peter Williams discussing your work. He takes issue with several things.
https://tyndalehouse.com/magazine/read/3
It is possible that as Bart Ehrman says, Peter Williams, is “a very bright evangelical Christian and a fine scholar of ancient Semitic languages.” But he is ignorant in many other things, such as in matters of argumentation. It has serious deficiencies in the knowledge and detection of logical and argumentative fallacies (both formal and informal).
His statement in which he firmly believes “that the Bible conveys God’s Truth, in every way, so that there are no mistakes of any kind in it.”, is a copy of Norman Geisler’s famous syllogism:
P1: God cannot err
P2: The Bible is the Word of God
C: Therefore, the Bible cannot err
This syllogism is an example of a textbook of logic typical of a circus full of clowns.
There are all kinds of fallacies: Ad verecundian, Ad ignorantiam, circular reasoning …
The existence of the Judeo-Christian god is taken for granted without showing any evidence. Mr. Geisler — and Mr. Williams –states that the Bible is the Word of God because … the Bible itself says so.
But there is something more important and is prior to any historiography and any logical analysis: the hypothesis of the inerrancy of the Bible is falsifiable (according to Popper). And it has been falsified thousands of times in almost every subject it deals with.
I have finished reading Peter Williams’ “Can we trust the gospels”. Overall, it is a fine book, with some interesting arguments and information, though like so many evangelical defences of the gospels, the arguments presented fall short of the conclusion they want to draw – namely from the presence of probably reliable historical accounts in the gospels (something virtually all scholars of historical Jesus studies would acknowledge, else they won’t even bother to use the gospels as a source) to the conclusion that all four gospels in their entirety is historically reliable. Williams’ implicit message is that having established there is reliable history in the gospels, accounts and details that do not appear to conform to this pattern – apparent inconsistencies inaccuracies and contradictions – must be explained away.
As one would expect from an apologetical work, it is selective in its examination of the evidence. For example, Williams rightly point to corrobation of the gospels’ account of life and death of the Baptist by Josephus, yet totally ignored inconsistencies shown up by Josephus concerning the Baptist’s place of imprisonment, the daughter’s name, the identity of Herodias’ former husband.
There is one chapter I think would benefit from a dedicated post in this blog: chapter 4 on “undesigned coincidences”, a class of arguments recently championed by Lydia McGrew. Whilst one may dispute whether particular undesigned coincidences are genuine explanations (as opposed to contrivances) of an account in one gospel by another, I am inclined to think the method presented by McGrew should be added to the set of criteria used in historical studies to establish whether a particular gospel account originated from the historical Jesus. Yet it appears biblical scholars ignore this method. It would be useful if you post on your evaluation of some of the arguments in chapter 4.
Dr. Ehrman,
A new book just came out by John Barton of Oxford, and I’d like to know if you agree with these quotes?:
“The only ones [Books of the NT] that are really secure are the dates of Paul’s letters, which must have been written between the 40s and the 60s.”
“…in fact there is evidence that Paul and his associates were already developing a high Christology – meaning an exalted status for Jesus – within the lifetime of some people who had actually known Jesus prior to his crucifixion.”
Do you agree with both quotes? For the first, what do you think is the best reason for putting Paul’s letters in the 50s? The fact that he tells us “most are still alive” in 1 Cor. 15:6?
Yup. I wrote a very positive review of his book for the London Sunday Daily Telegraph; not sure if you can find it online or not.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you think that The Didache or The Shepherd of Hermas pre-date the writings found in the New Testament? Are there any serious challenges to the claim that what we have in the New Testament are the earliest Christian documents that we know of?
Didache, possibly; Shepherd, no. The earliest non-NT Xn document we have is 1 Clement, from teh 90s, about the time a lot of the NT books were being written.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you go with a 110 CE date for the writing of Ignatius’ 7 undisputed letters? Is there good evidence for Paul’s martyrdom in the Letter to the Ephesians which reads in chapter 12: “You are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.”
Yes, I think that’s about the right date. An earlier reference to Paul’s martyrdom is in 1 Clement.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you consider the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians along with 1 Clement, and the 7 letters of Ignatius to all be viable, tenable early Christian sources? or were some of them written too late?
They are viable tenable sources for the Christianity of their times and places, yes.
Dr. Ehrman,
Scholars seem to all agree that Paul wrote most or all of his undisputed letters in the 50s. Do you think the fact that in Gal. Peter, a man of about the same age as Jesus, is still alive, and that in 1 Cor. 15:6 Paul says that most of the 500 witnesses are “still alive” are good pieces of evidence that Paul did indeed write reasonably early? Is there another way that YOU date them? i.e. I know in several of your writings you at least have 49 CE/ 50 CE noted for 1 Thess. I understand that some rely on Acts, but many don’t think Acts is a reliable historical source.
I”m not sure how old Peter was at the time of Jesus’ ministry, and I don’t know who the 500 were or how old they might habe been. Since people could live sell into their 60s or 70s, I wouldn’t use these as reliable evidence that Paul was writing in the 50s. But it almost certainly shows he wasn’t writing in the 90s.
Dr. Ehrman,
To show definitively that Paul was writing within in Jesus’ own generation, can we cite the Gal. link between Paul and Jesus’ own brother James?
Yes indeed.