Loading...On the heels of the publication of How Jesus Became God, written for a broad, general audience, rather than for scholars, and in light of my previous post in which I indicated that some scholars are very sniffy about this kind of publication and think that it is “only” a popular kind of book, I was going to devote this post to my view of scholars in relationship to popular, trade books. As I was outlining my points in my head, I realized, Wait a second! I’ve said all this before. Not on the blog. But in a very different context indeed.
In 2011 at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature there was a very large session devoted to such things. The panel presenting papers was John Dominic Crossan, Amy Jill Levine, N. T. Wright, and me. The audience was all biblical scholars, maybe a thousand of them? The following is what I said in my talk about scholars publishing for a popular audience.
******************************************************************
We as biblical scholars need to be informing the public about what we do. Many of us are public servants, supported by tax dollars of hard working people in our broader communities. Those of us in that boat should not ignore these people. Moreover, all of us – state employees or not — are members of these communities, and we have a responsibility to them.
But there are two points I want to stress about this move to make scholarship more widely available to the average person in the pew and on the street:
This is not something that every scholar can do and it is not something that every scholar should do.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, HOW CAN LIFE BE MEANINGFUL???
This is absolutely spot on! One of the struggles of contemporary scholarship is the very real lack of personal and critical knowledge. It is easy to read and regurgitate facts, but that does not make one a scholar. Rather, as you say, it takes personal experience and hard work to be a reputable scholar. However, with that being said, is it wrong to want to publish books for popular audiences, or is it more appropriate to state that one’s goal should be to give genuine scholarship to the masses? I believe that you are spot on about most, if not all things, but I do believe that the fruits of scholarship should be available to the masses in some forms or fashions. We can critique the declining influence of scholarship all we want, but unless we give the masses views and fruits of our scholarship, I do not think that it will be possible to achieve change in the contemporary trend of how scholarship is perceived by popular audiences.
For anybody interesting hearing Bart’s speech outlined here, or what John Dominic Crossan, Amy Jill Levine, and N. T. Wright said during the same panel discussion see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaV9mTvGfKg
Professor Erhman, what is your opinion of novelists who retell the story of the Gospels? Examples, Nikos Kanzantzakis’ “The Last Temptation of Christ”; Anne Rice’s “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt” and the “Road to Cana”; Jose Saramago’s “The Gospel According to Jesus Christ,” and so forth? Of course, their aims are different: they are not presenting fiction as Biblical scholarship. But someone, say, like Anthony Burgess certainly knew his theology.
I’m just curious.
Thanks,
Joyce
I’m all for it.
You certainly have a rare talent for writing for the public in a very clear way. This is especially helpful in the field of theology which can get lost in big words. However, I do think in my field of psychiatry many of the research giants do not teach or summarize ideas very clearly and research may be a completely different skill than teaching and summarizing concepts. There are a few who can do both in psychiatry, but not many. I the field of Christianity, I think Spong writes well for the public without really being a research scholar.
Hi Bart,
I understand what you are saying here and why. However, I think the problem we have today is just the opposite. There are not enough books being published on this subject.
When I go to the local library, I find all kinds of Bibles, (Old Testaments, New Testaments, Hebrew Bibles, Roman Catholic Bibles, etc.) and associated books such as Study Bibles. Then I find all kinds of books being written about Christianity, Jesus, the New Testament, etc. mostly from people who are or were Pastors, Ministers, or lay people with some sort of Christian based affiliation. I also come across a fair number of books written by “authors” like Bill O’Reilly and his book, “Killing Jesus”.
In the local library, this complete subject matter covers about 2 aisles, each 5 shelves high, and about 30 feet long.
Now, whenever I go to this section of our library and look for the books written by people like Elaine Pagels, and yourself, the historical scholars, if I were to take all of these books, I could easily put them on one 6 foot shelf.
Personally, I think we would be better served if more people, even if they only have a limited background on Biblical Scholarship, would publish more books on this subject.
John
Good point!
*Claps*
I agree, as one of your wider audience members I have been exposed to a great deal more than I was able to find in popular reading and lessons. Your scholarship, years of study and gift of communicating that research and knowledge are what has made your writing understandable to me in non-academic and scholarly terms. Definitely not everyone can do that. You have a wonderful gift, thank you for giving me the opportunity to understand.
I certainly agree with everything you say. But about the fact that some scholars *can’t* write books for general readership…I think the academics who criticize you in the way you mentioned previously (“he’s just doing it for the money”) are at least subconsciously aware they *can’t* do it, and jealous.
“You are writing it for your mother and for the guy who lives across the street. They probably know NOTHING about what you’re talking about. The trick is to communicate with them simply without oversimplifying, to speak to them intelligently without condescending.”
–
I think you are underestimating the problem. It is not exactly that they probably know nothing about it. The problem is that for every issue in NT scholarship there is a wide continuum of explanations ranging from the “very word of God given by God incarnate ” conservatives through consensus university scholarship and into the more radical liberal scholarship. This does not even include the lunatic fringe on both ends. And of course there is a wide continuum of scholarship within each of the schematic division into conservative, consensus and liberal scholarship.
–
So no matter what you believe on any given NT problem there is a long history of that belief and a segment of current scholarship that agrees with you. It is not that your mother and the guy across the street know nothing but rather they know exactly what they have been told and are continually told by their church, Christian media and the scholars that their church and media tell them they can trust.
