Loading...Dear Members of the Blog,
We have had a long-standing policy on the blog – going back to its inception – of avoiding any kind of proselytizing activity that promotes or urges (on others) particular religious views of any kind. Some comments I receive are borderline, and it is hard to know where the *hard* line actually ought to be. But I’m afraid I have grown lax in the enforcement of the rule. It is perfectly fine on occasion for you (or anyone) to say what you/they really think about religion – since, after all, the blog does focus on (early) Christianity. So an occasional non-proselytizing comment is AOK. But I have decided, in light of the objectives of our mutual endeavor, to return to the original intention and not post comments that are inappropriately designed to urge particularly religious views.
I hope you understand! We all know that there are gazillions of other avenues on the Internet for anyone to push their personal religious choices and try to convert others. If you are inclined to do so, I’d suggest not that you choose *between* avenues (some that allow such things and this one that does not), but take them all.
On this blog we will primarily focus on the literature and history of early Christianity – the historical Jesus, the writings of Paul, the other books of the New Testament, the apostolic fathers, the early Christian apocrypha, the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, themes in Christianity of the first four centuries, etc. etc. etc. In other places each of us can do our level best to convince everyone else that our own personal religious views are right. I know mine are. 🙂
I apologise for having done this! (I think I’ve only made points about my personal views in response to others doing the same; but of course doing so inevitably perpetuates the derail.)
I don’t believe you ever have!
Ah, ok. I was thinking about my exchanges with Preston P. He promotes Christianity prolifically on the blog, and on occasion I have responded to his comments and put forward my own (atheist) point of view. (Other than that I try to keep my comments focused on the historical issues.)
Nope, you’ve been absolutely fine! Very thoughtful comments.
Well said! I had been on the verge of emailing you about this very thing on more than one occasion lately.
Good!
Well, there goes my goal of converting every blog member to Scientology.
So sorry!
I think this is all to the good. (I know that discussion of the topics, as described, is certainly why I signed up, and the more time that can be devoted to those topics, the better.)
But I think it’s fair to ask the following question:
With regard to comments that are “designed to urge particularly religious views”, will this be considered as including comments that we might call explicitly “anti-religious” as well (or what we might, for want of a better name, call “proselytizing/doctrinaire atheism”)?
For example: Discussing the historical factuality of some event is certainly not only appropriate, but necessary. But, unfortunately, such discussions can too often wander off into the realm of comments along the lines of “how could anyone have ever believed in something so dumb?.
I suppose what I’m suggesting is: Facts is facts. But respect for other folks’ beliefs is important, too,
Yes, I would like respect for all views on the blog. Especially in our current political climate, it is important for all of us to figure out ways to disagree without trashing others who have reasoned opinions that differ radically from our own. (Bigger picture: I’ve very worried about our culture and society and not just because I have such deeply seated disagreements with others, but because of the massive cultural divide that I’m afraid is going to leave us in tatters)
To take this a step further, it’s not really clear to me why there should be any disagreement if we understand that the primary role of these text is not as literal, historical documents.
In other words, I would suggest that these “two sides” are talking about related, but ultimately quite different, things, each with its own set of non-overlapping criteria for establishing validity.
For those for whom the texts function as religious documents –i.e. documents telling us about our cultural, ethical, spiritual, etc, lives– then accepting the texts as such, and taking them seriously in these ways, doesn’t –or at least shouldn’t– require someone to insist that, say, the Earth has a literal age of 6000 years.
But the converse is equally true. Understanding the historical nature and content of the texts is surely critically important. But likewise, it is just as wrong-header to insist that the fact that world _isn’t_ literally 6000 years old will in any way diminish or discredit any religious functions of the text.
In short, the “two sides” are making different points. And applying an inappropriate literalist reading rather badly misses the point.
(But then perhaps I’m getting perilously close to trying to convert others to my way of looking at things. 😉 )
I didn’t mean to disagree with you. I was just testing the up or down symbols. I tried to change it to agree, but I guess I can’t once I pick one or the other.
Great move Bart!
Thank God!
Or should I say, “Thanks be to any or all or none of the existing or nonexisting gods …”?
Ha!!
