(13 votes, average: 4.77 out of 5)
Loading...I’m contemplating doing another debate for BECO (Bart Ehrman Courses Online; you can see the various courses on my website: http://www.bartehrman.com). It won’t be just like the last one, on whether historians can “prove” that Jesus was raised from the dead, since that one was, well, seven hours! (https://www.bartehrman.com/did-the-resurrection-of-jesus-really-happen-bart-ehrman-mike-licona-debate/). But if I do it, it would be on something equally interesting. While pondering doing it, I remembered that long ago on the blog I talked about the value (or lack of value) of public debates, in relation to one of the exercises I do in my undergradaute classroom. I looked it over and thought it might be good to run the thread again. Here’s the first one, on … whether there is really any point in doing them…
*************************
As most readers of the blog know, I do a good number of public debates, almost always (I’m trying to think if there is an exception!) with conservative Christians or fundamentalists who think that my views are dangerous to the good Christians of their communities and to all those non-Christians they very much want to convert. My view all along has been that my historical views are not a threat to Christian faith, but only to a particular (and particularly narrow) understanding of that faith. But most of my debate partners can’t see things that way. For them, their views are Christianity, and any other kind of Christianity is not actually Christianity.
I usually look forward to these debates in advance, but I have to say that almost every time I’m actually having one, I start jotting notes to myself, asking “Why Am I Doing This?” or “Why Do I Do This To Myself?” I often find the debates very frustrating.
I imagine my debate partners do as well. They just can’t understand why I don’t see the truth. Or rather, they think that because I’m a fallen creature who does not have faith (or am willful; or wicked; or rebellious) that I simply can’t see the truth that is staring me right in the eyes.
For my part I certainly don’t understand why they can’t see the truth staring them in the eyes, and in my weaker moments I tell myself that it’s because they are so dogmatically tied to their views for very personal, emotional, and psychological reasons that they won’t allow themselves to see what any reasonable person ought to see, whether it is about discrepancies and historical mistakes in the Bible, or about our highly unfortunate lack of early, extensive manuscripts of the New Testament, or about how there can be such intense and meaningless suffering in a world supposedly ruled by an Almighty God, or … or about any of the other things I debate.
The bigger problem, of course, is that people in the audience also are already on one side or the other before the debate, and in most instances (the vast majority of all instances) they are there in order to see their side win, and they are bound and determined that in fact their side will win and, afterward, has won. An argument one side makes can be as fallible and specious as a person can humanly conceive, but it will sound convincing to people because it is what they want to hear, and when they hear it, they are convinced, because they were convinced before they heard it.
I think one of the most frustrating things for me is that in many instances (very many instances, from what I can tell), it will be clear as day that a debater is using an argument that will be way over the heads of almost everyone in the audience – the kind of argument that takes years of training to follow and understand. The argument may be completely bogus, but the audience would have no way of knowing that, and demonstrating its fallacy would take something like an hour. But the argument is convincing to people because it is an argument being advanced by someone who is smart – smarter or at least more knowledgable than they about this topic – and the very fact that a smart person can use such an argument shows that the conclusion drawn (the one the listeners want to have drawn) is intellectually defensible, and since it is both the view they have always held, and now can be shown to be defensible, well, then, they can rest assured that they are on the side of truth!
All of this became clear to me yesterday [remember: this was many years ago now] when I did something highly unusual in my Introduction to the New Testament class. What I did is not actually unusual in the course – I do the same thing every year. But I would say that it is a highly unusual exercise. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone else ever do it, or heard of anyone doing it. The exercise is meant to show students how to engage in a public debate. The students need to know this because after spring break (which, thank the gods, is next week!) each of them will be involved in a class debate in front of their small group (20 person) recitation, arguing the affirmative or negative side of a resolution (they have to prepare well in advance for these debates: I’ll talk about them in a future post).
So students have to have some sense about *how* to engage in a debate. And that means I have to show them. The sensible way to show them is to stage a debate in the larger lecture class (there are about 140 students in the class this semester – I lecture to the larger class twice a week and then they meet with their smaller recitation for class discussion once a week). The problem is that in that context it is very hard for me to find anyone who is willing to do a debate, for example, with me. Most of my graduate student teaching assistants do not want to go toe to toe with me. So how can I model a debate? For years this is how I’ve done it: I debate myself.
It’s actually a good bit of fun. I have a resolution that I state. I then give an affirmative speech arguing for the resolution. Next I give a negative speech against the resolution. I then give a negative rebuttal of what the affirmative side said. And I end by giving an affirmative rebuttal of what the negative side said. The whole thing takes about 45 minutes.
So I debated myself in class yesterday. When I was the “affirmative team” I had on a sport jacket; when I was the “negative team” I took off the jacket and put on a cap. Two different teams.
The resolution I debated was this: “Resolved: The New Testament Book of Acts is Historically Accurate.” The affirmative side mounted arguments that Acts is accurate; the negative side argued it is not accurate. I threw myself into both sides with the best arguments I could make.
