Loading...Just as happened the first time I made a couple of posts on the article I wrote about Christmas for Newsweek, this time too, in my reposts, I’ve been asked about the kinds of reactions I received. Back then I gave two follow up posts, and here is the first.
It’s a pretty funny one, from my perspective. I start out being completely defensive (not that I have a thin skin or anything) and cap it all off by emphatically insisting that I was not being defensive. As I get older, I find I have a better sense of humor about myself… Here’s the first of the two posts.
********************************************************
My Newsweek article this week has generated a lot of response. I have no idea what kind of comments they typically get for their stories, but so far, as of now, there have been 559 on mine; and most of them are negative – to no one’s surprise – written by people (conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists for the most part, from what I can tell) who think that the Gospels are perfectly accurate in what they have to say about Jesus – not just at his birth but for his entire life. A lot of these respondents think that anyone who thinks that the New Testament contains discrepancies is too smart for his or her own good and blind at the same time (not sure how it can go both ways, but there it is).
I’ve also been getting a lot of email from incensed readers, including a sixteen-year old girl who tells me that she is a Pentecostal Christian who has read the Bible 160 times and is now starting her 161st; she was very upset with me and is praying for my soul.
I appreciate the animosity that people feel: I would have felt the same way…
The Rest of this Post is for MEMBERS only. If you don’t belong yet, join up! It’s much less than a dime a post and it’s the best dime you’ll ever spend. And every one of those dimes goes to charity!!
Dr. Ehrman, your scholarship is ON-POINT! You are one of the few excellent NT scholars who are not driven by the racist conservative Christian Jesus cult of a “blue-eyed blonde haired man-god.” There is no such thing, MAN CANNOT BE GOD, PERIOD! READ NUMBERS 19:23. We see this repeated today in the racist cult of President Trump and the Trump led Republican Party or ultra right-wing conservatives supported by Fox News, Newsmax and other conservative hate media outlets.
I thought we tried to avoid political statements on this blog?
At the very least substantiate your allegations using objective criteria that most people can agree on.
Sorry, I let that one slip by. Happens on occasion….
I want to buy a Bible dictionary and I am considering the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary by Mark Allan Powell. Do you recommend it? Or can you suggest a better alternative?
Martin Hilliard
Yup, it’s an excellent choice.
Dr bart why many scholar like you even though they agree jesus is not god and only prophet also many contradiction and historical mistake why they couldnt give up christian completly like for example larry hurtado your friend who was died still with christianity, why they dont move to islam why they didnt choose just because presumption About islam whiches scholar most likely to avoid before they actually studying it, because its the last step they may to step to get clear answer before they die
I think for religion because its big choice and obvious choice you need to follow proof amd reason instead “follow your heart” becuase you can simply ask and observe it, thats why i choose islam , and not follow my presumption about islam and stay in christianity just because i have bad feeling toward islam
Because they think Islam is even more problematic than Christianity. Most of us who left Christianity did so because we no longer believed in God at all; so it would make no sense to move into a religion that was focused on God.
Why wouldnt you believe in any exstance of spirit and demon i swear many people become victim of blackmagic and it was real , they have anxiety and cancer taht can be cured with quran here in indonesia and many other part of the wrold
Because I don’t believe that it’s true. I don’t believe there is black magic, white magic, or miraculous cures of any kind. THere are certainly false rumors and natural occurrences and very serious misimpressions and misunderstanings.
Whos gonna save people from demonic evil spirit humanity cant save themself without god help and god healing , at least from mental illness , if demon exist thengod exist, exorcist save many people from depression rather to use alcohol, dr bart im with all repesct im not try to make a mess here hhh
I don’t believe there are evil spirits. THere are some very troubled people, but the mental disorders are physiological (even when caused by experiences).
“As I get older, I find I have a better sense of humor about myself…”
Same. I think it’s called wisdom.
It’s a shame that so much attention and media coverage involve Christian fundamentalists (or Evangelicals) versus folks like Bart. It takes away from what I think is a better debate: liberal Christians versus New Testament scholars like Bart. This debate is the real hard one, but even on Bart’s blog it gets little attention.
