(18 votes, average: 4.89 out of 5)
Loading...In this post I am going to take a bit of time out to do some self-reflection. An issue I’ve been puzzling over for some time is the fact that people keep referring to my work as “controversial.” I hear this all the time. And truth be told, I’ve always found it bit odd and a disconcerting. This past week I’ve had two people tell me that they know that I “like to be controversial.” That’s actually not the case at all. One person told me that she had seen a TV show where someone had said that they didn’t believe that Jesus existed, and she thought that was right up my alley. I didn’t bother to tell her that I had written an entire book arguing that Jesus certainly did exist. She simply assumed that this was the sort of view that I myself would have and delight in making public.
The reason I find that the idea I’m controversial is that my views about the historical Jesus, the authorship of the books of the New Testament, the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity, the rise of early Christology, and on and on – these are views that are not particularly strange in the academy. I *acquired* almost all of these views . With respect to every one of them, what I talk about in my writings is what I myself have learned. Very rarely in my popular writings do a I put out a view that is unusual and untested in the academic world.
I have done so on occasion, and when I do the response I get from other scholars is very interesting and a bit amusing. If I advance a thesis in a popular book that is not widely shared among scholars (e.g., in my How Jesus Became God book, where I advanced the idea – which I did not invent myself, but came to agree with from the writings of two other scholars, but which is not a view widely held in the field – that the apostle Paul understood Christ to have originally been an angelic being who became human) some critics objected that I shouldn’t be saying something in a popular book that does not represent widely accepted scholarship. The reason this objection is amusing to me is that these very same critics are the same ones who object to my popular books because they “don’t say anything new.” So, well, how can they have it both ways exactly?
In any event, I may be on the relatively left side of scholarship, but this, that, or the other view I have is widely held in the guild among everyone who is not a religiously conservative Christian. So why am I, in particular, under attack for being controversial?
What some scholars criticize me for are not my statements but my “tone.” I’m not sure how one gauges tone. But when I say things that other scholars who are not controversial say, I’m charged with having a haughty and cynical tone. Just as one example, some critics have charged me with being excessive and over the top and sensationalistic when, in my book Misquoting Jesus, I wrote that “there are more variants in the manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.” Apart from the fact that the statement is true, the line itself is one that I borrowed wholesale from my own teacher, Bruce Metzger! He was a conservative Christian scholar that almost precisely no one found excessive, over the top, and sensational – let alone controversial!
I have a good reason for thinking that people consider my views controversial when in fact they are not controversial (and when I don’t mean them to be controversial). That is this: When I first published my college-level textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings in 1997, no one who reviewed it thought that it was the least bit controversial, off-putting, over the top, cynical, offensive, snarky, insensitive or anything else negative. It quickly became the bestselling book on the market. It still is today. But professors who use it have, over the past seven or eight years, *started* to complain about its “tone” as being over the top and insensitive, even though the parts they complain about (in the current 6th edition) are the parts that I haven’t changed from when I published the first edition eighteen years ago! The words haven’t changed. But my public persona apparently has changed. So the words themselves, in my view, are not controversial. But because *I’m* controversial some scholars charge me with trying to be controversial with words that they used to think were not controversial even though they are the same words!!
It seems to come as a surprise to people that I don’t try to be controversial. It simply isn’t one of my goals. I actually don’t enjoy being controversial and would prefer it if I weren’t. I’d much rather that people read my work and say something like, “Hmmm. Good point! I hadn’t seen it that way before.”
I think the reasons I get *interpreted* as being controversial are (a) I say things publicly that other scholars just say to themselves and one another (these same scholars pull their punches when they are talking to a public audience); and even more important (b) I try to make the way I present things *interesting* to people. To make things interesting one has to highlight what is intriguing about them. But what is intriguing and interesting about scholarship almost always is, necessarily, information that people generally don’t know or haven’t thought about. And so if a compelling or (even just) strong case is made for a position that others have not generally heard (e.g.: there are more variants in the manuscripts than words in the NT), it is thought that you are going out of your way to shock people rather than to do the work of (otherwise dry) scholarship.