In my personal judgment, based on many years of study, I am convinced that the negative side has the better argument. But I did my best to argue the alternative perspective as well. At the end I had the students vote on which side they thought won. Just over half the class thought that the affirmative side won.
Now I know that side extremely well – I had just argued it. But I myself think it has a MUCH weaker argument. And yet over half the class was convinced by it. That made me sigh and think…..
So my plan on the blog is to show how this particular debate went by laying out the arguments made by each side (me and me) and trying to expose the weaknesses of each, in an effort to reflect on the importance of being able to argue both sides of a controversial issue and to reflect on whether debates actually do any good or not.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
One thing you don’t mention is the entertainment value of watching two people debate. From an audience member’s perspective, it is fun to listen to the arguments and counter-arguments. Yes, we do come in with our own presuppositions and are biased towards one side, but hearing both sides of an argument (from two different people) is as entertaining as it is enlightening.
Last night I watched your 2019 debate with Peter J Williams. Listening to the two of you spar did make me consider my views on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Justin Brierly was a masterful moderator and that, too, is an important element. Unlike the Presidential debates, which are basically people yelling at one another whilst the hapless moderator tries to maintain control, a civil, respectful debate is a very satisfying intellectual exercise.
If you are still frustrated with debating, have you considered gladiatorial debates? Debates to the death?
It sometimes feels like that….disabledupes{ea83305f51eed09488a7f5ac1fae1f74}disabledupes
Hi Dr. Bart,
I have heard a number of your debates. You say you are often frustrated while doing these debates. One wouldn’t notice this by your good-natured and friendly approach. I particularly enjoy your opening statements before Evangelical and Fundamentalist audiences at Christian academies.
“How many of you are fundamentalist Christians.”
“How many of you are Evangelical Christians?”
“How many of you want to see me get creamed?!” .
‘Creamed.? I haven’t heard that term in reference to a ‘beating’ since high school.
Keep up the good-natured approach.
Ha! Thanks. I tend to get less generously spirited as these debates proceed….
I am a retired 58yr old NYC Police officer who just barely graduated HS. Two years ago I decided I was going to read through the Bible in a year. What I first noticed was the three lords (LORD, Lord & lord). Then I noticed how the NT clearly distinguished Jesus from Yahweh and my intuition was telling me that Jesus was not God. I was raised a Catholic, converted to pentacostal church, then to a Baptist, then to a non denominational church, and now I don’t belong anywhere. I began my journey watching debates. I have hundreds of hours under my belt. I didn’t want to read or listen to only one side that agreed with me, I wanted both sides so that I could change my mind back to my old beliefs, but that didn’t happen. So with all that said, Yes!!! Please do another debate. I somehow missed the 7 hour resurrection debate but I will be purchasing it this week. Thank you so much for making it possible for someone like me without any college education to learn and understand the truth! I apologize in advance to the grammar police.
So you weren’t a NYC Grammar Police Officer?? Sounds like you’ve had quite the journey…disabledupes{6aac17eeec5a1f6d8140963a8409b12d}disabledupes
Dear Maggie, first of all, thank you for your service! I too, don’t belong anywhere anymore. Sometimes I attend a Unitarian church and it’s nice. I will never feel at home in a Christian Church (even the liberal ones) because I no longer believe in the Bible or hell or being “saved.” For that I am so grateful.-Gentle yoga classes are really healing and scratch my spiritual itch. Take good care.
Hi Allison, I used to watch a pastor named Sean Finnegan who is a Unitarian on youtube but I havent been able to find a church near me (Long Island) and besides I dont believe in the bible either so its pointless. Its been very lonely, its nice to know that someone shares my beliefs. Thank you!
Joann (maggie was my dog)
Professor Ehrman:
You are quite right that (oral) public debates often descend into rhetorical challenges and personality contests, with the live audience cheering for their pre-debate preference. Victory can go to the side represented by the more skilled debater with the quickest comebacks.
But what about having a public debate in writing? It could be moderated and structured (word limits for each exchange, etc.) to stay focused. It seems that this would be the most honest, thoughtful, transparent, and preservable way to deal with a topic that deserves better than Hitchens-esque barbs and Craig-esque evasions.
Thanks!
I’ve done that before too, on the blog! Maybe I’ll repost it!
Once, when debating Mike Licona who had a bad case of laryngitis, out of consideration for his condition, you offered to debate his side for him. There was no doubt you could do a much better job than he ever could!
I was disappointed he turned me down. That would have been a blast!!
When gauging which side of a debate has “won” – be it team Ehrman with a sport jacket or team Ehrman with a cap – it is necessary to take a vote of hands before and after the debate, so the change in votes can be calculated. Otherwise, the majority vote taken after the debate may largely reflect the prior views of the audience. The side with a net swing in their favour is the winner, assuming there is no intentional rigging by people in the audience who feigned support for the side they actually disagreed with, in the show of hands at start of the debate.
I am interested in hearing an example deployed by your slick debating opponents, who used arguments way over the heads of the audience who may find them sounding sophisticated, when in reality an expert knows it is weak and flawed.