–
How are your mother, the butcher and the baker supposed to recognize where the truth lies when there is an entire industry of conservative Christian schools churning out generations of scholars who are indeed NT scholars, professors and writers but whose mindset was formed from youth that truth in scholarship is interpreting evidence in a manner that agrees with doctrines of the Word of God, God incarnate, the Trinity, bodily resurrection and the atonement?
I’ve never been told before that I’ve underestimated the problem! 🙂 But yes, of course, I agree about the religious right p.r. machine.
Dear Bart,
Do you think that some of your colleagues’ sniffy reaction is that they think that your trade/popular books are “too popular”? That is, that they are not footnoted enough or do not mention in the body of the text the trends in scholarship (occasionally naming specific scholars and their books) that led you to the conclusions you report? Might this be part of it for some?
That’s partly it — but that also, in part, is what a trade book *is*.
Thanks, I understand. One last thought and question. Perhaps some of the sniffyness is due to your *extraordinary* popularity. I mean, can you think of anyone in American religious studies academia who enjoys anything like your popularity in trade books? If so, have you talked to him or her? Does she/he get the same flack?
Interesting idea — I don’t think I’ve talked with other trade authors about this!
Will you be communicating any of the ideas in How Jesus Became God to a scholarly audience?
I’m not planning on it. I have other scholarly books I’m intent on doing instead….
Breaking free from misunderstanding comes by understanding… thanks to those who teach it..
Your blog here us so relevant to having just finished your new book. Not being trained in any languages I have had to read the pre-Nicene literature in English and a myriad of different books and opinions since 1972 to figure out what the real history might be. Took my time thought the 1st half of your book especially. The second half from chapter 5 onward is a theological history I am very familiar with and you did an excellent historical presentation of the right details of a very complex subject.
Back to the 1st half. Most of your conclusions I came to years ago from my reading adventures. So of course it is extremely gratifying to have someone of your caliber put it together in in one book. Interestingly many of the conclusions are supported by catholic theology (Roman & Eastern Orthodox) a subject I became well read on from ’72-’87. You are not constrained by dogma so the facts are examined as objectively as possible. Instead of the wiggling of post Nicene theological revisionism for the pre-Nicene theological writings that could be bent in the favor of the ecumenical councils by back dating who was a heretic, conveniently leaving things out. Etc. you present as is warts and all. I do think a bit of humor was missed (left out as not needed) on your part to mention that Tertullian the 1st big time writer of the Trinity eventually opposed the majority of the church and died a heretic. The Holy Spirit blows where it will I guess. Ha!
You also provide what is NOT in any of the theological writings – the cultural mindset of the time of Jesus. You show the common acceptance, per situation, of the ideas circulating from the Jewish ‘apocryphal ‘ sacred literature, the Greco/Roman world, and the general acceptance by the intelligent elite of all the societies of the Empire of the miraculous. Thus visions and experiences were a contention of who is right about political/religious control especially in the context of the next evolution of Roman thought about the Emperor. All of that I am familiar with from reading pagan literature. But your ability to take us there, and most importantly to Palestine, is the best I have read. It has extra information I have seen no where else.
So…this takes me forward into the second half of the book. I applaud your presentation of how RAPIDLY christology developed. You proved your point to me in this regard. It settled some nagging open questions I’ve had for years.
Thank you so much for all your books. Anyone with a decent reading level can learn what took me decades to cobble together with lots of errors and resets from your books. It is an amazing service you provide to the public, and a much needed one. I enjoy your very careful conservative scholastic approach to the New Testament. This new book should be known on a national scale. So I hope the ‘controversy’ this book poses will get you asked to go on the Bill O’Reilly show. He is guided by the Holy Spirit and the resurrected Jesus so he should have no problem putting you in your place in public, right? It would be some real fun to watch him squirm like some other blindsides have done to him that he invited on the air. Just your unflappable demeanor alone would make it go viral IMO.
During Amy-Jill Levine’s portion of the video above she refers to a new dissertation by James Barker that [quote] “makes a credible case for John’s use of Matthew”.
Would you consider doing an article on this?
(For other readers of the blog who might be interested in this, a PDF version of the dissertation is available at: http://etd.library.vanderbilt.edu/available/etd-07222011-165009/unrestricted/barker.pdf )
I haven’t read it, so really don’t have much to say about it, except that, well, on the face of it it seems rather implausible!
Wow, it’s hard for me to see substantial support for that theory! I’ll read the dissertation. Matthew and John seem independent…and given the vast differences between Matthew and John in how they understand Jesus, for example, it would seem like the author of Matthew was deliberately and strongly disagreeing with the author John if he had John as a source!
I like what you have to say about popular publication, but who is publishing all the garbage that I see at Barnes and Noble? Jesus and the Martians is what my brother reads and believes. The public is non-discerning and will believe just about anything that is published and don’t give credibility even to scholars. It seems to me to be impossible for the public to make good judgments about what is credible and what is not. I tried to have discussion with my half-wit brother who thinks the Martians are being controlled by Jesus. Whew! What an idiot! So I sent him one of YOUR books to read and he discounted it after reading the first paragraph. I asked him to give it back to me so I could sell it, but he has not returned it. So.Professor Ehrman, even with extensive scholarship staring people in the face, there is resistance to truth. Don’t get me started on the story of my minister friend who thinks reading you is soooo wrong! I love and admire your work and have read all of your popular books, and some of the textbooks! I say, keep up the incredible work and it is so gratifying to see you discover what you understand thrrough your work!