Scholarship, in all fields, can be incredibly dry. I believe in making scholarship interesting. I don’t do it to be controversial. I do it to get people interested. But as many people as get interested, there seem to be more who get upset. I’m very sorry to see that happen. But I’m not about to make my public scholarship dull, uninteresting, or inaccessible to public audiences so that no one will get offended!
You never seem to me to court controversy. You don’t ever even seem to come off as enjoying your popularity as much as you enjoy the material you teach. I think what’s contrversial is that conservative Christians feel in some sense that they own the corpus of Christian history, writing and teaching and if you aren’t going to tow their party line then by default you’re stirring their pot.
I don’t like being called “controversial” either. I figure that’s the price I pay so that I can be me. I’m just trying to be helpful without hurting people. I guess the day I stop being “controversial” will be the day they toss me in the six foot hole.
All true. Also for many others (many conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists) it’s easier to write you off as sensational so they can then quickly write off what you say without really listening or engaging with the material. It’s a defense mechanism in this case.
My sense is that the culture wars have dramatically increased in intensity in the social media age. People who would previously never notice your work now see it in someone’s feed, and so form an opinion on it. What leads to controversy, then, is the fact that people who barely knew secular Biblical scholarship existed find out about it, and of course automatically see it through the culture war lens.
I think the reason you are seen as controversial is because you lay out convincing evidence and draw obvious conclusions from it that a lot of people just don’t want to hear. It’s sort of like the evidence for human influence on global warming; it’s easier to call it controversial than face the facts. Out here in Kansas (remember?) denying the facts in favor of our idea of the way we’d like things to be is a major industry! Keep making things interesting; a lot of us really appreciate it!
Wow! Thanks for sharing this. My two cents worth, which is probably worth one cent:
1. That you are introspective enough to be thinking about such things says something good about you.
2. Although the ideas that you present are not controversial among scholars, the lay public, by and large, unfortunately, has not been taught very much of this material so it upsets a lot of people.
3. Early Christianity is a very important subject to a lot of people so you write about matters that mean the world to a lot of people. and, hence, people have strong feelings about what you write and that means you are writing about important topics. Unfortunately, many quickly and falsely come to believe that you are debunking Christianity. I don’t agree that you are doing that. I do remember, however, that an entire website was once set up to debunk your work.
4. People can see in you whatever they want to see. Commonly, people who are upset will use “ad hominem” personal attacks rather than discussing the subject matter.
5. What you are doing is very important and helpful to many so keep doing it.
6. You do not have to be perfect, just good enough which you are.
7. You often debate before hostile crowds so you need to be confident which some can view as your being “haughty” if they want to see you that way. I don’t. It’s part of being a debater. Should you just roll over in a debate and play dead?
8. My best childhood friend and I met in kindergarten, attended public schools together, attended the same church, played ball on the same teams, attended college together, went to medical school together, and did our medical internships together. He recently died secondary to a brain tumor. Before, he died, he and I started an email group of old friends whom we had met at various stages of our lives. Our first task was for each member of the group to write a summary of his/her religious views and how we developed those views. Many wrote very moving emails. I wrote mostly about what I had learned from your books. One response that I received was quite caustic: “You can either believe Ehrman or you can believe Jesus!” I stopped the group soon after my friend’s death. It was just too nasty. So, the critical examination of crucial questions can be a very lonely and isolating endeavor, but it is still important to do. Several in the group still completely shun me and I am not at all welcome in one particular church. Quite a reaction to a few good theological Bible questions. The reaction actually hurt me a lot as I m sure you have been hurt.
I hope something in this response helps you a little.
Ronald Taska:
Commonly, people who are upset will use “ad hominem” personal attacks rather than discussing the subject matter.
Steefen:
Stick to the chalkboard/whiteboard.