As a reader of several of your books and a “student” of some of your Great Courses, I can readily attest that you do NOT directly challenge anyone’s religious beliefs NOR try to promote your personal agnosticism/atheism (still not sure which one, in your case!).
Having said that, I’m sure you realize your view of the historical Jesus as (if I’m not mistaken) an apocalyptic Jewish preacher who held that God was, within a generation, about to intervene in the world and destroy the forces of evil, but was wrong about the time frame, is not compatible with the high Christology of some Christian denominations. A divine figure (i.e. 2nd person of the Trinity) after all, can’t be wrong! It’s not surprising that a few strong believers would push back on this. Doubting the Resurrection as an historical event further encourages a reaction.
The story of your fundamentalism-to-agnosticism/atheism journey (again, if I’m not mistaken), finally catalyzed by the theodicy issue, likely triggers a “rescue” fantasy by any individual who feels compelled to save your lost soul by fetching it back.
I’m NOT in ANY way suggesting you refrain from speaking of the above, but what has prompted your post today is not entirely unexpected.
It’s a great question. My view is that historical conclusions can have religious implications; but the arguments leading to those conclusions should be based on an examination of historical evidence, not grounded in religious/theological assumptions and beliefs. If they do have such implications, everyone needs to figure out for themselves how to deal with them; but the arguments and conclusions themselves are historical, not religious/theological.
For anyone who doubts that a believing Christian can do the history of early Christianity without injecting his religious bias into his conclusions, I suggest reading Dale Martin’s New Testament History and Literature. He gives a great explanation of the differences among the real Jesus who (most likely) lived and died, the historical Jesus, and the Jesus (or Jesuses?) of Christian faith and how one can navigate them all with integrity in one brain. At least that was one valuable insight I took away.
I find it amusing (but agree it’s a waste of Bart’s comment checking time) when someone writes trying to tell Bart that he should invite Jesus into his heart or whatever, meaning they haven’t even taken the time to read his personal history – if they would they’d realize Bart already went through that process.
Thank you so much for doing this.
You’re welcome!
Because of this blog, I’m no longer convinced my personal views are right!
Ha! It’s not a bad place to be.
Judith,
So true, but the trade off is you have added flexibility. It feels liberating, you don’t feel confined, you don’t feel trapped.
The Bible is way more satisfying to read, because it feels way more accessible, way more relatable.
Socrates would say that you’ve taken a big step towards wisdom!
Alot of people say that prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled especially prophecies regarding the Jews, Cyrus, and babylon is this true
Prophets were not predicting the distant future, but speaking to people and the situations of their own time.
I wonder why a believer would even take a risk of exposing themselves to historical/scholarly texts on the Bible. This information would be a huge shock to the system. A lot of this information is very piercing.
I remember the panic in my friend’s voice when I told him the idea of the Ark of the Covenant came from Egypt since you can find the Anubis Ark in King Tuts tomb. That’s when I realized dialogue would best be had with those who are more knowledgeable.
So, I ordered a used copy of your PhD dissertation on Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels. Boy, you weren’t kidding when you said it couldn’t be adapted to a general audience! It’s all Greek to me! Well, not all of it, but I’m going to have fun trying to make sense of it.
A used copy?? Someone read it???
AMEN!! And Thank you!!
Thank you Dr. Ehrman, for reiterating the parameters of this this blog. It is refreshing to one seeking to learn about the history of the new testament to come to this place and learn from your years of research and experience in teaching, and also to read the questions and thoughts shared by others who are not looking for converts to their persuasions.
Hi Dr. Ehrman
Unrelated to your post, but do you recommend How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now by James L. Kugel for a historical and literary approach to understanding the bible? I’m finding it hard to read and understand the bible when I don’t know who wrote these books/ when they were written/ where and in what historical context were the written/ which of the events are historical which are not…you get it!
Thanks
Yes, he is one of the top scholars of the Hebrew Bible in the country/world.
Thanks, Bart!!
Completely support your decision and policy…some comments are more interesting than others, but wish everyone would do their best to keep it short and to the point…at least as much as possible.
