(13 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...I have three books I’d like to write and need to decide which to do first. I also have have a larger book project as well, an academic book, but that will be a different story for a different day. For now, I’ve settled on these three for a general audience. (One of them I’ve mentioned before; the other two are new ideas.) So I’m happy to hear your opinion: what do you think?
Blog members get five posts a week, all for a very low membership fee. And every bit of the money that comes in goes out to charity. So why not join? Click here for membership options
Number 2!
With 2.38 billion Christians in this world of 7.753 people, how Jesus’ words in Matthew 26:11 and John 12:8 influenced the treatment of the poor would be most interesting!
Professor Ehrman, this is one of those posts that lets us think we are on your team. That’s exhilarating!
HA! I’m glad someone’s on my team!
I vaguely remember something about one of the successes of Christianity is that it was an effective self-help society. Great topic, but any of the three …. amen
Number 3
I would imagine the source of the NT canon would be of greatest interest to most people.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Different kind of question here:
I just finished reading The Tempest, and found it pretty different to the Shakespeares that I’ve read before: a shallow romance, not much humor or tragedy and no clever reversal or reveal that leads to a satisfying resolution. The thematic content is HIGH and really interesting but I found the plot a little weak. I know that you’ve mentioned before that your wife specializes in Shakespeare. Has she written anything on the tempest that I could find out there? Does she think that Shakespeare actually wrote it?
Thank you!!
Yes, Shakespeare wrote it, and it may have depths that are less obvious to plumb. But it’s a fantastic play, and yes Sarah has written about it.
Great! Let me go Google what I can find to hopefully plumb those depths!
Thank you!
Matt 20:16 “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”
I really like the idea of the last one the most. It would be a huge aid in disassociating the notion of the bible as “lowered from heaven on a golden string” from Christianity.
The middle one would be my next choice; you could say it’s my “poor” choice.
I would read the first one, but mainly as a curiosity.
Bottom line: If you write it, I read it.
I agree with JScheller’s ranking, and also agree the Pilate book is less appealing than the other two
I love these three book topics–I’ll buy them all. 🙂
For the third one dealing with the canon of the New Testament, I hope you’ll take some time near the end to discuss how and when these books turned into “the Word of God” for Christian believers. It’s one thing to call those books “inspired” or “authoritative”–it’s another thing altogether to call them “God’s word(s).” As you know, that works its way into fundamentalist and evangelical shorthand when people say things like “As God tells us in Romans 13…” or reading a passage of scripture in church and the congregation responds, “the Word of the Lord.” I’d sure like to know when that started and how we got there.
My vote is #3 as well.
I think they are all very interesting topics but first I vote for number 3…
They’re all great, but I imagine the second one would have the greatest impact today, so I think I’ll vote for that one.
On the first, I think I’d just use the subtitle and drop the Bill-O type shock title.
On the second, isn’t it the case that the concern Jesus had for the poor would have been simply an extension of Jewish ethical culture, and not an innovation? His emphasis was a result of apocalyptic expectations, it seems, the urgency of adhering to the law in the face of a rapidly approaching divine judgement. There’s always the problem of sorting out what Jesus might actually have said, vs the theological agendas that were inserted when the gospels were written. I’d hope you would emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus. But the third book is the one I hope you will do first, since it seems to be a logical precursor to the other two.
Yes, Jesus is standing firmly in the Jewish tradition on teh question of charity.
I agree with jscheller. How the bible was “designed” would be a great handbook for us to share with our Christian friends.
The Invention of Chairity would also be a great read, as would the first one about Pilate. I, too, would read all three, but the “construction” of the bible would be a great one.
I vote for number 2.
I would be by far most interested in the third option – the story of the formation of the New Testament canon. I’m fascinated by this issue, and I also think it springs naturally from your previous work, as you noted.
For me, the issue of charity would be the next in line. I’m particularly interested by the notion that Greco-Roman philosophers weren’t particularly interested in the plight of the poor. I certainly hadn’t realized that.
Pontius Pilate is an interesting topic, but given the relatively sparse historical information we have on him, I’m not as convinced that a book-length treatment would be worthwhile. Of course the legendary materials are great, but I’m just not sure we know enough about the man himself.
All three sound great, I would read all three.
Right now my question concerns the following:
“What matters to the ethicists is that the affluent can develop bad characters because of their devotion to money, as they become increasingly materialistic and greedy.”
My question is: are we sure this is not how Jesus thought? He often sounds to me like that.
For instance, when the rich young man (he of the camel who does not fit through a needle) goes away,
Jesus does not mention all those poor children somewhere who will continue to suffer:
Jesus is sorry for the young man himself (perhaps because the man became materialistic and greedy?).
My sense is that he is sorry that the man will not be able to enter the kingdom. And yes, it is because he wants to hold on his possessions. But the issue is the kingdom rather than his personal character per se, I would say.
I have always wanted to show that having a lot of money would not ruin me as a person, but so far I have not found anyone willing and able to fund the experiment.
More on topic, I would also like the the third, if only to cover the material in a focused and organized way. Right now, much of that information exists, but in fragmentary form and dispersed.
I would be most interested in your third option.
We agree that the 3rd book should have priority. Are you the RRomanchek who worked for PPL in Allentown PA 50 years ago?
Bill Steigelmann ([email protected])
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Well I would have to go with option 3!!
(But I would also be really keen to read option two, since it deals with humanitarianism and Judaism)
Looking forward to reading anything you’ll write though!
The one I would like to read the most would be CHRIST KILLER.
The only book I’ve read specifically about Pilate was the one by Ann Wroe.
Would love to see you tackle the subject.
My second choice would be HOW DID WE GET THE NEW TESTAMENT.
You’ve covered this a lot on the blog and in various lectures, but it would be good to have the information all together in one book.
THE INVENTION OF CHARITY would be my last choice. Just doesn’t grab me like the other two. But of course I would read it.
I really like the top two book proposals too!
Hi Professor Ehrman,
Here are my three suggestions:
1. “The Man Who Killed Jesus” (personally, I wouldn’t recommend “Christ Killer” as a title, because it’s an offensive term that was often applied to Jews by anti-Semitic Christians in the past);
2. “The People Who Gave Rome its Heart: How Jewish Christians Made the Romans Start Caring about the Poor”; and
3. “Creating the Canon: Why Some Books Made it Into In the Christian Bible While Others Missed Out.”
Cheers.
I am almost halfway through your book The Triumph of Christianity.
Did the “real” Christianity as Jesus intended really triumphed?
Or do we have the bastardized version of it today?
One of my arguments is that Jesus never intended to start a new religion at all. What emerged in his wake was, in every one of its variations, quite different from anything he would have imagined.
Will there be a scholarly version of “How Jesus Became God”?
Not by me! But it’s long been a topic of serious academic discussion.
Option 2: Because it will help me understand what I BELIEVE about Christianity vs. learning interesting facts about Christianity and the Bible.
When I read Jesus Interrupted, I said yup, those are a bunch have things that have always bugged me about my Christian faith. However, I remained a Christian (a very skeptical one) in part because it was my belief that the overwhelming success of western culture was evidence that Christian faith made the most sense of the world.