Well, when they start arguing that the leading witnesses of the Alexandrian text has clear signs of conflation comparable to that of the Byzantine, I start wondering, What’s the point of even trying to translate that?
Faith being essentially an irrational commitment to some belief, the goals of the faithful in a debate is not to have a better assessment of reality, which might be a scholar’s aim, but to deflect any argument that might compromise or weaken one’s commitment.
So debates with believers seem repetitive pretty fast. But they are animated. Debates amongst scholars risk being so pointed, on the other hand, as to be of interest mainly in academic circles.
In any case, Bart, it is impossible for you to “win” a debate with believers. The criteria for a win are not shared. Believers need only to deflect an argument, all the better if they can sustain one of their own, while a scholar looks at the validity of a reasoning and the premisses it is based on to make a judgement.
This said, knowing that your colleague, professor Tabor, believes that Jesus was put in a tomb, or that it is reasonable to think so, and that you now believe that he was more probably left on his cross to decompose, I would be interested in hearing the both of you discuss your viewpoints together on this subject. (Might be short!)
Hello, I’m a Christian. I have a learned a lot from your debates and honestly, I never had any pastor within any church I attended talk about the issues in the Bible. Although I could guess why they don’t, but that’s unfair to those believe in the Bible. I’m a member of your blog and really enjoy the content therein. Thank you for all you do and please don’t stop debating.
I do not think pastors presenting historical findings would be unfair to those who believe in the bible. In fact, the unfairness is to not present historical findings which challenge what believers tend to accept without conditions. I’ve thought a lot about a person’s “authoritative source”, and for the most part I conclude that most believers’ authoritative source is the pastor who is presenting the bible – or specific sections of specific books without any historical accuracy perspective.
If people choose to believe the bible or what a pastor says about the bible, then their authoritative source can lead to belief that they would not choose if the historical accuracy were provided.
Thankyou Prof Ehrman for this post. As frustrating as they can be (like anything involving people!) I would encourage you to persist with debates – but selectively with quality propositions & opponents. Whilst your many recorded monologues & seminars have always been helpful it has been your debates over the years – certainly up to 2019, when I left Christianity behind – which had the greater influence for me. The contest of ideas certainly helps to strip away the fluff from the facts of the matter. Your comments in this post however re the psychology of debaters & audience alike are worth giving more attention, even IN a debate, but I suspect very few people (debaters or audience) are objective, honest & secure enough to really welcome this?
I’m not sure if any of us can be objective, but we can at least be open-minded, and being in a public debate is not a recipe for open-mindedness!
In my opinion, you should have been given a reed like unto a rod, and you should measure your audience which are from different nations, and those who nurish from this knowledge herein, But the audience which is outside of those who enjoy this knowledge, leave out, and measure it not in relation to the value of this blog, for it is given unto the deniers.
IMHO, debating in this forum is pointless when it comes to the historical veracity of any Christian belief. For believers, the subject matter is too personal, too intrinsic to a sense of self. Like you, I have taught debate (in my case, to high school seniors). It takes research, an examination of evidence on both sides, a willingness to listen to an opponent’s evidence, and the need for informed refutation. It also requires the ability to distance yourself enough from the subject to see evidence somewhat objectively. I don’t believe many people of faith can say, “I realize historical evidence appears to negate my beliefs, but I choose to cling to them anyway.” But we humans do things like this all the time. I may love someone who, judged my measurable observational history, is totally unworthy of my love. I may still believe that despite the latest government studies to the contrary, alien intelligent life has buzzed our planet. For better or worse, the range of human belief is a combo of rational and irrational, intellectual and emotional. Debates that pit one against the other are doomed.
After paying attention to the Book of Isaiah, 53:7 to the end, we learn that a New Jerusalem, glorious kingdom was described. Bart, was Jerusalem under Herod the Great the New Jerusalem?
If not, did the New Jerusalem ever manifest?
In the gospels, there is another glorious kingdom, this time ruled by the Son of Man.
If Isaiah’s New Jerusalem kingdom did not manifest, we should have been cautious in our faith that Jesus’ kingdom ruled by the Son of Man would manifest.
Bart,
This sounds like a fun blog topic for discussion. I suspect that demographics of debate voters can largely predict the outcomes of a closely battled debate result. Full open-mindedness is not one of our strongest human traits. Many personal beliefs cannot be shaken by strong arguments – we see that clearly today in the politicized environments and in defenses of friends and families (“my son would NEVER do such a thing!”…). Early Christianity would have had similar challenges. Paul was a strong enough debater to win his fair share of the more open-minded and debate-trained gentiles, but Peter, James, Andrew and Philip would have significant issues trying to get the traditional, less-open-minded jewish peasants to consider the possibility of a murdered messiah or a relaxation of the laws.
I am still teaching college students today and have not found today’s students to be more open-minded that those in the past. While the web has given today’s students much more access to information, skills to weight and process that information, especially information that challenges one’s assumptions, seem largely under-developed. Maybe this is a flaw in our K-12 educational priorities? I hope this blog topic will help build this skill!