Ronald Taska:
So, the critical examination of crucial questions can be a very lonely and isolating endeavor, but it is still important to do. Several in the group still completely shun me and I am not at all welcome in one particular church. Quite a reaction to a few good theological Bible questions.
Steefen:
Study this subject matter, Ehrman’s work and beyond, one will want to shun reciting creeds.
I think your analysis of why some folks call you “controversial” is right on target. For some people, I’m sure, calling you (or your books/lectures) controversial is just a way to increase public attention. Indeed, some may view the term as a compliment. A description that would be more accurate might be “controversial in some circles, but fairly mainstream within academia.” The ideas that ought to be considered “controversial” are the ones that most experts in the field have long rejected because they are not supported by solid evidence and/or strong arguments. As you note, the main reason some well-established ideas still seem controversial is that too many scholars have failed to speak/write clearly about them outside the academic guild. Books sales and the attendance at your lectures should make it abundantly clear that there is a great need for what you’re doing. Keep up the good work!
I saw this today on my Facebook feed. Posted by a minister I know in northern Michigan.
FROM PERSON POSTING: Good read. Josephus records Jesus.
SHARED LINK: Bart Ehrman on Denying that Jesus Existed: “You Look Foolish”
In one regard, at least, Ehrman is the Christian’s friend.
PATHEOS.COM
“Ten people are identified as Jesus sources and four incidents of mythologizing are listed (let alone falsely attributing saving a woman caught in adultery to Jesus). In unweighted percentages, the historical Jesus composite is 73.3% and the mythological Jesus composite is 26.7%. The mythicists, then, try to make a minority finding a conclusion of majority proportions when the biblical Jesus is not 100% myth. Did Jesus exist? Was he historical? No. Multiple Jesuses did exist and multiple Jesuses are historical; but, when one combines more than one person to create a historical character, one does not have a biography of one historical person, one has historical fiction. One does not have a true singular soul of the Son of God; one has a writer-created thought form of Jesus that is not a member of Heaven’s place of the souls.That Jesus will not be seen face-to-face, in all of his glory, in Heaven—or in trips to Heaven.”
The mythicists may look foolish but the Composite Jesus camp does not.
I’ve been listening to another one of your lectures via youtube and I find your delivery refreshingly straight forward, clear, without emotional prejudice, void of arrogance, factual and definitely thought worthy. In short, I feel enlightened from both listening and reading. Me thinks one must dismiss most peer criticism as jealousy (you are a best selling author/they are not) or in the first example, over simplification to the degree of missing the point all together. If being “controversial” (whatever that word means) forces people to discern then that is also a very good thing !!
You have the gift of making your points piercingly clear to those of us who have begun questioning our Christianity. Your excellence at what you do makes it impossible to defend those crumbling beliefs except to accuse you of being controversial. What else is there? You are beyond refuting. And you are controversial for those of us who are joining you in the way you see Jesus. Now our fundamentalist families and friends think we’ve gone over to the dark side. 🙂
I’ve mentioned before that great theologian who made it possible for some of us to grow beyond where we were spiritually. He believes what you are doing is a necessary step on the way to truth. I’m hoping we bloggers can help you feel supported in your excellent brave work.
My thoughts exactly, Judith. That whole post is the story of my life with my (very conservative Christian) family – “you just want to argue” – no, I want you guys to actually research the Bible.
I also find it a bit peculiar that you would be called “controversial”. Perhaps the reason is that you educate a large number of people, and some might have been indoctrinated at an early age that knowledge is dangerous – therefore they feel threatened. By default this might make you controversial to those who do not understand what you are trying to accomplish in your writings. Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris are controversial. I do not consider you to be. Thanks for all the hard work you do.
At least the upset have read your work, which is success for any author one would think! As well, someone, I forget who, observed that the venom in academic disputes, as often as not on the smallest of matters, is a wonder to behold. And, I suspect there is a touch of jealousy and envy for your success beyond the ivory tower.