It wasn’t until I read “How Jesus Became God” that midway through I realized I was, and had been, living as an agnostic for many years. I then read all of your other books to better understand how such a powerful force for good (Christianity) could come in to being without a divine mind behind it all. Your study of Christian charity would be yet another way to understand the triumph of Christianity.
My vote is for “Christ Killer”. Seems like a fascinating topic that’s been little (if at all) explored, at least for a popular audience.
I would like you to write about Paul’s Jerusalem Collection. Even his last letter to the Romans Paul says he will collect money for Jerusalem saints.
I agree with the first comment that “If you write it, I read it.” Likewise, the book on the canon would also be my first choice. It would fit very well with “Misquoting Jesus.” How did we get to the conclusion that this is “God’s Word”? Indeed, “God’s Word” might be a good title.
Well . . . I think I’d like to read any of the three. I think the Pilate book would be the most speculative because of the paucity of source material. That’s not necessarily a drawback in itself, but I somehow doubt it would draw as many readers as either of the other two.
The charity book has the most promise of being of current interest if you plan on discussing how Christianity moved away from charity in later times – such things as the prosperity gospel, f’r instance. That does take the book out of the realm of pure history and into current polemic, I admit.
The origins of the New Testament would also be a very interesting read, especially if you include, perhaps as an epilogue, Protestant (ie, Luther) problems with some of the selections.
I like the second option because it would provide a great chance to discuss Nietzsche and genealogical approaches to morality. Linking this discussion with Christianity’s relationship with capitalism would be really interesting and certainly controversial with our more conservative minded brethren.
Professor, if I could muster 1% of your dive and energy, I could solve all my problems.
I can’t wait to read all three books, but the third topic is far and away the most fascinating one. We non-scholars just tend to assume that the Bible (or at least the NT) just appeared out of nowhere one day. 99.99% of us have no idea how, when or why it came about. It seems the world needs a definitive explanation.
Nah, you’d just have 99% more of them.
Would really, really love to read the Pilate book. I’ve always found him a compelling character.
I would find the work about Pilate most interesting – if there were more evidence about him.
I vote for idea #3! I’d be fascinated to hear about the different possible NT’s that might have been and how we got to the official list of 27. A question I’d love to have answered in the book would be: Given the trend towards combining Gospel Sources into a single book (e.g., Matthew combining Mark, Q, and his own source) why didn’t Christianity settle on a single combination work such as the Diatesseron of Tatian, instead of maintaining the 4 separate Gospels? In other words, why was Q lost but the 4 separate Gospels were not in this overall trend towards combining sources into a single work?
These ideas all look great! The one on the ethics of helping the poor is initially the idea that grabs me the most. This has massive implications for how people look at the world and the origins of a set of values that for most folks is quite abstract and seldom seen as having a history. You might even get some attention from ethical philosophers in response to that book. Nietzsche’s first essay from the Genealogy of Morals is quite relevant here—one might even see it as an early formulation of your thesis (a close cousin, anyway!).
I imagine that many, if not most devout Christians of today would be rather surprised to see Pontius Pilate in heaven! There he is, over there in the bright sunshine next to Judas Iscariot.
I really like 2. St Frances, the “last Christian” understood the importance of charity, but nowadays its role in the NT is almost invariably under-estimated. But see Jonathan Cornillon’s “Tout en Commun.” There seems to be a consensus that trans-local aid for the poor was a Jew/Christian innovation (Watson, Longenecker, Kloppenborg, Massinelli). I argue that Paul organized 5 collections, not just one or two. Also, those who supported the Christians materially were given new names (Peter, Magdalene, Tabitha, Euodia, Sosthenes, Stephanas, Aristarchus, Theophilus).
Concerning 3, it is important to point out that the first century Christian writings that we have are probably not representative of what was written. The works that were suppressed or neglected and never survived may have been the mirror image of the early forgeries and orthodox corruptions. For example, lost letters of Paul may have been more explicitly supportive of women’s authority in the church.
3, then 1 or 2.
But I’d read any of those with interest.
My vote, Bart, would be for the canon formation book. My second choice would be the birth of charity.
Thanks for asking! 🙂
All three are fascinating. The second one (origins of charity) would get my first place vote because it would appeal to readers broadly interested in the foundations of Western civilization as well as readers interested primarily in religion. For those interested in Christianity, the origin of the NT canon seems the more impactful topic.
I look forward to all three being written. I’d go for number three being the first one off the presses. It’s a question that interests lots of people. I’ve read books that touch on aspects but none that was concise and thorough. It’d be great to have one.
I definitely think the last one is the most important of the three however whatever gives you the most Anticipating- Adrenalin-Bart-Excited-to-talk-about-this upcoming-book-on-YouTube-Energy is going to be the best approach because you’ll do your best work with what you are curious about and will dig into, critically grinding over every detail, not whats a priority for scholarship or the public.
Number two would be interesting, as would any well-informed reviews (including dissenting ones). It would make the biggest splash, but it would also make you a lot of new enemies (c.f. _Did Jesus Exist_).
I dare you to call it “Does Christian Charity Exist?” . . . but failing that . . . “Christianity: A Charitable History” . . . “The Christian Revolution in Charity” . . . “How Christians Changed Charity” . . . “Christian Charity: Credit for Change” . . . “How Christian Charity Came to Be” . . . or plain old “The History of Christian Charity”.
Adding to the list of title suggestions, possibly “For Love of the Poor: Charity in Early Christianity”
The character of Pilate is interesting, and his development as an increasingly fictional persona touches on matters of some moment in the history of Christianity, such as antisemitism, but the other options deal with matters of deep and continuing importance. There are many studies on the formation of the canon, though one that was authored by you would be a valuable addition, but the concern over poverty that Christianity introduced to the world seems to me to be a topic both neglected and timely, as the worship of Mammon in Christ’s name has been enjoying its biggest revival since the Middle Ages here in the USA. Many modern historical developments, such as Abolitionism or the rise and fall of Marxism (which, like Islam, could be considered to some extent a development of Christianity)–though they are no doubt outside the scope of your projected book–would seem an outgrowth of this.
All three sound great but my choice would be the third book
3, 2, 1 would be my choice of order, Bart. But as jscheller stated, you write it, I read it!
Your third proposal would be travelling fairly well-trodden ground, especially in the recent publications from Gallagher and Meade. But if you are confident you can address some (or all) of the questions you raised; then it should be well worth the effort. I would be particularly keen to understand how (and when, and by whom) the Apocalypse of Peter was determined as being outside the list of ‘recognised’ books, while the Apocalypse of John came to be included. Similarly for Hermas; both books appear to have been accepted as scripture by Clement of Alexandria, and to be included in the fourth century project to translate all the Greek texts of scripture into Ethiopic; only to drop out of the Ethiopic canon around a century later. Would you be exploring the Ethiopic evidence?
Otherwise, I would be more interested in your second proposal; the introduction into Classical ethics of Judewish principles of active support for the poor and destitute. Especially in tracing the how Cynic ideas may have been picked up – and radically transformed – into Christian thinking, alongside the social agenda of the Hebrew prophets.