I totally support your decision. I would suggest that you put a note next to the “ADD COMMENT” something along the lines, “I agree to the rules of engagement” with a link to the rules. Or change “ADD COMMENT” to “ADD COMMENT AND CONSENT TO RULES”. I would also suggest that the rules state that it is entirely to your discretion whether to approve a post, and that repeated abuse of posting rules would result in being barred from posting for 6months (once this blog feature is technologically feasible). Don’t let time-wasters impair your goals in running this blog, to the detriment to yourself and other subscribers. I view it a privilege to be able to interact with an eminent scholar and bestseller author, it is not a right.
I would give this post ten stars if that were permitted.
I’ll consider it ten-starred.
Ten gold stars!!!!
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
H. L. Mencken
After much thought and consideration, I have finally come around. Trust me, it wasn’t easy, at all. But, in all honesty I think Bart is probably right. He has a point. Okay? I got it. And as a new member I hope I’m not out of line by casting my lot with him. I would only hope that he extend kindness and generosity of spirit as he restricts the preaching, the constant condemning, all the belittling, and the ceaseless criticizing he and his disciples are famous for. It is not their fault. As members of the New First Church Of Ehrmanism, with all its promise and exiting, tantalizing doctrines, his recent converts mean no harm. Eventually, they will settle in and grow lethargic like many half-dead church goers of modernity. Give them room to spread their wings Pope Bart The First. Don’t be overly harsh and don’t become discouraged. Every new religion has its ups and downs.
Again, my warmest congratulations Your Highness, The Exalted Pope Bart Of Lawrence. It has been a long time coming, but now that you’ve taken the plunge, I will be by your side come what may.
P.S. I’d like my comment opportunities back, you know the ones I mean. Thanks, P
Nope, no do-overs! Given your disdain for me and my work, I don’t know why you want to stay on the blog! But everyone is welcome, so long as they keep to the standards and etiquette we have agreed to.
Totally support this move. Proselytizing is fine and all in other venues, but I find that too often it is used as an excuse not to engage in honest conversation and debate, which is something I have seen here with a member or two, and I’ve only just joined.
So I totally support this! I think it will definitely help promote an atmosphere of critical discussion.
I support you on this decision. Often, it is hard to raise questions without crossing the border and coming across as a “doubter” and I know this happens with me. I will work on it as the blog continues because I find the blog to be so helpful in so many ways.
Great rule. If I wanted to be preached to, I’d go to church
Where would blog posts with links to your debates land on your comment censorship policy? Because I’ve listened to most of your debates and you can get a little, shall we say, aggressively persuasive in your presentation. BTW – Aren’t your comments in your posts saying that you disagree with certain other historians just a back-door way of trying to convince people to believe you? Proselytizing? It’s good to know your comment policy is tracking along with the masters of the universe like FB, Twitter, and everything Google. Nothing personal of course.
Interesting question! But I’m a bit puzzled. In which of my debates did you think I was proselytizing people to accept my personal religious views?
Wow Bart! What’s the definition of a debate?
I think the question was about the times I have a one-on-one public disputation in front of an audience on a set resolution.
OK Bart, As I was going through some of your debate content on Youtube to answer your question a simple question came to mind; what exactly is a debate?
So I Googled “What is a debate” and the majority of the answers I got can be summed up in the following excerpt I found in a piece on the BBC titled “What are debates and why do we have them?”. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/31477773
“A debate is a way for people with different views to argue against each other in an organized way. It means everyone gets to chance to talk, trying to convince an audience that their opinion is the right one. Debates are won when one side manages to persuade more people than the other that their opinion is right.”
I also found a great piece called “Let’s Debate, Why Debate” on a site called ISSOS that, as a retired teacher, I found quite interesting. https://www.issos.com/news/blog/article/benefits-debate/
Here is an excerpt from that piece subtitled: “How Debate Can Benefit Your Studies … And Beyond!”
“Studying debate provides young adults with the skills to successfully tackle the world around them and intelligently question that which they believe to be true or false. Debate doesn’t only afford the opportunity to work on public speaking, but also offers an engaging and relevant output to practice structuring an essay; providing a clear argument, evidence to support your claims and convincing your audience to agree with you.”
Based on what is being said about debates, I believe you were trying to proselytize (convince) people in all your debates – as I assume is your objective in all your books. But then again, aren’t we all debating when we choose to engage with someone on a topic or point we disagree with?