Well depends on whom you’re going to debate. I’m not too keen on formal debates but I would very much enjoy you sitting across a table and discussing whether or not Luke knew Matthew or John knew Mark with Mark Goodacre. Or discussing with Robyn Faith Walsh her critiques of your positions laid out in JBTGs.
If you’re going to debate some Fundamentalist nabob try to tie them down. Be specific. Are the Pastorals forgeries? Or, Is Nicene Trinitarianism present in Philippians 2?
Of course there’s always James White! Ha!
Professor, are you sure “teams” are the right corollary? Would “tribes” perhaps fit better? Notionally, it appears that people will change “teams” easily but not tribe, such as white, Anglo Saxon, protestant evangelical/fundamentalist.
“….and the very fact that a smart person can use such an argument shows that the conclusion drawn (the one the listeners want to have drawn) is intellectually defensible….”. I have experienced this first hand. It was the spring quarter of 1973, and the Tennessee governor had just signed into law Tennessee’s Genesis Bill or “Equal Space with Adam & Eve”. The law, as you might guess, required equal time be given to teaching creationism in Tn schools.
I was in biology lecture when the department head took the podium instead of our normal lecturer. His name was Dr Gordon Hunter, and he was head of the biology department at Tn Technological University. Dr Hunter explained briefly that he was there to comply with a new state law that required equal time be given to the biblical story of creation. The sighs of relief were audible. Dr Hunter then proceeded to preach the best sermon I had ever heard, and I grew up in the Baptist church. I can testify that hearing the Adam & Eve story from an articulate academic gave it far more plausibility than all the Baptist preachers of my childhood combined.
Did he happen to present that the names for Adam and Eve are in fact cue names, meaning human and mother of respectively? The fact that these are cue names indicates the mythical basis of the story.
Also, I recently read a book about the history of bananas. The author presents historically persuasive information that the fruit of the forbidden tree was most likely a variety of banana. Translating as ‘apple’ began with the King James translators/interpreters.
I highly recommend Thomas L Thompson’s The Mythic Past for those who want to delve more deeply into the mythic nature of Genesis and the Pentateuch. Very understandable and supported by additional references.
The only reason they want to debate you is to gain attention to their own ministries etc. like James White, they scrape up some money, do the debate and then curse your name for the rest of their lives, because their plan didn’t work like they thought it would and their dream to become a pastor of some Megachurch will never came true. They hate you, because you are there competition and you’re taking away market share, the people in their audiences when they realize they have been fooled. These people are no more of a Christian than you are but rather at the other end of the same business. I think an interesting debate would be to agree to everything they say, then ask why they themselves constantly violate the sayings of the bible. Your right, it is better to debate yourself, after all isn’t that who you are really arguing or agreeing with.
Dr. Ehrman,
I look forward to seeing how your debate with yourself went.
A question: I understand you’re a New Testament Scholar but I wanted to know what your opinion is on the origin of the biblical god Yahweh? Did he first enter the picture as one of the many gods worshipped by the ancient Israelites? Also, how did he become conflated with the god El? How did he move out from his position among the gods to become the Israelites one and only god?
I appreciate your work and you’ve taught me so much! You bring a sense of excitement, knowledge and humor to your work which pulls the listener in and holds them there. I drink in the knowledge you present, always thirsty for your next presentation or audio book. Keep up the good work Bart! Thank you!
It’s a good questoin and I don’t know the answer. Similar names have been adduced from Egyptian, Syrian, Aramaean, and Ugaritic sources, but it is hard to know if any of them was influential. The name is often thought to go back in israelite (HB) sources to the 10th or 11th century. The name in Hebrew is related to the verb “To Be” (See Exodus 3). He was conflated with El, the Canaanite deity, because both were used for accounts of the Israelite god(s) and since eventually there was only God for Israel, they had to be the same.
Personally, I would be much more interested in hearing two (or several) New Testament scholars actually debate a particular issue that each of them have some interest/expertise in. I’d love to see the way real experts argue these issues in a substantive way.
I find the debates between conservative and liberal scholars to be interesting, but ultimately, each side is simply talking past the other, because they come to the debate with such different conceptions of the bible and history and how the two relate.
That’s why it would be fabulous to hear folks who come from the same general perspective debate on the specifics where they differ. That could be everything from whether a particular Pauline letter is genuine to how to understand Paul in relation to the Judaism of his day; from Jesus’ literacy (or lack thereof) to why Jesus was executed.
Yup, that kind is good too. The problem is getting an audience and having the debators not get too deep into the weeds, with complicated topics.
That’s a great idea!
Dr. Erhman
I think Your ideas of debate for your students is brilliant regardless of their Faith path later. Debating your self should help as well. If I might suggest a couple things that might help the frustration with public debate. You must continue it is important that the truth is given voice to the opposition.
1. More broader and varied topics of debate that allows for argument you might be less comfortable with but can master. Ideas: Is Religion a net positive force in the world?
2. Bigger debates where you can have a partner that is a bull dog and with more anti-theistic background.
To my thinking Christianity the historical part, learned mostly from you is fundamentally anti-human. Evangelicals are trying to force their rapture in a number of ways. It will fail obviously but, could result in the end of mankind anyway.