Perhaps more fundamentally, from the perspective of the conservative Christian academic, your work is literally ‘off message’ and therefore not welcome. That this is an anti-intellectual position is of no matter. Religion, as a glance at the horrorshow in the Middle East reveals, is not a topic on which some (many?) can calmly reflect, let alone consider the evidence for as if it were some conventional subject. When the god in question has helpfully appointed earthly intermediaries who are all too willing to pass on his instructions and point of view, you have the stage set for truly appalling behaviour. We are very luckly to live in societies that are willing to have such debates, even if they’re often bad tempered and ill-considered, rather than having them closed down and off limits.
Long may it be thus.
Bart, I very much enjoy your conversational and personal tone. You don’t always have the very careful, measured tone usually expected of scholars and when a sentence like that here or there is isolated and taken from its context you might *appear* to be “controversial.” People who treat you like that and don’t read you in context are just looking for reasons to complain. You know what? Who cares what they think.You are incredibly generous with your time and your knowledge and you care deeply for your work and your students. The blog supports the poor and the hungry. You do good work and good works. I hope you know how much you are appreciated and you won’t be troubled by quibbling detractors.
You are “controversial” because you are presenting information that is different from what the great masses have been taught for years and years. The masses have a large emotional investment and you are telling them (accurately) that everything they have been taught and believed is wrong. That the information taught to the masses has been altered (modified, changed, totally re-written) by the church fathers is considered heresy. Hence, you ARE controversial and will continue to be until the masses realize that you are presenting accurate history. When THAT will be…
It feels like scholars are knowledge hogs. “Yes, us scholars know that, but don’t tell the public!” Maybe what people see as controversial is that you’re spilling the beans to the public about what scholars know and the methods they use to work it out?
Count me as one of the readers that read your works as “Yes, that is very interesting” and ” I enjoy learning about scholarly things in a way I can understand”.
As far as I can tell critics do not want to look into the words or subject matter, they only criticize. Are they at it again or should I say still and forever at it?
You must have a very special Aura
I keep trying to convince my wife of that….
I added a smiley to the aura…It did not show up.
1) I think you are correct. As a case in point, whenever I hear about Albert Schweitzer, I inevitably hear the last paragraph of his book and how Jesus comes to each of us personally and, well, his theology. I didn’t realize until I read either you or Allison, I can’t remember which, what his views on the historical Jesus were. I grew up as an evangelical, and I always heard of Schweitzer as a champion of fundamentalism. So, its not only perception of the person, but also which parts you want to highlight.
2) You brought up the fact that most of what you say is just popular scholarship. What ideas have you put forth that are yours? What will people publish and say, “As Ehrman states, . . .” I haven’t found your view that Jesus did not believe himself to be the Son of Man but was looking for another anywhere else.
Yes, that’s a view (Son of Man) that has been around for a long time, even if it’s not what most scholars have thought.
Using confirmation bias, people are likely to remember or disremember information in a way that supports what they already believe. A good introductory article about “confirmation bias,” that readers of this blog might find interesting, is “Your Brain Lies to You” by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt. It appeared in the “Opinion” section of the New York Times on 6/29/08. I assume that the remembering and disremembering of early Christians also were affected by “confirmation bias.” It had to be such since they were humans. How could it be otherwise?
One interesting form of “cognitive bias” is the “Dunning-Kruger Effect” which essentially states that the less you know, the more confident you are about what you know and the more you know, the less confident you are about what you know.
Controversy, “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” (Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride)…. Several cases in point:
1. Nowhere is it said that the term must be applied fairly under the rules of academic debate. Particularly, when you have irritated conservatives.
2. Usually the term is used by the “losing” side to cast aspersion on their opponent rather than the opposing argument; and, to imply more support for their side than actually exists (E.g. Global Warming “Controversy”).
3. It actually places you in rather good company… With respect to the underlying odium thelogicum, John Stewart Mill said something like – in a sincere bigot, it is one of the most unequivocal cases of using moral feeling rather than reasoned argument to justify beliefs.