Yup, very well trod, at least in teh scholarly literature. My first PhD seminar was with Bruce Metzger, and it was on the canon. We spent virtually the entire time translating canon lists, starting with the Muratorian fragment. That of course is the focus of Gallagher and Meade, but it won’t be mine — I’m far more interested in the ckinds of controversies over this or that book. As to the Apocalypse of Peter, I ahve a chapter on just that question in my recent book Journeys to Heaven and Hell (where I ask why it was eventually excluded but 2 Peter included, when i the first three centuries you would have expected teh precise opposite. I’m also planning on doing an academic book on the topic, a very different kind of treatment from Metzger’s (whose sheer amount of *knowledge* no one could match).
Fascinating Bart; and I am looking forward to your academic study.
As you say, the Gallagher and Meade studies concentrate on a detailed presentation of the canon list texts; and of supporting patristic citations. They do not discuss much how (and by whom) a particular text may have come to be regarded as included or excluded among the recognised New Testament books.
One thing they do seek to discuss and document, is the emergence of ‘collections’ within the New Testament books ; as ‘four gospels’, ‘fourteen letters of Paul’, ‘seven catholic letters’. Our earliest surviving text for 1 and 2 Peter (papyrus 72 of late 3rd/ early 4th century), is not such a collection; but for Eusebius (mid-4th century), it does seem that these seven letters were commonly presented together – even though at this stage it remained disputed as to which of that collection should be recognised as scriptural. If so, then 2 Peter may have got into the New Testament on the coat-tails of the rest of the catholic epistles (even though it seems infrequently to have been cited or read).
Whereas, there does not appear ever to have been an ‘apocalypse collection’.
Yeah, right, that’s a long story. In the Syriac there never were 7 of them (the Peshitta left out the “minor” epistles). P72 WAS definitely a collection. That’s one of the things that makes it so interesting — it wasn’t a collectdion that anyone wold have expected. I’d love to know what the scribe thought about the books he included; my guess is that he wasn’t thinking in terms of canon at all. They are certainly together by the time of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. But I don’t think there was ever a definitive “moment” or “event” when it happened.
Indeed Bart, Papyrus 72 has been assembled into a collection, with the letters of Peter together with Jude, Nativity of Mary, correspondence of Paul and Corinthians, Odes of Solomon, Melito ‘On Passover’, and a liturgical hymn; but the texts it contains for 1 and 2 Peter were originally separate – according to Brent Nongbri.:
” … it would seem that P.Bodm. VIII had a previous life, in which it preceded another work that was later removed when P.Bodm. VIII became part of the ‘Miscellaneous’ or ‘Composite’ codex”.
So the four leaves on which two texts are written originally stood together at the start of a manuscipt; and not (as now reconstructed) at the end of P72.
Which work they did originally precede, we cannot now say; Brent Nongbri considers that the original form of this dismantled manuscript might have been a ternion quire; so the omitted text would have been two leaves long. Certainly not a set of the seven catholic epistles.
I’d say definitely book 2. As you’ve stated in the past, before Christianity there were no schools, orphanages, shelters for single mothers / victims of violence etc. I’m not a practicing Christian, and I find plenty of things wrong with contemporary Christianity, but there’s no doubt in my mind those early Christians were on to something truly great.
Go for book 2 Bart. Apart from possibly silencing the haters who you think you mostly spend your time dumping on Christianity, such a book could be part of a call to arms that we all need. And there’s no better time than now IMO.
Of course, one better than all that would be to promote an activist, agitator-type Christianity that speaks truth to power and attacks the forces that create poverty, injustice etc. in the first place, but that’s well beyond this current topic.
Out of the three options, I would love book no.3, because I can already see it as an instant classic. Your clarity is just what is needed for the intricacies of the subject, and your humor will instill a kind of masterpiece element into the endeavor.
But, on a more personal level, a book I would really cherish from you would be a kind of cross-examination of Nietzsche’s critique on Christian moral values. In broad strokes, Nietzsche believed that Christian morality is based on resentment; given the historical context, whatever the Romans held in high esteem (pride, vigor, sexuality etc), it was frowned upon or even condemned in Christianity – most notable, this world. I don’t know if you have read “The Antichrist” or “Genealogy of morals”, the two main books where Nietzsche expands on these issues, but, with your vast knowledge of early Christianity, this would be a totally kick-ass read!
Yes, Dr Ehrman—CHRIST KILLER / Pontius Pilate in History and Legend! In my mind it’s BECAUSE Anti-Semitism remains to this day that a powerful title like that is necessary to grab the attention of the vast number of people who still believe Jews killed Jesus! Education changes minds! I think it’s fascinating why the gospels seem to exonerate Pilate and I don’t think general population knows anything about that.
I would love to read a book from you about the history of charity (and lack there of) through history. “CHARITY Christ’s Creation?” (?) In a time such as today, where political camps appear to be focused on different things (It may be over simplification but it seems to be the individual vs. the greater good). I think that book would be very timely and impactful.
Lastly, a book about how we got the New Testament? YES! Again, SO NEEDED. Generally people just don’t have any idea! Education, education, education! “The New Testament/ The Greatest BookS Ever Bound” (?)
Anyway, I say Yes, Yes, Yes to all three…please!“
“Build it and they will (surely) come.” Ha-ha.
.
They all sound great but the one on Pilate sounds most interesting. I don’t like the title because of the hate the term evoked toward Jews. The second one on the development of caring for the needy sounds really good and I wish the great work from today’s Christians were more the focus rather than the narrative about evangelicals and today’s politics. Of course the third will be good but it sounds like a lot of the ground has already been covered. But I will definitely buy all three!
Christ killer would definitely be my first choice. May I suggest a 4th topic? Jesus and women? In a very patriarcal society, some women were key figures of the gospels and in some Paul’s Letters. Perhaps one reason of early christianity success is not only giving voice to poors but also to women.
Anyway, even if you decide to write a coking book I will probably buy it!
I assume the book on Pilate would be a rather short one (like slightly more than 200 pages)? The third one is also great, while the second sounds a bit academic (which is not a bad thing of course). Anyway, if any of these gets published I will definitely give it a go.
And I would like to ask an off-topic question here: to what extent do we know about the ‘historical apostles’? I think we have more records for the more famous ones like Peter. But for the other more obscure ones, do we know anything they (possibly) did or even their existence?
We don’t know much about them at all. I deal with what we can know about three of them in my book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene (who, in the early church, was called “the apostle to the apostles,” since she’s the one who first told the others about the resurrection). We have some information on John, less on James, and almost nothing on anyone else. For some of them, though (Thomas, Andrew, John, Peter, Paul) we have fairly extensive legendary materials.
The man behind the myth – Pilate! Would be interesting but not consequential.
A major gift of the Jewish faith to Western Civ – recognizing charity as a virtue! How often does something like that happen? I think this book might have the most impact of the three.
The Canon – how the sausage was made – what a concept! I think not as earth shaking as the birth of charity but certainly a great perspective on the creation of the New Testament.
I’d like to read about the historic creation of the canon.
I vote for #2.
Wow, I want to read all these books.
2 and 3 seem the most appealing to me though.