You say here that just over half the class thought that the affirmative side won the debate. Since you wonder if it is worthwhile doing debates because generally the audience has a fixed position from the start, do you, in fact, sound out your student audience PRIOR to the debate exercise to see which position they favour? That would, at least, give an indication as to whether you have succeeded in changing anyone’s mind.
It’s pretty easy to know which side my classes perfer going in! They have almost all been raised on traditional views.
I think these debates invariably get bogged down over whether historians can accept evidence for miracles as part of the historical process.
Mike Licona is a primary advocate of this and says that it can be done if the evidence is strong. Obviously, you say we can’t do that.
I have also heard you mention that it is up to the audience to decide on that question for themselves, which I don’t think can be done. Audiences will fall on whatever side they support in the end, so then question then becomes deciding whether Ehrman’s opinion is correct or Licona’s.
But is that really the case? Surely this is not your opinion on the matter but is about how critical scholars do their work however, I have never seen any evidence brought to bear demonstrating that this is actually how the historical process works among professional historians such that it cannot be argued against. Clearly Licona and others will continue to do apologetics and say that the evidence is good, but they will have to admit then, that they are not doing history.
Thoughts?
Yes, I agree they should simply admit they aren’t doing history. But given their views of objectivity, they can’t do that.
They should, but realistically they are not going to do that, are they?
My point was, though, it isn’t just your opinion, is it? What you are explaining, is how history should be done.
Is there nothing from the professional bodies that formally describes or lays out, how the process of history is carried out, and explicitly stating what can and can’t be part of the historical process? Obviously there will be many gray areas, but the principle should be clear. After all, this is taught at some point to students who are looking to become historians, is it not?
At least the audience will then know that apologists are not doing history irrespective of what their beliefs are, would they not?
As is true of all academic disciplines so too with history, there is no one ruling body that decide what should be done or how it should be done. And for as long as we have academic freedom and are not constrained by top-down thought police, it will always be that way. So peopel can *claim* to be doing science and still argue that the world was created 6000 years ago, or that humans emerged as a fully developed species at one point of time (rather than evolving from earlier forms of primate); and people can *claim* to be doing history while insisting that “miracles” are the most probably explanation for a past event. Real scientists and historians can exercise a lot of social pressure to tame wld claims like this, but no one can stop them as long as we live in a free society.
I’m not talking about thought police, I am asking whether there are any professional bodies or associations, within the History community, that are responsible for setting out and maintaining the standards to be used, by those involved in working in this arena, as there are with just about all other professions.
If you are saying that there are none, then how is a determination made as to who is and is not a critical scholar of history. If there is no standard, then the phrase is meaningless.
For example, would you consider NT Wright or Mike Licona to be critical scholars, and what about WL Craig, he frequent writes about history, or Reza Aslan?
What stops anyone being identified as a critical scholar of history?
No. It’s comparable to asking who is a plumber, or secretary, or counsellor. There are accepted practices, and most people adhere to them. But no one can stop you from claiming to be able to do a job and having … unusual approaches (which would be widely condemned by real experts). The self-check system for history comes in higher education. You won’t find Christian apologists using “historical” arguments for the existence of God or the resurrection in history departments at major universities, unless they are Christian schools that don’t see the problem. It’s no accident that the historians that Mike Licona quotes don’t accept his views of history. N.T. Wright is a critical scholar, but even at Oxford he was teaching theology. Craig is a Christian philosopher; his training is in theology and has taught only in theological contexts, never, say, at a major university in a philosophy department.
“There are accepted practices, and most people adhere to them.”
Ah, this is what I was asking about, thanks.
So where can a budding historian find out about these practices? How come you never mention in debates? If they are taught to new students, is there a list on them anywhere?
I talk about what historians do regularly in my debates on, say, whether Jesus was raised from the dead. The way to find out how historians do history is to read books on historiography. Just look the topic up on line, read some basic online things by reputable people (say, works sponsored by major universities) and figure out which books might be most useful for you.
“N.T. Wright is a critical scholar, but even at Oxford he was teaching theology.”
Back in 2017 you said (How Do We Know What “Most Scholars” Think?):
“Some scholars are not critical even if they say they are. They end up simply concluding – even based on a survey of all the evidence – precisely what they thought prior to conducting the investigation. They presuppose their conclusion. They may tell you they’re not doing that, but if time after time after time after time after time after time they end up arguing precisely for the view that fits their theological and ideological views, views they had prior to the investigation, views that coincide perfectly with those of the communities of faith that they belong to and serve, then there is precisely no evidence at all that they are engaged in krisis – judgement. That is, they are not being critical scholars.”
NT Wright is a former Bishop of Durham and focuses his ministry on theology spiritual help. How, by any definition, is he a critical scholar?