4. With respect to the burden of being controversial: “You wouldn’t worry so much about what others think of you if you realized how seldom they do.” ― Eleanor Roosevelt
I wonder whether part of that perception stems from your having acknowledged that you yourself are an agnostic/atheist?
Before I came here this morning, I visited the CBS News website. Their top-headlined story was about atheists seeking to organize, to protest discrimination! One teacher believed his atheism had cost him his job (though a connection couldn’t be proved). And it had only come to light because someone reported his having “liked” a site about atheism on his Facebook page.
They mentioned that some people who will acknowledge that they “don’t believe in God” reject the term “atheist.” I myself do, because – possibly because of my upbringing, or simply my age bracket – I take it to mean, really, “anti-theist.” (That term itself seems never to be used, by anyone.) And while I think the world will be better off when theistic religions have died out, I realize that in our day, they do enrich some people’s lives.
So I call myself an agnostic and a non-theist. But, fortunately, no one but me gives a hoot what I believe!
Bart, you’re going to get a lot of comments, so I’ll keep mine as short as I can. … I’ve found that born-again Christians can’t believe we don’t have the originals of the New Testament Gospels! … If I try to discuss the tumultuous history of Christianity, I’m generally pegged as someone who “dislikes” Christians — and who should keep my thoughts to myself. … I’m part way through Elaine Pagels book “Beyond Belief,” as I patiently wait for your next book that will be entitled “Jesus Before the Gospels.” … Thank you for your work.
Hi Bart, well, it all depends whom your audience is and who buys your books doesn’t it? I don’t know if you would be a best selling author based on your historical research as there are tons of authors doing much the same. My guess is they sell because you are attacking the whole concept of what most Christians believe in the USA especially and that the bible is the literal word of God. Your books and indeed your own loss of faith was based on errors and contradictions within scripture. So you are hated by the Christian Apologetic class and loved by the Agnostic and Atheist groups where your books reinforce their own lost innocence in God as you did. That is why your works are contraversial my friend and little else. Please don’t be fooled into thinking its literary genius or breaking any new ground. Most Christians will never ever buy or read any books by Athiests.
You have said that most of your new students are Christian believers at the start of the course and you are not there to alter any preconceived theological ideas they have about the bible etc and God and their faith BUT! That is exactly what you are doing. I would be very surprised that on completion of your courses, they hold onto those beliefs 100% and many will indeed become Agnostics and Atheists and especially IF you then explain to them why it was you became one, based on error in the bible and suffering in the world. You have said that many eminent colleagues who are Christians, read your books, without it affecting their beliefs. Just my opinion but I can’t see how highly literate people could do that IF they read them in any detail. I would then suggest they don’t and skip through them and smile back to you and say its just fine. You may not think you are being contraversial but that is EXACTLY why you are in demand….Just my simple view my friend from this side of the Pond.
Bart, how many times have you been in a public debate with apologetics in front of a mainly Christian audience and I’ve seen you do this. You have asked them to put their hands up to show how many are there to see you ‘creamed’ I think was the word you used.
That surely is not for anything other than you are attacking their very entrenched Christian beliefs. And you said you don’t mean to be controversial? Pull the other one! 😉
As you have already alluded to, I suspect in large your been seen as “controversial” is because you are sharing knowledge normally reserved for scholarly circles which would take years of study to attain.
When you put the work of scholars like yourself alongside the modern approach of archaeology, mix in the work done on the cuneiform tablets, the Ugaritic texts, the Dead Sea and Nag Hammandi scrolls among others.
Average people like myself can have a more informed opinion. That in return means that people of “faith” can no longer get away with the out of context quotes and need to work much harder than in the past. And that I also suspect is the main reason for your “controversial” status.
So I simply say thank you and carry on Sir.
I have a friend that is a retired Methodist preacher/pastor. He told our “Living the Questions” group that he always attempted to teach his congregations the things he learned in seminary and was soon moved..every time. I believe most people don’t study anything and consequently believe those of us who try to stay up on the latest developments in New Testament study..are controversial.