Book 2, please. Beyond charity and wealth, I hope to read more generally your take on how Christianity influenced Roman views on dominance and power (if it did), and how that understanding may have changed the couse of history (alternatively, maybe it didn’t. Maybe the more aggressive strand of Christianity won out).
I’ve found that in 2K years of being overlain by cultural accumulations (some beautiful indeed but..) we sometimes lose the Jewishness at the heart of Jesus’ ministry. So I’m for the poverty one, perhaps partnering with a 1st century Palestine Judaism scholar. “From Jerusalem to Rome, the beginning of Jewish ideas infiltrating Europe via early Christianity”. Well, that’s not a good title but you get my drift.
That would be #1, but the history of the formation of the Canon would be good also. Especially focused on the ones left out and why, as well as the arguments about the ones which ended up in, if indeed there were ones now in that were debated. Also of course how that relates to the Hebrew Bible and is the OT as copied in current Christian Bibles the same. Why are Catholic and Protestant bibles different? As someone above suggested. I realize that’s out of your natural historic habitat but it would complete the picture.
Personally, i vote for “How did we get the New Testament?” since it seems that there are many, many questions about that and a lot of confusion. I think I have a good idea about how in general, but I’d really like to read a definitive explanation and history.
I’d definitely be most interested in a full-length treatment of the New Testament’s canonization– the chapter in Lost Christianities offered a brief but tantalizing look, and I’d love to learn more about why certain books were included or excluded, and which subset of early Christians were proponents of doing so. A book on Christian charity would also be interesting; I’d be curious to see the parallels/contrasts with the role of zakat in Islam. And like others have said, #1 is a fascinating and important question, but I’d wonder if Pilate himself could be the subject of a full book or if the book would be on the broader premise of Christ’s arrest and execution, with a focus on Pilate.
Speaking of which, I have a somewhat basic question on that subject that’s always bugged me a little. My understanding has been that, most likely, the Romans arrested Jesus because they’d been told he was claiming kingship over Israel. But it’s also been said that the guards who arrested him were probably Temple guards, and it’s been speculated that he was arrested by the Jewish authorities for predicting the fall of the Temple. Could you talk a bit about these various notions?
Most reconstructions accept both views: the Jewish leaders had heard that Jesus was making claims for himself to be the future king; they sent their own guards out to arrest him; they then turned him over to the Roman authorities for punishment.
In the past you’ve mentioned a desire to write a book about Christian anti-Semitism. Alas, this seems more relevant than ever. I don’t think there has ever been a year since such sad statistics have been kept where incidents of anti-Jewish prejudice did not exceed incidents against other targeted groups. Not only the Christian right but even parts of our secular left let their often justified criticism of Israeli foreign policy slip over into something darker. And there are strains of Islamic thought which are deeply anti-Semitic. You said you received pushback from your publishers. Controversial? Sure, but from a publishing point of view doesn’t that sell books?
Of course it’s easy for me to counsel you to be brave but this seems like something that needs to be said by someone in the position to say it. Maybe down the road perhaps?
It wasn’t that they thought it was controversial; it was that they didn’t think it would be a big seller. In fact one of them made the interesting point that Jews already know all that and Christians dob’t want to read about it!
I think all three sound interesting, but I’d vote for #3 to be first. I think I’d go for #2 second. The formation of the canon is important, especially for people to see that it was not something decreed by God, but a matter of Christian leaders (i.e., bishops!) discussing and arguing about for a long time before they settled on what we now have. Also good would be for more people to know about the writings that we not included and why. I also think that understanding how Christian values changed the outlook to the poor/disadvantaged would be good. That is something very new and interesting, at least to me. I am less interested in the stories Christians made up about Pilate, although I’d love to know more about the real 1st century man! FWIW.
#3
We have seen many other books on the other two topics, but nothing worthy has been done on 3 and that book could be a lynchpin in hastening of the migration away from literalism.
A whole book on Pilate? Given the paucity of information about him, I would think a New Yorker-length article might cover it. I would like to see the book on the creation of the NT, especially with all the misconceptions that we hear about it, including the canard that the issue was decided at the Council of Nicea – a falsity that I even heard from our priests in Catholic school.
From your priests? Unbelievable!
Over the years I have found picking “next” projects to be difficult. In this case you need to ask yourself a question. If you learned, god forbid, that you’ve only got 1 year left to live, which book would you write?
However, if you are looking at the revenue associated with each or on the speaking circuit then I’d say The collecting and “publishing” the books in the bible. Perhaps multiple bibles as there are differences.
Personally, I’d like to read about Pilate and the Roman administrative structure and operation.
(The poor and charity strikes me as your passion project and is the one to be written if not next, at some point.)
Thinking about Christian charity lead my mind in another direction for a book. I think you’d do a fabulous job of exposing the lack of charity by early Christians by way of removing the female contributions made in the early Christian movement and replacing them with a male voice and image. It appears that when Jesus lived, his movement was quite equal in the sexes, certainly when it came to funding. That equality diminished over time until became secondary and subservient. Why do we have nuns?
Is there a book in that direction? You could entitle it: The Christian Enslavement of Women.
Oh yes, there’s a lot of writing about that, both popular and scholarly. I’ve dealt with it in various ones of my books — including my New Testament textbook!
#3 for me
For me, #3 would be my first choice with #2 coming in as second. #1 doesn’t interest me, seems that #2 and #3 would have a more positive impact on the understanding of us lay folks regarding Christianity. Looking forward to 3 and 2 but Pilate just doesn’t interest me.
Thanks!
I could care less about who pilate was… Seems the Romans could have cared less as well. Unless Pilot was the only person who would have killed Jesus, there is nothing really unique to know about him. Seems he was one of many who would have done such… Never had an interest in him..
Floods of information about cannoization availible if one does any searching on the roman emperors following Constantine.. Such book would be for only those too lazy and non interested enough to do such research…
Charity is the most “overlooked” and politicized subject with polar differences in theology. You have one side proclaiming 2 Thessalonians 3:10 viewing charity is earned by one through working (gospel of wealth) that God gives to the individual vs the actual teachings of Jesus specifically the parable of Sheep and Goat which stems from Jewish tradition and Torah that one bestows to their neighbor in need.
So your choice is whether you want to cash in on either 1 or 3 or stir up a hornets nest with number 2
I vote for number 2 as nobody has had the guts to really write about it.
I like the idea of #3.
They’re all great ideas.
I think number three most needs to be written.
How we got the NT is so fundamental to any discussion that it needs to be clearly enunciated.
A lot of people will realise that they are operating on assumptions. That ‘the church’ knows what these assumptions are and is very happy allowing them to persist.
If people want to appeal to this collection of ancient documents as the basis of how we organise society and make laws it’s essential that the truth of its origins are clear.
