Loading...Yesterday I mentioned how hard it is for academics to learn how to write for a general audience. In graduate school we are trained to write for fellow scholars – learning the jargon and mastering the background knowledge that everyone in the field shares. That’s because scholarly writing is a kind of short hand for insiders. If you had to explain every term, every concept, every assumption then what you could say in an article for insiders would literally require a book.
And so you learn which assumptions, perspectives, ideas, terms, and knowledge are widely shared by those for whom you are writing. Some of us are fortunate enough to teach in PhD programs, and we can see how a student starts to acquire this kind of information and insight into what can and needs to be assumed by their scholarly audience, and what cannot. It is very, very easy to read a piece by someone and know whether they are an “insider” or not.
In fact, it is very easy to read an article written by someone who is a bona fide scholar in some other field (say philosophy or chemistry) who is trying to write an article in your own field (say early Christian studies or new Testament) and recognize that they simply aren’t an expert in what they’re talking about. They just don’t have …
To read the rest of this post, you will need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong to the blog yet, there’s no time like the present! Join now and avoid days, weeks, months, and years of frustration and agony. It won’t cost much and, even better, every penny goes to charity.
I took a non fiction writing class from the English Dept every year of my undergraduate degree and by the end of the 4th year the prof said “most of you here are now better overall writers and know how to express ideas better than most Phd’s, because they usually just learn a narrow, restricted method for communicating jargon filled concepts to their peers.”
Yup, he got *that* right!!
Dr. Ehrman,
You have commented before in previous blogs that when you are around other scholars you really don’t discuss personal faith and belief because at a secular institution it is simply not of interest. Do you discuss writing for a general audience among other scholars? Or is this not of interest as well? What is the standard attitude of scholars concerning other scholars that do write for lay people?
Best
In my 34 years teaching, I’ve had the conversation only twice, once with a colleague who was co-editing a collectoin of non-canonical Gospels with me, designed for a broader audience, and once with another colleague who was trying to write a trade book herself. Other than that, no…..
You’re a best-selling author, but does it ever stick in your craw when a pseudo-expert writes a best-selling book in your field, with sales based more on celebrity than true credentials or expertise? (I think this happens in all fields of study.)
Well, I wasn’t all that happy about Bill O’Reilly’s book on Jesus!!
Meanwhile, O’Reilly is on 845th bestselling “Killing…” book.
Hey, if the first 844 were #1 on the bestseller list, why not?
Well put. I just finished reading “The Order of Time” by Carlo Rovelli. He is one of the leading researchers in “loop quantum gravity”, an area that is even more esoteric than ancient Greek texts! But he seems to me to achieve the kinds of things you mention, in terms of making his work attractive to a general audience. Of course, I am a partial insider, having a PhD in physics, though not in gravity or quantum theory. In that sense I am not true “general public”. At any rate, I think the points you make are on target and I think Rovelli and others that come to mind are doing exactly that.
In accordance with your recommendation, I read Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene this week. I really liked it.
I’m curious. On a Catholic canon lawyer’s blog which I read, it was mentioned yesterday that the sarcophagus of Paul is housed in a papal basilica in Rome: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2018/05/17/canon-law-and-the-private-ownership-of-relics-part-ii/ Is there historical evidence that these are really the bones of Paul? Or is this another piece of Catholic mythology like the “True Cross”? (Since she mentions that the sarcophagus hasn’t been opened in 1700 years, I suppose there’s no way to know for certain.)
No, I’m afraid there’s almost zero chance those are the bones of Paul.
I suspected as much. Do you know when/where the myth originates?
No, I don’t know how far back it goes.
This reminds of the how I find myself explaining the mathematics behind economics. When I try to explain, for example, the concept of Pareto Efficiency, I have to simplify it to its most basic idea — a Pareto efficient economy is one where you can’t increase one person’s share of the economy without taking away from someone else’s share. Unfortunately, this very simplified definition is somewhat misleading, because it’s missing the highly technical terms needed to fully understand the concept. Namely, in eye-glazing technical jargon, Pareto Efficiency is a utility maximization function with N variables, where the gradient of all the respective partial derivatives of the N utility curves equals zero, and the second partial derivatives are negative. Does that make sense?
Ha! Not at all!! 🙂
actually, it does.
just completed a course in differential calculus and linear algebra.
Bart, do you think Jesus was trying to say something similar, suggesting experts (scribes) should be trained to communicate to a wider audience with Mt 13:52?
“And he said to them, ‘Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.’”
Is the phrase at the end “brings out … what is new and what is old” suggesting some form of exegesis?