When he does his deep dives into interpreting Scriptural texts, he’s a very fine scholar. The fact that he is also a minister and interested in theology doesn’t make him non-critical. I learned historical criticism in my ministerial training at Princeton Theological Seminary. I now think that many of my professors were not critical *enough*, and NT Wright and I disagree on tons of things, and I often think that there are points where he is being theological instead of historical, but he still is highly adept at engaging in critical scholarship and is extremely learned in historical subjects.
“Just look the topic up on line, read some basic online things by reputable people (say, works sponsored by major universities) and figure out which books might be most useful for you.”
Yes, I have been doing that for about 10 years now and believe I understand how the historical works, the problem is that apologists will simply say that these are the opinions of those authors. My point is, because there seems to be nothing backing up your position within the historical fraternity, audiences will continue to see you as an outliers and hyper sceptic, and apologists like Licona will continue to say that they are perfectly justified in concluding that the resurrection was a historical fact. As I said, I’m surprised there is nothing formal or even informally laid down that summarises how historians ought to go about their work, as it is in many other professions. Would you not agree?
“The fact that he is also a minister and interested in theology doesn’t make him non-critical.”
How can someone who uses the historical process to support a resurrection, be a critical scholar?
Ah, right! The issue is not how many scholars say what, but which ARGUMENTS and EVIDENCE they use. For that you need to see what exactly they say and figure out which of the conflicting views are most compelling, in your judgment.
They can be a critical scholar about *other* things. Just as physicists can believe that Jesus walked on the water and then return to their research and do significant work. It’s weird, but there are lots of people like that, who separate out their religious beliefs from everything else they do.
Like Bart, I was a pretty good student debater and had a lot of fun doing it, but I’ve come to see it as a pretty awful way to present arguments, in part because of that experience, which drove home how, in an orally presented argument with a time limit, a skilled rhetor can make just about any position sound more persuasive largely independent of the merits of the case.
Apologetic debates in particular seem like a way of providing a sort of simulacrum of engagement with skeptical arguments (so one can think of oneself as a rational, open minded sort), forestalling the sort of more serious engagement with written argument that might actually destabilize a belief system.
Thank you for your post!
I have 2 questions:
1) Do you think the authors have been looking for any cues to correlate the oral stories with the prophecies of OT when they were writing them down? Or was it that the stories were forged and modified so that they fit the prophecies? What’s your view on how they got Jesus into the prophecies?
2) Can you please tell your opinion on below explanation for Jesus’ saying of the end happening within his generation?
“The Greek word translated “kingdom” can also be translated “royal splendor,” meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is—the King of heaven—which occurred in the transfiguration.
The “transfiguration” refers to the event described in the above cited passages when Jesus took Peter, James, and John to the top of the mountain, where He met with Moses and Elijah—representing the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament—and spoke with them. The disciples saw Jesus in all His glory and splendor, talking with a glorified Moses and Elijah. This is a glimpse of what will occur in Jesus’ kingdom. The disciples were dumbstruck at the sight and “fell on their faces” (Matthew 17:6).”
1. I’m not sure what you mean by “cues” or “forged.” My sense is that the authors believed Jesus was the fulfillment of Scripture and so when they thgought of his life they did so in terms of the Scriptures they believed he fulfilled and wrote their accounts to show that this was the case. 2. I don’t think the transfiguration can be what Jesus was referrig to for several reasons. One is that it is clearly not the kingdom of God “Having come in Power” (see, e.g., his descriptions of it coming in Mark 13; Matthew 24-25); Another is that after the event he still refers to the comining kingdom; and another is that it makes no sense to say “some of you standing here will not taste death before…” and then right away reveal the kindgom having come. Why say “some of you won’t die first”?? That implies a significant passage of time, not something that’s going to happen in a few minutes.
Most people will persist in their preferred beliefs as long as they lack the tools to fruitfully examine and critique beliefs. When you don’t know how to spot unreasonable beliefs, you will be subject to them. That’s why reoccurring education in critical thinking is crucial to people’s intellectual well being. A public debate may draw an audience, but that’s no gurantee that the audience is critically equipped to follow much less understand the debate..
I’m certain that these debates are frustrating. On rare occasions I can see it on your face! But I must say, they have been meaningful to me. Until a few years ago, I was a Bible literalist. I won’t go into detail, but by the time I found your debates, I was open to critical examination of my beliefs.
The debate with Mike Licona was the very first thing I had ever seen with you. I just didn’t think there was a comparison. You had really strong points, and I felt he mostly had technicalities that didn’t really refute anything you said. That got me to your YouTube channel and wow.
And then your debates with Kyle Butt and William Lane Craig quite possibly gave me two new definitions of the phrase intellectual dishonesty. I hadn’t realized before then just how much apologists do not operate the same as actual scholars.
So, they may not achieve much in real time, and the live audience may be cheering for their pre-determined winner, but as an outsider looking in, they meant a lot to me.
Hi Bart, have you ever wondered why the idea of an empty tomb is universally accepted as fact? It seems to me that the concept of the tomb stems directly from Isaiah 53, where it’s prophesied that the Messiah will be buried among the wealthy. We read about this in Matthew 27:57, with the account of Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy man, providing the tomb. It appears to me that this parallels Isaiah 53:9 and could be interpreted as a fulfilled prophecy in the Gospels. What do you think?
