Loading...
This post is a brief hiatus to say that if you’re getting tired of all this talk about methods and the Gospel of John, let me know and I’ll go on to something else. I haven’t heard any complaints, so I’ll keep going till I do! I realize these posts may not be the sexiest things to come across the blog, but sometimes it is good to deal with lots of substance as well as / in addition to the human interest stories. I suppose we need both!
In any event, these posts have been a boon for me, because they have allowed me to continue to contribute to the blog with less of a time commitment during a period when I have been even more crazily swamped than normal.
This past week, on Spring Break, I’ve been in London, which should in theory have been a vacation! And I have seen two plays (a *terrific* rendition of Ibsen’s Ghosts, and my all-time favorite actor Simon Russell Beale in King Lear). And it’s been nice seeing lots of family. But other than that, frankly, it’s been mainly work.
Yesterday I had a two hour radio debate with Simon Gathercole on the Premier Christian radio station’s show, Unbelievable, hosted with unusual competency by Justin Brierly, on my new book – due out in 11 days, How Jesus Became God. Simon contributed to the response book How God Became Jesus. I can’t say anything about the content of the interview, since it will not air until after the books have appeared, and Simon and I have both agreed not to disclose the contents of the other’s book before the publication date. What I can say is that Simon is a very fine scholar, smart (teaches at Cambridge University), and generous. We had lots of disagreements, but a very agreeable time. It was a nice airing of views. The show will come out on April 1; I will see if I’m allowed to post it on the blog.
In any event, in preparation for that, I had to read the response book. That took some time, since I wanted to read it carefully to be sure I followed the objections – the oh so many objections – to mine. I actually don’t enjoy that part. But it had to be done.
More than that, I’ve been preparing for my Teaching Company lectures this coming week. I fly Stateside tomorrow, prepare for classeson Sunday, teach all day Monday, prepare for lectures on Tuesday, teach on Wednesday, head to the airport after class, fly to D.C., and then on Thursday and Friday I’m slated to give fourteen lectures. YIKES!!! This means, among other things, that I have to have the lectures down pat before even getting to D.C., and that’s a lot of work.
I have lots of sundry other responsibilities going on just now as well (dissertations to read; letters of recommendation to write; articles for peer reviewed journals to referee; and on and on – the life of a university professor!). So, to return to the point, I’ve been glad that I have been able to take a break from writing up a long post every day and can re-produce some of the stuff that is already out there but that the vast majority of you on the blog have never run across before.
But as I say, if you’re totally ready for me to go on to other things, let me know. After this coming week, things will, in any event, return to a greater sense of normalcy. But the blog may be spotty before then. And as always, if you have any burning questions you want me to address, do let me know. I can’t always answer everyone’s questions, for a large variety of reasons, but your questions do help drive what I talk about.
In any event, my plan is to continue with methods for studying the Gospels in relation to John, starting with my next post (on the use of redaction criticism for John – that will take two posts, both of which strike me as pretty interesting; after that I get on to something completely different, in terms of methods: the socio-historical method). Unless I hear a loud chorus urging me to stop!
This blog is great keep on ,you are very kind and helpful
Don’t wear yourself out over a blog. I read them every day, but I don’t want to kill the goose who is laying those golden eggs!
Professor Ehrman,
Thank you for this blog entry! I always think it is fascinating to see how busy university/college professors are in comparison to their students! Also, thank you for your signatures on the copies of the books that I sent you. Your work is an inspiration to me and is one of the reasons why I am pursuing graduate school to become a college professor.
Best Wishes,
Anthony
Dr. Ehrman:
Sometimes you say the most obvious, yet outlandish things. For example, “I’m afraid there’s not a method in existence that can allow you to know what someone else ‘intends.’ E.g., no one really knows what I intend by writing this reply! Maybe I intend to exercise my fingers a bit more to relieve the onset of arthritis!”
If that’s the case, then perhaps YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW!
If a writer fails to communicate with purpose, why would he or she bother to write in the first place? Authorial intention is always expressed through the words, as written and edited, whether fictional or not. I’ll bet your wife understands this and knows plenty about Will Shakespeare’s *intentions* when it comes to writing about Macbeth or Richard III. It’s part of the critics job.
From a reader’s point of view it is not particularly difficult to see what Hitler was trying to convey in Mein Kampf, or what Dr. King intended when he penned his Letter From Birmingham Jail. Is there any doubt about Thomas Jefferson’s purpose when he composed the Declaration of Independence?
Written words usually communicate multiple messages, intended and otherwise, not excluding what the authors were trying to say at the time. But there’s a big difference between “invented” protagonists like David Copperfield and marginally historic characters like Jesus or King Arthur.