Dr. Bart,
PLEASE stay controversial.
You are the scholastic wrestler that comes out of the dressing room and tells the audience that the two opposing wrestler dressing rooms are connected back stage via the wrestler’s lounge and that you all drink coffee together.
The other wrestlers do not like you doing this.
It is only dogma that causes the controversy. You are the Dogmatic Executioner. It just feels like nothing new to you after years of studying with the scholars. It is NEW to us.
P.S. The other wrestlers don’t want it to be new to us.. or old to us.
If only there was a like button for comments.
The “controversy” is in contrast to the views of conservative / inerrantist perspectives, which unfortunately seem to represent a whole lot of the public commentary on your work. I get the idea that very, very few well qualified mainstream scholars are doing much public commentary, apart from the occasional talking head blurbs on the various TV documentaries on History and NatGeo, where some can on occasion be seen sneaking in a sound bite that might also be controversial to the less informed masses, and more often state facts which, while largely unfamiliar to the casual viewer, is more about mundane history and not especially challenging to that casual viewer’s theological commitments. Most of the references to your work on podcasts, widely read blogs, and in popular books found in the “Christianity” subsection of the religion aisle at the major booksellers are unfortunately offered by the inerrantists who are a great deal more in public view than your colleagues who represent mainstream scholarship. As you noted, mainstream scholars just aren’t saying a whole lot to the general public while inerrantists take every opportunity available to do so. Those are the ones branding you as “controversial” and because the general public sees a sizeable number of inerrantists saying one thing (which agrees with their lifelong church-instilled theological commitments) and you’re one of the very few they’ve ever seen who is saying something different, they assume their viewpoint is some sort of consensus and you’re representing a fringe minority. I’ve engaged with some of these people on this matter to understand better and this seems to be what’s going on.
They may very well realize that there are other academics who agree with these conclusions, but they grossly understate just how many there are, how widespread it is, and how the methodology for arriving at these conclusions differs substantially from the methodology of the inerrantists — and they unfortunately don’t see a problem with the inerrantist tendency to start with a conclusion and work backward. That separates apologetics from scholarship, and the distinction is lost on most people who see you as “controversial”. To them, the methodology is no different — it’s merely whether one starts with corrupt liberal extremist hyper-skeptical anti-God leftist presuppositions or whether one is merely “open” to the supernatural, the latter inevitably bringing one to an inerrantist view of things. Nevermind that this is a completely inaccurate representation of how the sides differ….
Bart, I view controversy like concentric circles. The smaller the group (circle) and more tightly held beliefs, the more likely you are to appear controversial. The wider the group (circle) and more flexible the beliefs, the harder it is to be controversial. In Lawrence, Kansas you would be more controversial than in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
For instance, James Kugel’s ‘How to Read the Bible’ and courses at Harvard would be considered standard fare for getting your degree in religion. I loved ‘How to Read the Bible,’ as it is one of those very rare books where you get both sides in a beautifully crafted way that allows you to come to your own conclusions. However, to a Hasidic Jew from Brooklyn it is tantamount to demolishing his cherished beliefs. Hasidism’s circle is much tighter and more rigid, and its incorporation of new information is less likely to be successful.
To me, you’re just standard fare scholarship and the sort of thing I’d expect if I wanted to get my feet wet in Christian history. But, if I were to bring your material to a Wednesday night bible study then such things would be considered quite threatening.
It is only controversial to the degree that it threatens the other’s beliefs and worldview. A moderate Muslim is going to be extremely controversial to a radical Islamist, and so on.