I think it’s so drilled into us that even those who doubt the miracle of the resurrection seem to have no problem with an event that doesn’t seem miraculous — it’s just common sense. But as you know, probably, I don’t thin, there was an empty tomb and there are others in my camp.
It seems like living in a world where these debates now are instantly accessible means they can make a difference over a long arc of time. So I would be less interested in what any particular audience concluded in the heat of the moment, and rather, how a debate might age, and the influence it could have over time. I see the Sean Carroll/WLCraig debate that way. And I’ve heard that the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate has had a lasting effect too. But as a former litigator, being steeped every day in antagonistic tasks of one form or another, I could see how it could become emotionally draining, and feel useless, and it’s one reason I ejected from that profession. Similar to heading into court, or sending in a brief, what does happen is a whole bunch of facts get laid out for the audience to consider, and one can start to sense what’s really disputed and what’s not, or who is relying on really thin evidence. There is some value to the debate/antagonistic form, rather than the mere academic, for lay people honing in on where the genuine gray areas may be.
Hello again Bart,
I enjoyed very much the talk you had with Emma Thorne. What books did you use for the critical study of OT? What authors with similar critical thinking as yourself – scholars who embrace the idea of apocalypical Jesus- , would you recommend for a whole text analysis for both OT and NT? I was amazed by what you said in that video : that the idea that the Thou shall not murder commandment was applicable to jews only (historically)
Will you ever consider writing a book taking the NT and especially the OT and analysing the most important passages verse by verse with your critical eye?
2. What are the most historically accurate informantion found in the 40-ish noncanonical Gospels? Could you make a post about this?
For a solid account of OT scholarship, I’d suggest the textbooks by John Collins (Intro to Hebrew Bible) and / or Micahel Coogan (Intro to OT) (I’m not sure if their exact names. And no, no way I’m writing a full commentary on the Bible verse by verse!
There’s almost nothing in the non-canonical Gospels that is historicall accurate not already found in the canonical texts, alas. Possibly some of hte sayings in the Gospel of Thomas, but it’s hard to know….
Dr. Ehrman, *why* do you debate?
To change minds? Grow your brand? Donate to charity? Grow your resume? Fulfill scholarly responsibilities? Offer people information you wished you could have had earlier than you did? …
Facts (like gravity, which we all experience the same way) aren’t open to interpretation. When was the last debate about gravity? The Bible, however, is so open to interpretation that there are three religions of the god of Abraham that add up to billions of people, and tens of thousands of churches/mosques/synagogues/temples/doctrines/denominations across the world. All of them thinking they’re the one that is right, as you’ve said before.
You can’t debate belief because belief can shuffle away anything that doesn’t line up with the belief, facts be darned. You said it yourself, minds are already made up and they’re looking for affirmation.
Is there any point to public debates? Depends on what your point is. Why do you debate?
Side note, I’m guessing you’ve reached orders of magnitude more people with your books and blog than debates. In fact, I’m sure of it. You’re the fundamentalist’s villain in some areas of the world, and I’m pretty sure most of them haven’t seen your debates.
I debate in hopes of putting a seed into one or three inquiring minds; possibly it will sprout and make them more open minded.
I think it would be very educational for everyone interested in biblical studies to see a professional debate about whether or not Jesus was buried in a tomb, as tradition and the New Testament gospels claim, or thrown in an open pit with other crucifixion victims and then covered by dirt. As I understand it, the latter method was used by Roman executioners to bury crucifixion victims. Bart, I think you’re the perfect person to participate in such a debate and I think the debate should be amongst two or more scholars.
You did debate Robert M. Price at one point.
Yes indeed! Still available on Youtube. I think it’s my most watched debate….
Bart;
I’ve noticed that you have denied being objective when it comes to your historical perspective. I wrote an extended review of a book by an anthropologist who did a cross-cultural and historical study of historiography and concluded that some forms of historiography are more objective than others. I attach it here. It may interest you. I find that I cannot attach the PDF here. I’ll send it to your email. Best, Ray
My view is that none of us is “objective” in the way people usually use the term. Even deciding to do a historiographic analysis is not objective since you’ve *decided* to do it and have done it with questions in mind. I WOULD say that there are some analyses, claims, findings, results, perspectives, etc. that are true and others that are false but it is not because of the objectivity of the researcher. I wold also say that it’s possible to try to hold your persepctives and views and assumptions in abeyance when engated in an analysis. And some researchers to that better than others. But at the end of the day, we’re human. And if we use non-human help, we’re the ones who designed them and have chosen to use them….
Critical thinking is dangerous, but not thinking is even more dangerous. Hannah Arendt
Prof. Bart, I have learned a lot from your vids and courses – but I became incensed with the realization that much of what is found in the 4 Gospels has been altered, redacted, or manipulated by the scribes who authored and copied these Scriptures. This made me want to throw in the towel on research into the historical Jesus. Then I took your seminar with the Biblical scholars. This helped me to think more about how difficult it must have been for these scribes to explain the very complex, dramatic and tragic life of my beloved Jesus. But I wasn’t out of the woods yet. Then I stumbled upon Rabbi Amy-Jill Levine. Rabbi AJ allows for the spiritual/mystical dimension of faith and gives clear presentations from the perspective of an orthodox, faithful Jew, who accepts Jesus as an authentic Rabbi/Prophet in both traditions.