1. #3
2. #2
3. #1
#2 – We are living in a period of great wealth formation, aggregation and concentration and ppl of all strata of wealth, income and the three Abrahamic Faiths struggle with our relationship to money and material goods, how to raise children to be committed to helping others of great need and what GOD requires of uses it pertains to wealth and income. Many of the leading philanthropies (Rockefeller, Rosenwald, Ford, Carnegie, Russell Sage) literally transformed aspects of our society. However, with a handful of notable exceptions (Gates, Buffett) and despite “The Giving Pledge,” many of today’s wealthiest have yet to develop transformative philanthropic programs matching that of their predecessors. At a Penn Law lecture 3 years ago, a visiting Israeli Prof asserted there is no evidence whatsoever the Hebrew scripture’s injunctions about Jubilee’s returning of land, setting ppl “free,” etc. were anything more than hortatory; I don’t remember what he said about gleaning and other practices related to providing for the poor and those in need. Your recent discussion with Glen Scrivener and Tom Holland’s recent book touch on this area.
Per your first proposed book about Pilate, I wonder whether and, if so, how much of Pilate’s record and response to the Jesus movement was influenced by Hebrew/Roman experiences during the rule of Herod the Great/progeny and the brief period of “independence” during the Hasmonean dynasty in at least Judea and, perhaps, parts of what had been the Northern Kingdom.
Wow. So hard to choose. I would rank theme thusly: 3,1,2.
I vote for book #1 because, to my amateur gospel reading eyes, I don’t see how the case can be made that Pilate was given a pass by any of the writers of the NT. If Mark was harsh on Pilate but John wasn’t, then that would be another story. But John is not soft on Pilate, and moreover, this is the gospel that most explicitly chronicles the suffering that Pilate meted out to Jesus. As far as anti-Jewish, or more precisely anti certain Jewish leaders’ sentiment in the gospels, it’s clearly evident. But it’s all coming from the lips of Jesus. If the gospels or the oral tradition on which they were founded was deliberately concocted to be anti Jewish, it would mean that the bulk of Jesus’ messages were fiction.
1. Pilate was not well documented and as a result I feel those that have an interest in him pretty much know all we can know from those limited sources. So thumbs down on that one. 2. The age old issue of wealth disparity, which continues well into our present time. The Churches vastly improved the giving however the Churches were not without their own agendas. I remember during our time in a Baptist church, my wife volunteered to help the food pantry. She was lectured by one of the senior ladies to only give food to ‘saved’ people. Kinda like Jesus himself would say? I would have a slight interest in a book on this subject but not much above that. 3. Yes this has my vote and for what it matters, my full endorsement. The world both xtians and non believers needs a well researched well written book on this subject complete with extensive references and footnotes. I have strong confidence that Bart can produce such a work. Ill be first in line to buy this book.
I’m drawn more to the third proposed book, the one about the formation of the Bible. There is material out there about it but maybe not all in one place covered thoroughly, like you would.
“In the Greco-Roman world, there was no social concern to help the poor…”
What???!!!
This topic would be tremendous help in politics! ….how can we be a “Christian nation” when we argue against one of Jesus’ major innovations?
Plus — it surely fits the purpose behind this blog!!!!!!!!!
Second choice, the canon — I’ve heard some pretty goofy descriptions at church, and an authoritative study would be super welcome.
Thank you so much for ALL your amazing work and generosity.
Hi Dr Ehrman
I would vote for option 3 as first book,”How did we get the New Testament “.There are still many points that are not clear to us .You did discuss the subject in few of your books , but would love to have a book dedicated to that topic.
Thank you
My vote is for the 3rd option.
I wish you would write a book just on the requirements for salvation. Many Christians threaten those who aren’t saved with eternal torment in Hell and talk about “The Simple Plan of Salvation” yet there seems to be no such plan in the Bible. Instead, there are debates about faith verses works, the role of belief, the role of baptism, the so-called age of accountability, a vague unpardonable sin, the salvation of those who never heard, and the once-saved-always-saved debate. Jesus himself, in his story about separating the sheep from the goats, gives a plan of salvation by works, with no mention of grace, faith, belief, repentance, or baptism. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to have eternal life, that was a golden opportunity for God in his revelation to humanity to tell us all what we must do. Is it “sell all you have and follow me”? And what does “follow me” mean? Sorry, but this issue irks me, given the hot consequences for getting it wrong.
Yup, that’ll be part of what I discuss.
Would love to read all three. The one on how the cannon was formed would be most eye opening to me.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
What do you think about Aldo Schiavone’s book
“Pontius Pilate: Deciphering a Memory”?
Thanks
I haven’t read it, I’m sorry to say.
I would vote for #3 first. The reason is that it is most foundational to what we understand to be Christianity today. I would then look at Pilate and the rise of Anti-semitism that still lives on today. I think there is a bigger picture that flows out of how Jews were depicted, and the changes that occurred when Rome became Christian. Then deal with Charity and the political fall of compassion in modern America.
I like the third book on the evolution of the New Testament. Here’s a title… “The book God didn’t write”
Your description of No, 2 made me recall a question I’ve often wondered about. Among all the great writers and philosophers of the ancient Greek, ancient Roman and early Christian era, why is it not one was an Abolitionist. There seemed to be a complete social blind spot regarding the questionable morality of owning another human being.
As you write this book I think you will need to deal with the fact that poverty was so ubiquitous that the thought of doing something about it didn’t occur to the Ancients. It’s to the credit of the Hebrews that they were able to see what others among the Ancients failed to see.
In a related manner, I think the prevalence of slavery made it impossible for writers at the time to think of an economic system without slavery. Slavery was just another form of employment, and it could be argued that slaves were in a better position than beggars on the street. At least slaves had somebody who was responsible to keep them fed.
So if Christians were so virtuous regarding concern for the poor, why did it take them so long to see the evils of slavery?
It’s one of the most surprising things about history, for those of us who study it: social situations that strike us today as OBVIOUSLY wrong and problematic simply did not strike peole in other times and places that way. What they took as obviously NON-problematic is just as obviously hugely PROBLEMATIC for us. We can see it in our own times too. Just think about what was thought to be “normal” behavior between, say, men and women in an office in the 1950s’; or women undergraduates and their male professors in the 1960s; or gay marriage in the same time. Not to mention views of Jews among German Xns in teh 1910s. And so on and on and on. We always feel superior because of our views, but the reality is that in about 50 years people will be talking about us as if we were ethical MORONS for things we don’t even think about. And teh scary theing is that we don’t know what those things are.
My option as a member of the blog with a fundamentalist background: #3
My husband’s option as a non member of the blog and with a very different Christian upbringing: #1
Possible title: Was Pontius Pilate BORN to….
Kill Jesus? Put Jesus on the Cross? CONDEMN Jesus?
Might be an intriguing title.
Actually, the determinism vs. free will debate made me think of “BORN to” as a title.
I think you’ve already done a lot of work on the New Testament Canon. Isn’t there a Great Courses class, too? And I think a book on Pontius Pilate would be somewhat thin. I would much rather hear something on charity. With so much anti-Christian rhetoric flying through the airways, it would be nice to see some of the good, massive good, Christianity has done in the world.
I would vote for the first and second, but in reverse order. I’ve always been interested in the third topic/Canon, but this is becoming less acute the older I get.