The contest between folks like Bart and Christian fundamentalists is a slam dunk in favor of the Bart’s of this world. It gets great media attention because it riles up more people.
Let’s have more dialogue between liberal Christians and agnostics (or atheists). That’s harder for the Bart’s of this world. but more interesting!!
Sure, I’m happy to address any liberal Christian views anyone would like me to discuss. When it comes to the Bible, I agree with most of them!
Anyone who spends time and energy digging out the truth is doing something laudable. For my part, I’d rather know the truth, even if it hurts, than spend my life in a comforting fog of myth and superstition. You go a step beyond, making your findings and the results of careful investigation in a rather demanding area (look at the languages you have to learn– the time you have to invest to do such research!) accessible to a lay audience. There’s nothing trivial about what you and others in your field of study are doing. The work is just as important as smashing atoms or any other endeavor in a hard science. On the other hand, I’ve got no respect at all for the apologists. Just as I have no respect for flat-earthers.
Do you think American evangelicalism of today has changed much from that of your youth, in terms of theological outlook and religious sociology? Televangelism was a big thing in the 1980s, Billy Graham pioneered mass evangelism drawing vast crowds subsequently emulated by other preachers, the Toronto blessing was a big thing in the 1990s. Until the 1980s, the term fundamentalism was viewed as a badge of honor by its adherents, but now it is predominately viewed as a pejorative. Its adherents now use the evangelical label. On the political front, I don’t think there was systematic association of American evangelicalism with right-wing politics in the 1970s whereas evangelicalism today as a voting demographics is overwhelmingly allied with the Republican Party, for good or for ill. Preaching and evangelism remain a stable of evangelical practice, but there is much more activity going on under the banner of apologetics. There is probably a shift in past 2 decade among evangelical scholars/theologians towards serious engagement with biblical scholarship.
I do find it puzzling why young evangelicals today think your views are idiosyncratic. A quick Google search (e.g. “the gospels”) and browsing on Wikipedia would point to large variety of literature supporting your views.
I think evangelicals, esp. scholars, have become more open and less anti-modernist. It’s surprising how many will conceded that there could be contradictions inthe Bible, e.g., and that hell does not literally exist….
Great work. You and others represent validation that many of us, all of our lives believed but could not express with the authority or clarity that you do.
Keep up your fascinating work. Thanks.
Do you think this resistance to scholarship is something unique to American fundamentalism, or is it found in other branches of Christianity?
It seems to echo certain democratic & populist ideas found in American politics: that the common person knows best and a skepticism -if not hostility- towards those who study things from an outside perspective.
THere’s a long history of it — including, of course, throughout the Catholic Tradition.
“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.” Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, 1709.
Disconfirmation bias seems to be readily available in this day of rapid access to unvetted information. I am appalled at how quickly expertise is dismissed when it conflicts with a disparate belief system. Your recent YouTube experience ( https://youtu.be/0XRsuoyIr_I ) illustrates this quite well.
I have learned a great deal reading your books (changed my way of thinking) and courses and am grateful for your scholarship. Thank you.
I am an “extremely conservative” Roman Catholic but I appreciate your work even though I disagree with you on many issues. In fact the most important thing is to understand the reasoning of the other and I recognize that many conservatives do not want to understand the way a non-believer studies the Bible.
When I was a teen-aged Biblical literalist, I wouldn’t listen to any views that went against mine. Why, those people were evil! But then I began to see that there were good people who did not believe the Bible was all literally true. And then I began to examine my views a little. And then… the wall began to crack.
And a lot of wicked people who *do* believe it. (As I found out myself)
Bart said, “But education sometimes has its effect, and it certainly did on me.” Exactly. As I searched for what I describe as the “truth” I began at the back end by spending over a year reading about early Christianity (11 Bart books) among others. The past few months I have began reading books on biblical archeology and the early kingdom of Israel by such authors as William Dever, Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar. It has been a rewarding experience to absorb what these works reveal and it would certainly irritate many as well.