So if some of us can recognize what unknown gospel writers were up to when they wrote their ancient narratives, why should we overlook their perceived intentions ? After all, billions of readers (& listeners) seem to have gotten the message loud and clear, including the most literate people on the planet at the time? And if you “subscribe to the view that WE CANNOT KNOW AUTHORIAL INTENT,” there’s no reason for the rest of us to deny or ignore what we see.
Last of all, when I read your books, or the comments on your blog, I can sense your motives – both from what you say and how you say it – even though we may not agree.
D.C. Smith
I like what you are doing and take all the time necessary to conclude.
Follow up Suggestion. A chronological presentation of the New Testament.
Example: 1st Thessalonians (generally agreed as the 1st Christian document) – same methods as you are using on the gospels.
Then the next chronological Christian document, and so on.
For me as an avid reader of your trade and academic material re-purposing things you have already written in this chronological manner would help you (no burn out) and help us see things in a rational logistic order. Also seeing the historical placement of the forged Pauline Letters and so on IMO would nail down a lot of the development of christian thought.
Finally it would be a great addition to your archives here for those of us who like to reference subjects.
Really looking forward to getting your new book – I per-ordered on Amazon.
Dr Ehrman: I can’t speak for everyone but I would like to know more about John”s gospel…..
The blog is at its best when slightly wonkish. There just aren’t that many sources for non-experts interested in real NT scholarship. Ninety-nine percent of what’s on the internet comes from a devotional standpoint which, after you’ve tasted the red meat of scholarly criticism, is pretty thin gruel.
Please keep going. This series has been very helpful, but skip a few days of blogging if needed. I could never do 14 lectures back to back on anything. You are an amazing person.
These posts are highly educational and academic. I have been very interested in every single one of them. Please, continue!
Dr. Ehrman: Where is your schedule of appearances at the Smithsonian posted? I live in the D.C. area and would love to attend as many of your lectures as possible! Thanks.
You can find ticket information here: http://smithsonianassociates.org/ticketing/tickets/reserve.aspx?performanceNumber=227684
Your posts on the Gospel of John are very enjoyable – please continue. Wishing you safe travels back to the USA and looking forward to seeing you at King’s College in June.
Take your time, Mr. Ehrman! I enjoy the ‘Unbelieveable’ radio show. Look forward to delving into your upcoming publications. Just out of curiosity, what is the position of Justin, the host of ‘Unbelieveable’? He does a great job at moderator that I’m never quite sure of his opinion. I assume that he’s something of a liberal Christian?
I believe he identifies as an evangelical Christian. He is obviously very astute and open minded.
Prof Ehrman
Please continue.
Before you leave the Gospel of John I hope you’ll discuss the problems of authorship (multiple?) and perhaps discuss the idea of a Johannine “community”.
Thanks!
Yup, will do!
Please continue!
Please stay on John’s gospel.
“This post is a brief hiatus to say that if you’re getting tired of all this talk about methods and the Gospel of John, let me know and I’ll go on to something else.”
Absolutely not. These posts are great. It’s fascinating to get behind the history and see how you do your work. Keep ’em coming.
Wow-you ARE busy. Stay healthy. Drink lots of water and wash your hands a lot, etc…
‘Don’t Stop’, as Fleetwood Mac would sing.
I find that these examples of analysis help me in my thinking about the Bible and even other issues in the world today – global warming, education reform, etc
I think these posts are great – my one regret is that I haven’t had time to reread the earlier ones and fit the whole thing together in my mind.
Someone mentioned “Son of God” – I have no intention of seeing it, but I visited Wikipedia in hopes of learning from the Synopsis how they treated the story. There was essentially no Synopsis (just said it was the life of Jesus). But I did learn it’s just stuff from that TV series “The Bible,” with some footage that didn’t air on TV (and without scenes of a “devil” who looked like President Obama!). Mostly bad reviews.
I remember I turned on the first episode of that TV series – and turned it off, in horror, when I realized they were treating the Noah’s Ark story as fact.
Personally, I have read most of your books already, so I prefer it when you post new stuff. I suspect a good deal of your readership are in a similar situation.
I don’t know how you do it, Bart! When do you sleep? When do you have time to actually sit down and eat without crumbs falling on papers you must read to grade, articles that require proofreading and editing, and the like? I’ll bet you have your showers down to a 2 minute art?!?
NO! Don’t stop! Some of it’s difficult, and my time is limited, as of late, but the wealth of knowledge and method you have offered are invaluable tools I so hope to fully absorb and utilize when at long last I’ve a moment to breathe!
PS: Does the name John Clark mean anything to you? If so, maybe we’re related.