I wonder how clear a line it is possible to draw regarding how well Christianity has fulfilled this idea of charity even if they promoted it. Throughout history, the poor seem to give/work to make the rich even more prosperous. The Christian “church” has seemed to follow this approach convincing congregants to give money which has at times been excessively used to build numerous and huge churches, etc. which doesn’t match a focus on caring for the poor. They could have used their money more effectively:-)
Do the Canon. Pilate is sort of a dead end: Once his exoneration is set in motion, there’s really nothing to do but follow it as it gets worse and worse, or more and more morbidly comical. Charity might be interesting if you can bring out the church’s approval of a certain kind of conservative charity with its dismissal of radical charity –giving everything away to the poor– once Christianity was empowered. But the Canon is a winner: Religious disagreements mixed with religious politics (worse than academic politics!).
My favorite book idea of yours that you mentioned a few years ago, but which your publisher was not so keen on, is how Christians created the Old Testament, essentially appropriating the Jewish scriptures and changing their meaning to focus on Jesus not only as the Jewish Messiah but even as essentially equal to Yahweh as a member of the new-fangled Trinity. That too would have been a fantastic book. Is that idea ow dead?
It is still awaiting its resurrection. And a day is as a thousand years…
since Jesus was on earth for 35 years, what is that in divinity time: 35/2020.
or according to the Hebrew calendar Divinity is on its 6th day.
5782
The current (2021/2022) Hebrew year is 5782. wikipedia
Dear Dr. Ehrman:
I have been an avid reader of your books written for a general audience, since reading “Lost Christianites” in 2002. I now feel ready to tackle your next academic book. What shall it be called, and when do you anticipate publishing it?
As for your next book for a general audience, I am interested in something the drills down much further on the many forms of Christianity that existed through the end of the Fifth Century.
Respectfully,
Jim Metz
My most recent one just came out a few weeks ago, Journeys to Heaven and Hell: Tours of the Afterlife in teh Early Christian Tradition. You might want to check it out!
I would opt for no. 3 as the NT is such a fundamental part of western thought and philosophy for the last 2000 years. It would be interesting to know the current state of scholarship regarding its creation.
I’d really enjoy the Pilate book, coming from a background of studying ancient history foremost. Pilate is a difficult and often neglected figure, yet every Sunday millions and millions of people say his name. Besides, it’s always fascinating to go into those bits of ancient Palestinian history that didn’t have to do with a certain apocalyptic prophet, which a book on Pilate would certainly let you do.
Number 3 sounds like it could be interesting but more than the others – it really seems to need some shepherding to make it a compelling topic. Pilate has a pretty obvious approach for a book, while you seem to already have a thesis about Christianity and charity. What is the shape of the work about the canon? What would your elevator pitch to a skeptical reader be? (I’m sure you have one; I just would like to hear it.)
They’re all interesting topics but my vote is #3–how we came to have these 27 books and not others. Particularly interesting would be finding out about the books that barely made it in (the ones that were most contentious) and the ones that almost got in!
My second vote is for #2–the history of charitable giving in Christianity. Finding out how these ideas developed in early Judaism would be fascinating. You mention that in the Greco-Roman world, giving to the poor wasn’t a going concern. Did this idea begin in Judaism or were there lesser-known religions or political groups doing the same thing as well?
Thank you for asking! #3 is the most fascinating of all three topics, so please start with that one!
All the ideas are good, but I prefer #3. I have followed you so long, I don’t remember how I started – over 20 years ago – but how and why the New Testament was formed is a lively and important question!!!
#3 definitely! Reason: So much misinformation exists. Also, due the increased reference to christian belief in U.S. politics, I think the reality of how the NT was formed would be very helpful. I like to reference my former college religious studies professor Dr. Robert Gundry’s book “Survey of the New Testament” in which he states ‘anyone who believes the bible is the infallible word of God must believe that God guided its development.’ A close paraphrase.
Consequently, this would present what I term the ‘culmination fallacy’ or ‘telic fallacy’. If the NT was guided by God to its present form, what was its state during previous iterations to those populations/readers? It had to be less than infallible because it was not complete.
A book that presents the human hand would be most valuable and helpful.
I was hoping for the book on Revelation you mentioned previously. Also think there needs to be a compendium/glossary of all your research, maybe on line. People, places, timelines, events – You have written about so many things and an Ehrman Guide would be welcome…
I was hoping for the book on Revelation you mentioned previously. Also think there needs to be a compendium/glossary of all your research, maybe on line. People, places, timelines, events – You have written about so many things and an Ehrman Guide would be welcome…
Ah, that one is done! It will be out in spring 2023, gods willing.
I raise my hand for the Pilate one. What and interesting ride that character has had.
sort of like when writers sometimes write Socrates for the actual person and “Socrates” for Plato’s character, but with many more editions.
I have definitely read somewhere that occasionally governors and prefects of provinces were, after their terms, tried by the Roman Senate for things like mistreatment of roman citizens, or even excessive rapine (of the local economy).
And sometimes I THINK I remember that there is some hint Pilate may have faced such a trial, although if this wisp of a memory serves, it was for another post-magisterial provincial role than prefect of Judea. could be a false memory, or something invented by an apologist somewhere or something like that.
I seem to be in the minority, but I would go for first option. Many years ago I read Ann Wroe’s book on Pilate which was originally subtitled “An Invented Man”, and dealt largely with the myths and legends about him. Wroe’s subtitle indicated that we know next to nothing about him which makes him all the more suitable for myth making.
I teach Classics in Scotland and have on more than one occasion been asked if it is true that Pilate was born in Scotland, specifically in the Perthshire village of Fortingall, which boasts the oldest tree in Britain (I think that claim is a bit iffy too)! Seems ludicrous, but it seems as if the myth was actually started in the New York Times in 1899.
https://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usbiography/p/pontiuspilate.html
Interesting. I would have thought it would have been invented somewhere in Perthshire….
I have a greek orthodox friend who has told me 3 times that it is all the jews fault. By the 3rd time I told her
bart’s story in one of his books about the jews , pilate, and jesus and who convicted jesus.
I also learned in children’s Sunday school that all jews go to hell because they do not believe in jesus.
So I vote for the first idea. But you are going to write all the books at some time I hope.
donna
I’d be very keen on the third book, and think that is really important given that so many sincere and devout Christians have the idea that the Bible is crystally clear God’s word and given by God. I will be least interested in the book on Pilate, and mildly interested in the one on Christian charity.
I am thinking that an interesting book could be about the polemical battles between Christianity and its pagan critics as Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire. I know that you have covered this subject in The Triumph of Christianity but it would be interesting to go in depth into the arguments used by both sides as they fought for converts. What arguments did the pagan critics use to attack Christianity and how did Christians respond and visa versa?
Yes, that was one of the books I wwas thinking about doing; it’s a course I’ve taught as a PhD seminar and have long been interested in. My idea was to show how ancient “apologetics” relates to the modern apologetics of conserv list, ative evangelicals. It’s still on the list, but the long lsist rather than the short one.
PUH-LEEZE do #3 (#2 would be my second choice).
But also, please don’t leave out the issue of the canon (or lack thereof) of the Church of the East (both Eastern Orthodox AND the Church of the Oriental East). For “extra credit”, touch of the two-level canon of the church of Ethiopia.
Note: if you decide to do one of the other books, can you at least suggest some good readings on the canons of the non-Western church?