QUESTION: Will you consider creating a video series (just you and Rabbi AJ) – to discuss your points of agreement and disagreement regarding Biblical scholarship? Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top – because I don’t care what the Bible thumpers say.
We could do, but in fact we agree on most things, as it turns out. Did you hear her talk at the online conference (New Insights into the New Testament)? She may be doing an online course for me this summer, on jesus’ parables.
Yes, the New Insights really helped my understanding of the NT.
Still would like to see you both in a discussion together.
What about if you interview her for paid members on your course website.
You have a talent for drilling down on scholars
and she has a talent for evoking compassionate answers when she’s boxed in.
Thanks for responding.
I just finished a series of visits by Mormon missionaries
and I nailed them on the teachings of the historical Jesus from a Quaker perspective.
They were just out of their teens, and I am 77 yo veteran of the war against Viet-Nam (pre-Quaker).
Felt sorry for those fellows. Hopefully I gave them some food for thought.
Rational academic inquiry (science, history, etc.) is a culture of doubt; religion is a culture of faith. (This is a rephrase of a Richard Feynman quote.) They are completely different frames. If two opposing debaters represent these opposing teams, the debate will be boring and unenlightening because they, in effect, will not be speaking the same language.
Example: Sam Harris vs. William Lane Craig. It was dismaying to see Craig win only because he scrupulously followed the debating rules and directly answered the debate questions. Harris was not prepared but merely regurgitated his usual anti-theist talking points without directly responding to the specific debate questions. A better debate featured Craig versus a guy named Ehrman, who used to be on the faith team and understands that language just as well as the language of the doubt team.
The best debates are those between debaters who belong in the same camp. I’d like to see Craig debate Peter Kreeft (who doesn’t debate) on whether apologetics taken too seriously is spiritually debilitating (as C.S. Lewis says). Or Sam Harris or Dan Brown versus Bart Ehrman on whether the Bible and religion are evil.
To say that you could represent Mike Licona in a debate with yourself is debatable. To say that you would do a better job of it than he could is debatable.
I was joking.
This is my very first post. I would like to say that I VERY much enjoy your blog and the various comments you receive on each one. This one stuck a nerve with me. I’ve been on a very long journey (60 plus years, so far) away from dogma. I’ve learned to keep my own council regarding theological/historical matters (after many bitter discussions). I study, I read and I ponder (I tend not share these efforts with other people but I’m always interested in what they have to say). The journey from dogma is a hard one.
Yup! Hang in there!
in one of the most prominent of watchman Nee’s books [lecture notes translated into English by an English missionary], watchman nee is reciting why folks are in such a hurry to catch the train in China as the elder told the underlings, that there is the next train.
this was spoken over 90years ago in China. but if it is the same as now, the subway comes every 3 minutes in Shanghai & 5 min in Hong Kong 4rmb fare for most places in China & 9hkd to reach the border from the island.
From Milbrae, the subway comes every 25minutes at $6.50. so going nowhere fast and lousy service.
I am responding to one of Dr Ehrmans’ discussions with the young mother scholar.
What’s the purpose of being in a hurry. Relax.
the church I grew up in, told us middle schoolers not to miss the bus to heaven. My fault I gave God my “1st and best fruit” & was ignored.
sorry for the rambling.
For Dr. Bart,
Now I know you have debated a number of times concerning this issue about the historical reliability of the resurrection. I don’t think I heard the seven hour long debate with Litona, but in the shorter ones I heard on You tube, I don’t recall you emphasizing the idea that the New Testament discussion of the death and resurrection of Jesus claims Old Testament scriptural justification for its authenticity. Of course this is at the very least problematic if not overall erroneous. Old testament scriptures do not talk about a seemingly weak and ineffectual messiah who must die and be resurrected. Isn’t that a great point of refutation concerning the historical reliability of the resurrection in that its origin is based on a series of false premises?
I’d say the resurrection either happened or didn’t happen independently of whether some later Christians believed it had ealrier been predicted. That is, they could be completely wrong about that, and it still could have happened.
Lucifer and God debated. The Bible seems be one big debate. What is truth? maybe both sides are wrong. Some are blinded by morality, some from ignorance. If god, angels, and Lucifer are real to it’s easy fix invite them onto the stage. Didn’t Jesus say ask and you shall receive. Humans always seem to speak for their gods while the gods are silent, maybe that’s key to just not talking about it.
If you like the sporting element of public debates, go for it & have fun! As for any practical value toward changing anyone’s mind, probably not much. People won’t take a second look at their “sincerely held beliefs” until they’re ready to, if ever. Arguing with a scripture-literalist (of any faith) is a complete waste of time, except possibly for entertainment value. Might as well take that time and use it to fry ice.