The only debates in which I’m interested in convincing anyone about my *religious* views have been the ones on suffering, and even in those I’m not trying to make anyone become an agnostic or atheist, but instead am trying to help them formulate a reasonable basis for their own views, whatever they are. The reality is I really truly don’t give a damn if anyone agrees with my person views. Simply is not something I’m remotely interested in.
Based on the widely held definition of debating, what’s the point of debating anyone if you’re not interested in trying to convince them (and the audience) that you are right and they are wrong?
To directly answer your question as to when you ever “proselytize” during a debate; here is a quote from you taken from one of your debates as recorded as “Best of Bart Ehrman Amazing Arguments And Clever Comebacks Part 2” (Beginning @ 4:31min.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU2qBE7tA4Q
“The discrepancies of the gospels show us that stories have been changed over the years. Let me say something about the discrepancies of our gospels. And I should just say upfront, this is what convinced me that my views about the Bible were wrong when I was in my twenties. When I was diligently studying the New Testament Gospels in the original Greek I started finding discrepancies. I knew people had said that. I didn’t believe it, it was just a bunch of liberals saying these things. So I didn’t believe them, and I started studying and I started realizing THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES! And once you realize it there, you start finding them – lots of them.”
This quote is characteristic of your debate style and strategy – blending facts, sarcasm and personal anecdotes to help convince the audience that you are a credible source and that they should consider adopting your point of view.
Notice in this quote that you preface your remarks with the fact that what you are about to tell them is what literally “convinced” you there were discrepancies in the Bible – adding that this happened when you were “diligently studying the New Testament” – in the “original Greek” no less. You point out that you eventually – through diligent study -came to agree with people you thought were “liberals.” You imply that at some point in your studies you realized, or shall I say were convinced, that “there are discrepancies.” You made that point with great emphasis and emotion, implying your shock that you were wrong and the liberals were right.
Classic example of trying to convince people of your point.
I’m clearly not explaining myself very well. Discrepancies are in the Bible, whatever you personally believe about God. I’ve never used them to argue against a Christian view. It’s like saying that a biologist who is teaching evolution or an astronomer who is teaching about the age of the universe is trying to proselytize people to become atheists. Anyone who thinks that is the scientist *is* doing is themself simply adopting a fundamentalist view, which is their prerogative, of course, but the scientist is not proselytizing a religious view but teaching science. HUGE difference.
Dr. Ehrman,
Just as a different lens or viewpoint of your invaluable work and blog here, I essentially deconverted from Fundy-Evangy Christianity (and technically any form-denomination of Xianity) all on my own after 11+ years of church work (deacon), Singles Director, home bible studies, seminary student at Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, MS), and 4 missionary tours on 3 different continents. The sole reason my deconversion began was simply and purely because of all the numerous (litany) of problems, incongruencies, failures, and contradictions all throughout the canonical Old and New Testaments. That’s it! Unfortunately, when one so committed to the faith, church, personal beliefs in a (un)available(?) Abrahamic God as I was you are quite stretched, challenged (in the U.S.) to find plentiful expert, scholarly study and research from non-Christian sources… at least in the early 90’s, excluding exceptional Jewish scholars and work. You, Dr. Ehrman, were a wonderful breath of fresh air back then and since finding and joining your blog here earlier this year, has made the learning and studying online of independent sources and evidence of BROADER contextual history of the time-period — not just all the ad infinitum, ad nauseum available sources from Christian perspectives, e.g. versus true pure Second Temple Judaism/Messianism — within the necessary unavoidable context of the mighty pre-Christian Roman Empire!
Your blog here is a tremendous source for these non-Christian and non-Judeo-Christian biases that are a nicke-a-dozen out there. Never have I had the slightest hint or suspicion YOU are promoting or campaigning or marketing a specific belief-system. You, your work, and your blog here are filling a massive void that has been around and unknown or little known for way too many centuries, more accurately two millenia!
Just thought I might interject this alternative viewpoint here. Thank you.
Thank you! – for this reminder, and for this blog! – kevin
Being respectful, I love it! It is just like the golden age! Anyone can say what ever they please without being denied or judged! Your blog is specifically towards CIA, I and I support that!