It’s really about the memos God sent out: the Church of the West got a memo saying that being in the canon should be a yes/no thing. The Church of the East got a memo that their should be a gradation of how canonical a book is, and the Ethiopians got one saying that there should be more than one canon.
I don’t know how qualified to write about the Church of the East (especially the Oriental East) you feel, but if this wouldn’t be an eye opener for anyone interested in the topic, I don’t know what would be!
Yes, I would definitely want to mention the canons of, say, Syria and Ethiopia.
THEN LET’S DO IT!!!
P.S. As I cannot wait that long, do you have any recommendations for books about the canon of the Church of the East (other than the one Hovhanessian edited)?
Metzger’s classic covers it: The Canon of the New Testament.
I really appreciate your efforts in showing people things that they don’t know, but as a Muslim I am sad that you chose the way to atheism because I can’t understand how you denied the existence of God. I wish you can understand that there’s a connection between the 3 called abrahamic religions. And I wished that you are the one who can resolve the problem. Who is the another comforter? Who is the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18, if I don’t go the comforter will not come, if you love me keep my commandments, then Paul changed everything. The Quran says that the name Ahmad is in the Bible and Someone showed the forgery showing that. But who cares. A lot of Muslims like your works. I suggest you start with “How did we get the N.T.
I vote for #1, “Christ Killer.” However, more credit should be given to the Jews for being savvy enough to see through the false basis of Jesus’ teachings, promoting what could only be termed a perversion to their religious beliefs. Why can’t a book on the first topic give credence to the only written sources from that time (within a century) which clearly indicate the Jewish court called for his execution for blasphemy, while Pilate vehemently defended Jesus against a Jewish mob until a riot was forming (Matt 27:24)? Maybe the Jews were the good guys (objecting to an obvious perversion to their religion) and maybe the Romans (i.e., Pilate) were the bad guys – promoting a perversion to Judaism to subvert Jewish resistance to Roman authority? Jewish religious resistance was so pervasive that Rome eventually sacked Jerusalem in 70 CE, massacring Jews (and supposedly sparing Christians), repeating history of King Antiochus Epiphanes from 168 BCE – massacring Jews in Jerusalem.
As a continuance of my previous post, the temporary success of the Jewish Revolt against the Romans in 66-70 CE and the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire in 167-160 BCE was not due to the Jews having a strong and powerful military, but due to the zealous and unifying nature of their religious beliefs. I think Rome recognized the primary source of Jewish resistance, not their military, or their economic power, but their religious fanaticism and unity as a defined people. It only makes sense that Rome attempted to subvert the religion of the Jewish people, without success, eventually leading to Rome’s very drastic and violent siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE and massacring Jews. I believe Roman attempts at subverting Judaism 30 years earlier was the true origin of Christianity (paying taxes to Rome, give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers, submissiveness to oppression – all in direct contrast to the proud and independent nature of the Jewish people).
Hello Bart.
My question is off topic. Do you know a book by Elaine Pagels called The Origin Of Satan, and if so, what is your opinion ?
Thanks
Yes. It’s not actually so much about they history of the idea of where the idea of “Satan” came from and developed over time as it is about Gnostic understandings of this spiritual force of evil.
Thank you.
I vote for the option that gets at the heart of Xianity and may well account for its popularity in the early days of the religion’s growth:
“The next book is one I’ve mentioned before, dealing with an issue I’ve touched on in my most recent book (Journeys to Heaven and Hell). I don’t have a great title yet, but there are a range of options, such as “Jesus and Poverty” or “How Christianity Transformed the World” or “The Invention of Charity” or … or who knows what. It is a book on how Christianity completely altered the world’s understanding of charity and giving to the poor.”
Title: Did Early Christianity Invent Humanism? (no rights reserved!)
I would love to see a bonafide Dr. Ehrman book about what was worship meeting actually like in the primitive churches. Did they me together promptly at 9 am each sunday for bible class, then have a few songs out of their papyrus hymnals, take the token emblems of the Eucharist, have a homily and an altar call and whatever you do dont forget to take a tithe, and then an offering, and then maybe a love offering to boot, then close it all with a prayer and beat the other churches in town to the local restaurant? Lol
Seriously, i know the material on this kinda topic is not vast, but what was it actually like to go to a meeting of christians in the early times? 1st C, 2nd C et…C (ha ha ha, best pun ever) and so on?
THere is a lot written about it, but you’re right, I’ve never gone there. Part of teh problem is that there would have been differences, possibly enormous, from one region/area to another. Another part is that we have VERY sparse evidence until Justin gives us some clues in 150 CE or so.
Number 3 please
And for number 4 – a book that takes a set of events in Jesus life, looks at what the gospels say about them, and then attempts to describe the most likely interpretation of what really happened , and how the gospel authors altered it and why.
You already do this randomly in other blog posts and books. I love readings these sorts of articles. They open your eyes and explain how it all fits together, and explain why for years none of it fitted together.
As an example, Jesus meeting with John the Baptist. Or Jesus ‘cleansing’ the temple. Or the call to pardon Barrabas. You’ve covered them all somewhere but never in one book as far asc I can tell 😉
Dr. Ehrman,
I’m sure your analysis of any of these subjects would, as always, be insightful and well-written. But for yours truly what has made your works pearls of great value is your UNapologetic approach to the gospels.
This Christian believes that Jesus of Nazareth — not a magically “inerrant” book — is the “Word of God.” Unfortunately, the AUTHENTIC words of the Word are hidden somewhere in a vast, dense field of nearly two millennia of church doctrine. Since I’m not inclined to simply take their word for it (so-to-speak 😉), I appreciate having an agnostic guide.
My vote would be for you to apply your estimable expertise to Jesus’ signature, pedagogical device — his (sometimes enigmatic) parables and metaphors.
We previously had a fairly extended exchange in a thread on the fortuitously recovered Gospel of Thomas — specifically, the Parable of the Broken Jar — that to this uneducated ear has a clear ring of authenticity. Given the dearth of surviving “heretical” texts, the fact that it is not independently attested is neither unexpected nor IMHO grounds for disqualification.
Assuming “The Parables of Jesus” probably WON’T be among your next three books…
What is your assessment of Luke’s startling (and also conspicuously wanting for independent attestation BTW) Parable of the Dishonest Manager (Lk 16:1-13)?
Might this focus of much Christian apologia perhaps be the result of an accidental conflation of two, similarly-themed parables sometime over the decades of oral transmission before it ever reached Luke? Has there been any scholarly speculation that the dishonest but commended manager is, perhaps, a “telephone” griffin, i.e., a composite of characters from originally distinct parables?
Also, which (if any) of the string of explanations that follow — attributed by Luke to Jesus, himself — do you think was actually attached to the parable we now have? Or is the entire soliloquy either the invention or editorial splicing of the author (presumably in his own attempt to make sense of the story as he received it)?
With the exception of the final aphorism (verse 13), all these observations on wealth are not only, likewise, lacking independent attestation, but seem equally implausible on the lips of Jesus. Only the concluding Q saying (Mt 6:24), albeit also reliant on a sole source, at least, SOUNDS like something Jesus might have actually said.