I once gave a talk on the historical background to the NT at the church my wife and I attend (which is Roman Catholic). Although, as you say, Catholics are less concerned, than evangelical Protestants, with Biblical inerrancy, an inner voice told me not to go too far on issues such as the census didn’t happen, at least in the way Luke described. I think I was probably right. I recall some years ago the previous Pope Benedict addressing the discrepancy about the day on which Jesus was crucified, principally in John’s gospel. I didn’t read the whole paper he wrote on this subject, just a summary, but I got the impression he felt that the theological reasons for changing the day far outweighed any historical problems this may have caused.
This reminds me of a time when walking on a busy street, I saw a young girl, maybe in her teens, wearing a t- shirt that said,” why be good, when being bad gets all the attention”. I pondered on the truth of that statement? Your post Bart, is dead on. You do share the views of many scholars at research universities, I think, from what you tell us, at least. I think though, maybe you haven’t asked yourself this, that you are the most *public* biblical scholar (non-believer) that I know of. You have thrown yourself out there. Five or six best sellers, pointing out forgeries, discrepancies/irreconcilable differences in the bible. Numerous debates against believing scholars/public figures. Frankly Professor, you love this, from what i can see. Your last sentence is evident of this. You are truly a much needed *thorn*, as someone once said. On the contrary though, can you ever have envisioned a challenging/controversial life, like you enjoy today, if not for leaving your beliefs ? In a country and a world saturated with an ocean of believing books/bibles, your renunciation became your legacy.
There’s such a spectrum on this stuff. IMHO you aren’t the furthest left in that spectrum, I.e. Robert Price etc. One thing I dearly wish: the scholarly realm needs to drop the phrase “historical Jesus.” Doesn’t history, by definition, be something based on written records? And if something is prehistoric, then it existed before written records? Let’s call it the reconstructed Jesus or the postulated Jesus. There are no written records, anywhere, in antiquity, that portray Jesus as a misguided apocalypticist that forecasted the coming of someone called the son of man, that wasn’t himself. This belief is a derivative of a scholarly methodology of study that seeks to identify what Jesus actually taught, and believed, but there are NO documents from history that portray him in this way. NONE. It is a recent development. Also, there are NO historical documents that expressly claim Jesus was born in Nazareth. None. He may have been, but no early account records it that way. None. The “Historical Jesus” is anything but… historical. Actual, maybe, but not historical.
I”m not quite sure what you mean. There are various definitinos of history, but even if you say “written records,” there are lots of “written records” about Jesus. If you mean that history only comprises eyewitness written accounts, I don’t think you will find too many historians who would agree with that.
As a questioning believer when I first started reading your books one of the things I liked is that when you cited certain passages I would look in my Bible and it would match exactly what you said. In fact, my edition would often have margin notes pointing out variants or questionable passages like you said, because as you point out, it’s standard scholarship, not your own invention. But I suppose I should not be surprised that conservative Christians object to academic inquiry and investigation; in the first story of humans in the Bible they have to choose blind obedience over knowledge in order to have eternal life. I think they made the right choice, as did I.
it is interesting that so many have such a closed mind to even considering ideas that may challenge their beliefs, many are ,i believe, scared to read or listen to anything that may be counter to what they wish or need to believe(and that includes things beyond their religious beliefs, take politics for example, or ideas of a different race, a stick my head in the sand mentality) your writings have only helped many with information(much appreciated) and kind of like neil degrasse tyson, teach one HOW to think, NOT what to think. btw, i’m sure they KNOW much more about the subject than you,LOL
Have you read Tom Nichol’s “Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters”? I hate to rail about the internet and quasi-anonymity while posting on the internet quasi-anonymously…but I will risk the thunderbolt! It’s one thing to have read your Newsweek piece and go off in good faith and do some scholarly investigation….maybe even going beyond wikipedia…and read a book on the topic. It’s another to immediately jump on-line and start ranting…where ad hominem is more the rule than the exception.
But that’s where we are at as a society where I’ve not seen the quality of public discourse any lower than what’s going on today. Still, it’s understandable that people are threatened by analyses that challenge inerrancy. If the nativity stories are wrong…what about the miracles….and gasp….the resurrection?! There’s almost no gentle way to break down the defense mechanism…to encourage critical thought and appreciate the value of evidence. These commenters simply don’t understand what you do…and that you’re not just winging it. But this happens across the board whether its global warming, evolution, government policy…narcissism rules…and unfortunately technology is only making it easier to give into it.