I say, blame Princeton! Back in the late 70’s, Jack Rogers taught one Sunday morning at our church while he was doing the research for what turned out to be “The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible” 1979/1999. He was pretty fascinating telling us how he and co-author McKim were tracing the U.S. literalistic belief in the bible back to the textbook choice at Princeton Seminary in the early days. Rather than teaching the bible as “accommodated language” as Calvin and the reformers described it, the Princeton dons used Francis Turretin as textbook, where the bible was regarded as “a nonhistorical body of propositions that offered a base of inerrant information….” Since Princeton taught so many of the first pastors, who in turn taught so many of the early congregants who became clergy in their turn, Turretin’s view became prevalent, and the Reformers’ actual views eclipsed. We’ve been at this for a while, so you are up against quite a mass of inerrancy soft and hard. I think of Briggs and his trial for heresy — and my realizing at seminary that he must be the Briggs of BDB Lexicon — which after a laugh and a sigh gave me great comfort. So, we need you acutely to help us learn what’s most likely true and what the possibilities of the uncertain issues are. I am really sorry it’s tough. But you are doing good in so many ways. Thank you.
why is Bart Ehrman controversial? id say its a bit of a perfect storm
1: you an atheist/ex christain. just a imagine you saw a youtube vid that says “islamic scholar Ex muslim turned atheists talks about islam”. your gonna know what he thinks and why he changed.
2: you talk about things that are potentially not ideal for many versions of Christianity. you say things that the ave person interested in the subject (a christain) prob wont really wanna hear
3: you reveal new info (new meaning new to the ave persons ears), they dont hear this in church
4: your original (in that very few other scholars seem to have gotten the word out to the public about these juciy topics)
5: you sell your points. the ave NT text book might talk about the probs in the NT but people dont know. yr books make it clear. its pretty hard to miss titles like “Forged” and “misquoting Jesus” and not know they are gonna say something juicy
6: you communicate well: yr a good writer/speaker hence when you write a book or give a talk about how jesus prob didnt come back from the dead people will get the point clear as day in there heads (even if its knowledge they didnt really want). yr write books a plumber or a nurse or a farmer can read
7: Yr American. the US is a pretty religious part of the world. If you were Australian i seriously doubt youd be a big deal. to be controversial means to generate disagreement and the US is prob a place where saying something problematic the Christianity will create disagreement
i would guess there have been plenty of people with a few of these qualities (people like Dale Martin or Dom Crossan clearly have veiws very sim to yrs) but yr prob unique in that you got them all, hence yr the top dog to date.
Wow, Bart Ehrman, you struck a big chord with this one and my own experience with learning and sharing my knowledge of early Christianity with those around me. I have felt the same discord and feel like the messenger who was “killed” for delivering the message rather than praised for sharing it. As you might remember, I am a retired English teacher who felt large gaps in his knowledge when I taught British and American literature whenever allusions were made to the Bible. I guess I felt guilty about that lack of knowledge and so I began reading after I had investigated who I was going to read. All arrows led to you. I began reading, and I have read all of your popular books and most of your other books ( textbooks, etc.) You once told me, “That’s a lot of reading!” and I say, “That’s an incredible amount of writing!”
I have often praised the incredible effort you have made to bring the scholarly world of the area to the public’s attention. But I, like you, have to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” whenever one puts out a scholarly argument. I had one “friend” say all of what you have discovered and learned and argued is “balderdash.” I argued vehemently and cogently for you ( and me) because I hold the learning and scholarship of your discoveries to be true. Yet there is a price to pay for displaying the truth to the uneducated public—they are going to judge for the simplest of reasons and call you out on it. Even if you are not trying to be controversial, your discovered truths are going to be bandied about and challenged by those whose belief systems just cannot take the jolt of the light of truth. Remember in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge meets The Ghost of Christmas Past, and she shines the light of truth for him to see, and it is hard to look at. I see most people I “shed the light of truth” to cannot accept it. Their belief systems are too set, and they cannot accept any changes to the history of the Christ they know. I don’t even bother to share with anyone who does not have an open mind—senseless. But you are public figure, a professor who is sharing his scholarly knowledge with the world, and so you are going to meet combatants who will “charge” you with anything and everything to mischaracterize you. Not sure you saw the HBO Series called “Going Clear” about Scientology–I am sure you have. Imagine those guys getting their claws into you if you attacked their religion with ‘the light of truth.” I use the word attacked because they ( your opposition) sees it that way. Anyone who really KNOWS you understands who you are and what your goals are. When things like this happen, they are just the “collateral damage” of putting out “the light of truth” to there unwilling eyes—just as Ebenezer had no desire to look at it face on.