Thanks for doing this! I am interested in learning about the historical Jesus, the historical development of the early Church along with its writings and textual criticism of those writings. I understand also that I have a strong bias against Christian Fundamentalism and in the past I have had an axe to grind and it’s been reflected in my posts from time to time. I hope that hasn’t been problematic? In the future I will be mindful of that and leave that at the door.
I do see however there are places where the theological and the historical do clash a bit. .For example, issues surrounding miracles such as walking on water or the resurrection. That can be a slippery slope. On the one hand you can discuss how and why miracles aren’t something an Historian can verify, yet on the other hand the very reasons miracles aren’t historically verifiable can be an argument for atheism and I’m sure that is also the type of proselytizing you don’t want here either. Christian and Atheism style of proselytizing is to be avoided.
I wouldn’t define that particular conflict as proselytizing. Biblical historians aren’t trying to promote or persuade others to conform to their views.
Hallelujah!
Amen.
Dr, Ehrman , I applaud your decision . Bravo !
And after reading that, it’s time to renew my membership. ( smile )
Thank you for taking this step – I always enjoy reading through the comments and see your responses, but slogging through the proselytizing comments was starting to get tiresome.
Some have mentioned that it’s understandable how certain people (esp. Christians) would push back on occasion. It would be extremely boring if we all had the same opinions, but expressing a differing opinion is not the same as proselytizing to the point of harassment. I am not on board with anyone being attacked for their views day in and day out whether it’s a blog member or yourself.
A few members have offered suggestions, so I’d like to give mine: I would ask that you not allow anyone who is bent on agitating you to switch their tactics from proselytizing to whatever else s/he might come up with: passive-aggressiveness, flattery to disguise their true feelings of contempt, using other blog members to promote disrespect, or any form of bullying. I don’t think it would be out of line to revoke their commenting privileges—at least temporarily. Facebook does this; people call it “Facebook jail”. It’s a 30 day time-out period for not following the rules.
I’ve mentioned before, I’m afraid that the proto-orthodox leaders who compiled the canon did not comprehend the nature of reality as it is, and so developed on what we might call children stories that are easier to understand but devoid of meaning. Working with such historical doctrines will invariably bring up wrong answers. An understanding of a metaphysical book loaded with angelic beings cannot be had when the only allowed sources are photo-orthodox (and the bulk of the “gnostic” texts as well, because they too operate from the proto-orthodox idea of an executed Son of God).
I’ve spent time here trying to find other angles into the material, but this requires the use of a platform of mysticism. And that is probably breaking your rules.
Great decision, sensitively put. It’s SO important this valuable and valued site stays ‘better’ (saner? calmer? more mature?) than the endless ‘shouting places’. Thank you.
Dr. Erhman,
I completely agree with your decision, or return to an early decision of keeping comments ON TOPIC. Internet proselytizing/evangelizing is already a crazy saturated, perhaps robotized-computerized in many ways(?), sector of social-media and sales and marketing — the latter where it belongs anyway. (wink) I think you are perfectly within your right to politely remind viewers/members of this simple request, consideration, and etiquette here. I applaud this! I know that I for one come here NOT to be “preached” to, but to read and get more well informed by your exceptionally scholarly work and publishing. Thank you Sir.
I certainly think it can be productive for people to share their ideas about religion, and their personal beliefs, as you have always done, here and elsewhere.
And in sharing one’s beliefs, one is, in a certain limited extent, proselytizing. However, it can go too far. I’ve had Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door who were easier to talk to than certain persons here, and they were literally handing out tracts!
I’m not handing out any tracts, and I don’t formally participate in any organized faith at this time. But I have ideas, and beliefs, and I do want to share them. It’s fine if nobody agrees, but the need to express oneself and be understood is universal. And in that sense, everyone here is proselytizing. But not in the sense you mean, and yeah, that should stop.
Ok Doc, I’m sorry and … well … there’ll be no more Bayesian Dogma from me!
Greg
Hello, Dr. Ehrman. I know that you’ve mentioned before that your wife was a practicing Christian. How did the two of you approach the issue with your children when they were young? I am sure, being the intellectuals that you are, you would never direct one of them one way or the other once they became adults. This post’s topic piqued my interest in that regard. Thank you.
Very simple. I didn’t have any children with my wife; they come from a former marriage, and I was a Christian when they were born.