I know about it, but haven’t been reading it. Yes, the Internet is quite a development in human history…
“Of course – let me stress the point – OF COURSE this does not mean that these views are right. But it does mean that if I’m wrong (as the populace at large seems to think J ), then we’re all wrong.”
I don’t think the populace at large thinks you’re wrong. I’m guessing, rather, that there was a significant selection effect at play in the comments posted in response to your Newsweek piece.
When looking for product reviews on, say, Amazon, it tends to be easier to find negative reviews than positive ones. This isn’t necessarily because a product is terrible, or because everyone who uses it hates it; it’s simply because those who for whatever reason dislike a product tend to be more motivated to post a review than those who are happy with it.
I suspect the same thing happened with responses to your Newsweek piece: many (most?) of those who commented in response were people who were riled up enough to be motivated to do so.
What is interesting is WHY, in light of what the vast majority of biblical scholars acknowledge,
preachers, ministers, priests, etc. seem to be reluctant to impart this to their respective congregations?
Possibly the answer is related to what I call the Santa Claus syndrome (SCS). Despite the fact SC is a fictional character, there is a taboo in the media against stating such. I imagine pre-elementary children discovering this and their subsequent disappointment is deemed unacceptable and catastrophic. This despite they all find out eventually and no long-term adverse effects continuing into adulthood have ever been proposed.
So if an 8-9 year old can handle SCS why fear adults knowing what most biblical scholars hold? I actually feel most faithful will feel such information quite refreshing. Belief in theological doctrine need not be inexorably linked to historical accuracy or differences stemming from differing points of view and purposes of the various authors.
My advice to Church leaders is to try introducing modern scholarship to your faithful…you may be pleasantly surprised!
Late as usual. The fast growing Religion right now is atheism as it was considered in the 1st thru 3rd centuries.
Reading the bible 160 times in let’s say 5 years is 69,000 words a day. I’m impressed.
Apologies that this off-topic of this article: Have you written about Hans Urs von Balthasar or about the Roman Catholic church at all? Tried searching and did not have much luck.
No, I haven’t.
Sadly, such anti-intellectualism, as Isaac Asimov observed years ago, has a long history in the US. The fact that so many people out there seem to think that scholarly opinions or theories are just another “preference” — like being a Lakers rather than a Clippers fan — speaks to the failure of our educational system to help people understand the scientific process and how knowledge is actually produced in the world (note: it’s not by just reading something over and over 160 times). The consensus of a body of experts is not to be followed blindly, of course, as you suggest, but they should at least make an effort to know *why* a group of scholars believes what it does about a subject.
Ty!
i mean i really don’t get the vicious backlash against you, you recommend Christian scholars like john meier (a priest!) all the time. I guess its just because they aren’t the right type of Christian for these guys? Anyway im chomping through your book “did jesus exist?”, i have to say its wonderful, reading all this stuff has been so fun!
Dr. Erhman, many years ago I sat down to read the four Gospels laid out together in horizontal fashion. Going thru this reading was eye opening for me. I was a charismatic believer, what I saw and could not deny was literally like being kicked in the stomach. I had visions before that time of being a minister, to hold any other position other than that the Bible was free of any error was a disqualification in my circle. I have come a long way, to know the truth is my goal.
I’ve watched many of your videos and have a question. Seems your earlier talks you said you were agnostic but then in a recent one you said you were a atheist. My question is, couldn’t there be beings far superior to us that exist in dimensions beyond our ability to perceive? I find evolutions explanation of how creation happened hard to believe. Functional DNA forming from nothing seems impossible to me. I’ve heard seeding of the earth by what we would consider a “God” something scientists consider a possibility. Agnostic seems more logical?
Yes, there certainly could be. The question then would be why you (or I, or anyone) should think that’s likely? I’m agnostic because I really don’t *know* if there is a greater power in the universe (outside the material realm); I’m atheist because I don’t *believe* there is.