I’ve never been completely sure what it means. I lean toward thinking that the truth that leads to the kingdom is based on the old (e.g., the law and the prophets) but also the new (the new revelation of God’s will in Jesus)
Dr. Ehrman, the meaning of Matthew 13:52 seems pretty clear to me.
The author of Matthew is essentially trying to sum up the overall meaning of the parables of Chapter 13. What do all the parables of chpt 13 have in common? They all refer to the gathering of some valuable commodity — crops, fish, gems, fields with “hidden treasures”. And Jesus spends most of the chapter talking about the separation of the valuable commodities from the worthless (i.e. בליעל, bli’al in Hebrew, meaning ‘worthless’ and thus evil — where we get the name Belial) — viz. separating weeds from the crops, bad fish from the good fish, a pearl from less valuable gems, a field with a hidden treasure from all other fields without treasure. In other words, Jesus is describing Judgment Day, when the Heavenly Host, led by the Son of Man, will separate the righteous (and thus valuable) people from the wicked (and thus worthless) people. Every parable in 13 is making these connections: Valuable to good and righteous, worthless to bad and evil. (Keep in mind, I think the original meanings of the parables of the Pearl and Hidden Treasures, 44-46, were different — namely, they have to do with discarding old and popular but wrong beliefs and adopting new and secret and correct beliefs — but the author of Matthew places them here for a different purpose.)
So Jesus then wraps up this overall message with the metaphor in Matt. 13:52. The scholar (γραμματεὺς) who studies about the Kingdom of Heaven (μαθητευθεὶς τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν) is like the head of a household (οἰκοδεσπότῃ). The head of the household — what we would call the lord of the estate — runs the economy of the house. He decides what to grow, what to buy, what to sell and what to keep. The way a household economy ran back then (and this is where we get the word economy, from the Greek word for ‘household’, oikonomia) is that the head of the household — the oikodespotes — would keep whatever he needed from the productivity of his house (wheat, olive oil, wool, livestock, etc.) and would choose whether to store-up or to sell the surplus. He would also choose whether to spend any money he gains from selling his products or to save it. All of these items — the commodities in his stores plus the money in his coffers — make up his “treasure” (θησαυρός). So the household, at any one time, will have a “treasure” that consists of both necessities and surpluses — i.e. new AND old. The head of a household, therefore, who takes ALL of the things out of his treasure is essentially emptying his stores. That is, he’s not just getting rid of his surpluses but his necessities as well. He’s basically living his life, from here on out, as if he has no need for any of it. For the person who studies about and understands the Kingdom of God, all the worldly valuables are worthless compared to this knowledge. He is like the head of the household who empties his stores and empties his coffers, knowing that all of those things pale in comparison to the value of the knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven.
This is what Jesus is saying.
Let me tell you what I’ve been looking for, for years now. I have tried to find quality scholars who write from a Christian perspective–who write for a general audience, and who disagree with someone like yourself on certain issues. I’m not looking for an inerrantist, and probably not someone too liberal either…just someone who makes arguments, for example, that Jesus wasn’t really mistaken on his imminent return, that the NT teaches a consistent gospel message of faith only, possibly that Matthew Mark Luke and John are really the authors that tradition has held. Someone you disagree with on important issues like this, but whom you think make better arguments than ultra conservative scholars you’re familiar with. Do any scholars/books come to mind?
There are lots out there I suppose. Among those with the best credentials would be Craig Evans, Dan Wallace, and Darrell Bock.
“…they just don’t know where to provide background for a term, concept, or assumption, and where not to. They end up explaining things that anyone with a PhD already knows all about and not explaining things that they need to explain. Both things point to them being an amateur in the field.”
Dr. Ehrman, is this a challenge to the amateurs? Are you saying an amateur can’t teach a scholar anything? This should be a contest. After all, it may be easier to win the lottery. On the other hand, if an amateur had anything relevant to add, everyone would be a winner.
No, I’m definitely not saying amateurs cannot have valuable insights. That happens all the time — and all of us heartily encourage it! But it’s one thing to have an insight and another to be able to write it up in they way professional academics do. It’s really like any specialized field. Being an academic insider requires years of training.
Could you tell me some ways that amateurs may share valuable insights with scholars, assuming they have any? This forum is certainly one example but there aren’t many scholars like yourself who are able to give the rest of us such an honored privilege.
Most non-scholars share them with me just by writing an email.
Well, you’ve done quite well with trade books for a PhD! I’ve read several, (including the Bible and New Testament texts) and they are practically page turners. However, with Forgery and Counterforgery I had to downshift into first gear.