It’s a terrifically difficult parable I think. I don’t know if it goes back to Jesus or not. The point of it appears to be to that it is sometimes profitable to emply whatever means are necessary to accomplish what appear to be a good goal. That doesn’t have to be nefarious even though in the parable it is. It could be more like — in today’s context — someone goes into bueinss and participates in teh capitalist system knowing full well that it is based on greed, but does so to make tons of money to give to famine relief. Is the parable a cmposite? I don’t really know.
Characterizing the bizarre Dishonest Manager as merely “a terrifically difficult parable” is quite a contrast with your immediate and categorical rejection (in another thread) of the Parable of the Empty Jar. This is the same kind of diffident concession I’ve heard from inerrancy apologists — who also invariably follow with a strained reach for SOME kind of interpretation to rescue its authenticity.
Is there any other place, anywhere in the record, canonical or non-, where Jesus even hints that “it is sometimes profitable to employ whatever means are necessary” on the rationalization of aspiring to “a good goal”?
Just as everyone thinks their own beliefs are the correct ones — and, therefore, regard their own views as “orthodox” — no one ever aspires to a goal they don’t think good, or they would set a different one.
If it’s overstating the case to note that some once believed reorganizing humanity under the leadership of the Aryan race “a good goal,” the peril of end-justifies-the-means thinking is beyond exaggeration. A road with “good intentions” pavers inevitably leads to a scorching destination.
Is preserving the historicity of Luke’s Dishonest Manager really worth recasting Jesus as antecessor to Malcolm “by any means necessary” X?
I’m not sure I see what your objection is? I simply don’t find the parable of the empty jar particularly jarring. 🙂 (Whereas the dishonest servant — yikes)
I suppose that, like horoscopes, it’s the very subjectivity of the parables that makes them so powerful — a kind of a spiritual Rorschach that is jarring to “him who has ears to hear.”
Take, for example, the Empty Jar.
I see a metaphorical container holding the received wisdom of religious dogma that most people carry around their whole lives without ever noticing that the values it supposedly holds have all leaked out along the way. They won’t realize until they get home that the jar is empty.
It reminds me of the startling comeuppance we experience after empathizing with the resentment of the older brother in the Prodigal Son over the return of his wayward sibling, or the indignation of the early hires in the Laborers in the Vineyard at not receiving a bonus.
We are so disposed to self-interest and so adept at cloaking it in self-righteousness that we completely squelch our higher values of compassion and generosity — letting them leak out along life’s path without ever even noticing.
(Of course, that’s the kind of interpretation you’d expect from someone whose Sun and Rising signs are both in Cancer and Ruling Planet in his 4th House. 😉)
I too find it an important and intriguing parable. I like to think about it as an illustration of how people waste their lives away (by what they do with them) and don’t realize it till it’s too late.
🙂 It appears we agree on the compelling message (if not the raconteur) of the Empty Jar.
My objection to your assessment of Luke’s Dishonest Manager is in disregarding the very criteria you previously cited for rejecting the authenticity this one. Specifically: “Every saying of Jesus has to be evaluated according to how widely it is attested and whether it coincides closely with the views of the people telling it. In this case I don’t think the story passes the tests.”
Your test questions are entirely fair and appropriate (though IMHO giving the Empty Jar a failing grade, not so much.) But the Dishonest Manager doesn’t seem to have sat for the exam.
Also reliant on a single source, independent attestation is actually a bar that very few parables — in Mark, M, L or (assuming hypothetical evidence is admissible) Q — can clear.
My familiarity with gospel texts is limited to the four canonicals and Thomas.
John is inapplicable, and pervasive plagiarism by two of the three synoptic authors makes disentangling attestation problematic. But unless I’m missing something — either within the four relevant texts or from other, lesser-known ones — I count just nine parables that are corroborated by a second, independent source:
Mark: The Sower, The Mustard Seed, The Wicked Tenants
M: The Wheat and the Tares, The Pearl of Great Price
L: The Rich Fool
Q: The Great Banquet, The Leaven, The Lost Sheep
Fastidiousness about sole sources would disqualify not only the doubtful Dishonest Manager and redoubtable Empty Jar, but what are surely among the most memorable and beloved parables — including: The Prodigal Son, The Good Samaritan, The Sheep and the Goats, and The Laborers in the Vineyard — ALL of which appear to descend from a single source.
The exquisitely ironic postscript here is that the handful of parables that actually PASS the independent attestation test owe their bona fides to (wait for it…😏) the miraculously resurrected Gospel of Thomas!! (Not that this is any help for the Empty Jar since it, likewise, fails for lack of a second.)
Of course, independent attestation isn’t the only authenticity criterion. (And it’s good thing — or a lot of babies would be thrown out with the Empty Jar bathwater.)
There is still the question whether or not the Dishonest Manager “coincides closely with the views of the people telling it.”
But I didn’t see you applying that one either. Can you expand on your previous answer?
I think I already indidcated that we should move on to other topics! You are certainly welcome to your views!
ALL the rest strike me as more than a little dubious:
Lk 16:8 — Commending the shrewdness of dealing dishonestly with “the sons of this world” manifestly contradicts ALL of Jesus’ other teachings — as does the insinuation that their unethical behavior justifies emulation by “the sons of the light”.
Lk 16:9 — Advising use (or even acquisition) of “unrighteous wealth” to befriend the worldly is similarly discordant. How are they even likely to attain “eternal dwellings” to “receive you into”?
Lk 16:10 — The in-for-a penny-in-for-a-pound observation on trustworthiness is fortune-cookie philosophizing that is unworthy — and uncharacteristic — of Jesus.
Lk 16:11 — Faithful management of “unrighteous wealth” is a grossly incongruous premise for an authentic teaching. Implying this as the way to be entrusted with “true riches” is nonsensical as these are surely NOT bestowed by the same source.
Lk 16:12 — The idea that faithfully handling someone else’s wealth — whatever the source — will lead to being gifted with wealth of your own is a strange, if not incomprehensible, deduction.
Lk 16:13 — The consequences of having divided loyalties is more banal platitude than penetrating insight — certainly not one worth recapitulating from both sides of the equation.
Jesus did, of course, frequently teach the importance of conscientious stewardship, e.g., the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Mt 25: 1-13) to cite just one example. But the admonitions following the Parable of the Unjust Steward are as problematic as they are implausible.
Only the final Q saying that one “cannot serve God and money” seems both memorably pithy AND entirely consonant with the teachings of Jesus elsewhere in the synoptics. He warned throughout his ministry that ALL worldly concerns — not just wealth, but shelter and sustenance, even livelihood and family — were an inherent danger, insinuating that ALL temporal pursuits inevitably distract from spiritual ones. In terms of worldly wealth IOW the risk is in the possessing, not the managing.
So what do you and your fellow scholars (apologetic or un-) make of Luke’s peculiar parable? Does it trace to the historical Jesus at all? If so, might it be an awkward amalgam of what was originally two, DIFFERENT parables about managers?
Also, what do you make of the sundry lessons that, according to Luke, are explications that came from Jesus, himself? Is any of these (excepting, perhaps, the Q aphorism) authentic?