Nope, I don’t recall anything about John Clark.
J.C. (John Clark, that is) was the Master’s Mate and Pilot of the Mayflower. It was on an island named after him that the Pilgrims celebrated their first Sabbath. Being a Quaker, though, he didn’t sign the Mayflower Compact, not that I’d know what that had to do with anything!
No matter.
Thanks for keepin’ on!
I like the more intense focus on scholarly topics, but tend not to like the excepts quoted from your introductory or popular works. So, I don’t mind the focus of several posts on a given gospel or important question, but I always want you to go deeper into the evidence and alternative scholarly hypotheses. I get tired of any focus on refuting or merely presenting alternatives to fundamentalist or evangelical interpretations. But I realize your time is extremely limited and my personal interest may not reflect the majority of the subscribers here. Looking forward to the new book!
I’m very happy to learn about the Gospel of John and how it sits with the synoptics. I’m looking forward to reading about the socio-historical method. The main reason I’m not throwing in a bunch of comments, is my awareness of how ignorant I am and my reluctance to waste your time with my blathering.
One idea I have for blog posts that might be more exciting depends on whether you’ve found time to read “The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words 1000 BC-1492 AD” by Simon Schama. I have no idea how you manage to find time for half the stuff you do.
I don’t know if Schama’s documentary series on PBS would make it worth your while holding him up to the the sort of scrutiny you gave Reza Aslan’s “Zealot.” Or is he kosher?
I’m afraid I don’t know Schama or his work.
First, I enjoy everything posted on the ‘blog.
But –speaking only for myself, of course– this kind of content/technique (or, to use your term “substance”) -rich posting is *exactly* why I subscribe.
Simply put, this is something that is not available elsewhere (at for those of us who are not in a position to be doing formal coursework in such things). And the fact that it is made available by a master in the field in so accessible a way… well, it’s more than I could have hoped for.
Is another possible literary approach for studying the gospels “spot the plagiarism”? 🙂 (see Richard Carrier’s recent talk at Purdue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MUUP4l6l4 ). On the subject of Acts, RC claims that the author of Luke-Acts ripped stuff directly from Josephus for Acts.
I’m guessing his claim is based on supporting literature and the idea not novel, but do you think that there is strong enough evidence to indicate that the author of Luke-Acts “borrowed” a reasonable number of stories from Josephus for assembling Acts? (Or should I just stop drinking scotch and watching Carrier talks promoting his upcoming book?)
No one in the ancient world would have called the use of a source for one’s own purposes “plagiarism”. Plagiarism was when you stole someone else’s words and made them your own. If you want to know more about Luke-Acts, I’d suggest reading what NT scholars have to say about it, rather than Carrier, who has no training in this field. But yes, others have noted the parallels to Josephus — of course! I’d suggest turning to Richard Pervo if you want a real expert.
Yes, Bart. Keep on keeping on! I’ve read your textbook but there’s no way I can remember all of it well. Your posts and the questions and your answers suit me well!
Please do continue. I enjoy learning *how* you arrive at your conclusions as well as reading the conclusions themselves. It seems to me the *how* of thinking about a subject is the biggest part of learning.
Please keep going the way you’ve planned! This is fascinating.
Yes, Keep on Keepin’ On with the historical methods.
Why?
1) I am learning from this topic.
2) You need a break to focus on your other work at this time.
The critiques on your new book are already coming out:
http://gregmonette.com/blog/post/how-bart-ehrman-gets-jesus-burial-wrong-part-1
I wonder how he read my book, since it’s not out yet!!
It’s on the shelves in Canada apparently.
The critique here is that you have not referenced Jewish Burial Traditions. Is that accurate?
No, it’s not. I’ve argued that they are irrelevant, since Jewish burial practices of executed criminals applied to criminals that Jews executed. Jesus wasn’t executed by Jews, but by Romans. It’s *Roman* burial practices we have to look at. I explain why in my book.
I thought the same thing. It must have hit some bookstores early where he lives. He’s (The critique writer) currently doing doctoral research on the burial of Jesus at the University of Bristol. Maybe he and a hook up with the college?
Well, however he did get the book, he takes a large swipe at Chapter 4 on the burial issue. Basically, he says you ignore all the historical “evidence” about the consistency of burials during that time period. He even suggests that you ignored one of your own colleagues’ work. He does raise some interesting questions about it, and I assume you will be having to defend the argument that Jesus may not have been buried at all. I think it is pretty integral to your book, so it would be good to defend that in a later blog? Thanks so much.
Yes, he does say that! And yes, I think he’s completely wrong! I’ll probably devote some posts to it, down the line.
Keep up the good work!