I commend you. I think you are a very courageous person—I learned what it is to be you—armed with all this knowledge about early Christianity and Jesus—and then the consequent silent disregard and the looks and the “he’s crazy” and all of that from those who just are not ready for the “light of truth.”
Even though you don’t intend to be controversial, what you end up saying is “controversial” in the eyes of the opposition, and they are going to belittle you for it. Besides, they are jealous—jealous of your popular books, jealous of your incredible ability to communicate, and jealous of your mind—wow!
Keep up the work. I am incredibly happy to have the opportunity to know you and your work.
I agree that the “controversial” label is in large part confirmation bias, but would add that disparaging labels directed towards biblical scholars such as Dr. Ehrman, whose frank biblical analysis are delightfully devoid of dogmatic agendas, are largely coming from our country’s conservative regions. Where I live (Seattle, WA area), Dr. Ehrman is not seen as being controversial by many (at least not in my scholarly circles). When discussing his books or debates with others in my academic community, the prevailing feeling is that he at times lets his opponents off easy, especially when debating conservative scholars.
The world has become too politically correct… It’s kind of a dictatorship… Any word is a potential insult, even the ones that have always been used… “Bart is controversial”, “distressed jeans” and on and on and on…
Or Bart’s controversial distress….
Ha! Precisely!
You’re controversial because you tarnished two gems of the gospels: Jesus saving a woman caught in adultery and Jesus instructing Nicodemus. If that were not enough, Jesus receiving a proper burial into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea is also tarnished.
You have told us Jesus did not save a woman caught in adultery; Jesus did not instruct Nicodemus; Jesus did not have a following or a family large enough for some to shoo the dogs and vultures away from his cross. The great artwork of the Pieta is vandalized by you because Jesus’ body, in your opinion was attacked by these two animals. So, Mary held a son taken from the cross whose body had the evidence of the attacks you describe, if we go with what you’re saying.
Another controversial tarnish is your implication that everyone associated with Jesus was uneducated, all of the Jews and all of the Hellenists. The only one in the New Testament who was educated was Paul, Nicodemus, Caiphas. Could Nicodemus have been a contributing ghost writer to the gospels before they were named?
He appears to be an invented figure. He’s not mentioned outside of the Gospel of John.
It comes down to one simple fact that was driven home by the release of “How God Became Jesus”. You scare a lot of people in the evangelical and fundamentalist wing. That comes from two things: 1. You were one of them, which means you understand the mindset in a way that someone like me can never achieve, and 2. You are reasonable, and the calm voice of reason will spread fear and loathing like nothing else.
Wear it as a badge of honor, because it means you are doing a lot of things right.
I hope to emulate these qualities of Bart (and maybe acquire 5% of his total Biblical/early Christianity knowledge) in order to convince my old friends from my church, who still allow me to attend (they are more liberal and kind-hearted than a Bible Belt chapel), to start listening to reason and walk away from their delusions, like I did. Only through previously being one of them and having a calm voice of reason can this even be hoped for.
Yup, if you cant argue against someones position/logic/scholarship its always best to poison the well for the neutral observer by attacking your opponents “tone”
you could start off by describing their “overblown rhetoric” before going on to their “vitriol, hatred, and mean-spiritedness”
Maybe it’s guilt by association? Some popularizers of Biblical scholarship (Funk and Spong come to mind) seem to court controversy. The new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens) seem to relish controversy. You’ve become (in addition to being a first class scholar) a popularizer of Biblical scholarship and you’ve lost your faith. Voila! Controversy.
Although, of course, you seem perfectly mundane to me, Bart, lolol.
Many, many thanks! 🙂