(7 votes, average: 4.14 out of 5)
Loading...In this week’s Reader’s Mailbag I will be addressing two questions about me personally, and my work. The first has to do with my controversies with fundamentalists, and the second with which of my scholarly books would be accessible to a non-scholar. If you have questions you would like me to address in this format, let me know!
QUESTION:
Professor Ehrman, did you anticipate such vitriolic attacks on your character from fundamentalists when you set out on your publishing career years ago?
RESPONSE:
I have to admit, I’m always surprised when I hear what a persona non grata I am in some Christian circles. Just yesterday I was doing a podcast interview for my new book Jesus Before the Gospels, the interviewer, a former pastor, told me that when he was in his conservative Christian seminary, as a student, he had been warned never to read any of my books, because I was trying to lead people astray. As always, I thought: How strange! I’ve never had as my purpose to lead anyone astray and I don’t see my books as anti-Christian.
I know that some readers – my atheist, agnostic, humanist, free-thinking friends (I consider myself all of the above, by the way) – may find that disappointing, because what they really want (not all of them, but some of them) is for me to “stick it to” the Christians. But I am not at all opposed to Christianity. I am simply opposed to any kind of fundamentalism (not just Christian). My books show why a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible simply cannot stand up under scrutiny. Anyone with a literalistic reading of the New Testament who insists that it cannot have any mistakes of any kind – no discrepancies, contradictions, or historical errors – is simply wrong, and can be shown to be wrong. But that is not an attack on Christianity. It is an attack on fundamentalist Christianity. Anyone who thinks that this is the same thing is him/herself a fundamentalist, either a Christian fundamentalist or an anti-Christian fundamentalist!
I did not start off my publishing career expecting to be controversial. Quite the contrary, I started by publishing hard-core scholarship for hard-core scholars. When I published my first trade book (for a general audience), Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, I had no plan at all to say anything that would rouse popular opposition or anger. I wanted to explain the view of Jesus that had been prominent among scholars for over a century, that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher who expected the history of his world to come to a crashing climax within his own generation.
It turns out that is a highly controversial view (to my initial surprise), even though it is widely held among scholars, for two reasons: (1) it suggests (or, rather, points out) that Jesus was wrong in his expectation and (2) most people have never heard that before. They’ve never heard it because scholars have never told them.
My other trade books have also, for the most part, meant to communicate to a broader audience what scholars have said about the Bible. That’s true of my second trade book, Lost Christianities (which my wife claims is the best trade book I’ve written; it’s about the forms of Christianity that didn’t make it and how the controversies they sparked led to the formation of our 27-book New Testament), my most popular trade book, Misquoting Jesus (which is about the scribes who altered the manuscripts of the New Testament they were copying), and probably my hardest-hitting statement of scholarly views of the New Testament, Jesus Interrupted (about the discrepancies, forgeries, and other problematic aspects of the New Testament).
As time went on, I have said some things that I knew would be controversial – for example, my argument that there are indeed forgeries in the New Testament (scholars have long known this, but they are very reluctant to call them forgeries, even though that’s what they are and even though that’s what ancient readers would have considered them to be if they had known that the alleged authors of these books did not actually write them) or that Jesus was not given a decent burial by Joseph of Arimathea (as I argue in How Jesus Became God). But even these claims are not simply meant to stir up controversy: they are meant to embody the results of my scholarship, and they are based on evidence and argument, not simply on the wild opinions of a particularly liberal professor who teaches at a particularly liberal university.
So in short answer: no, I didn’t really expect to be all that controversial. I simply wanted, and still want, to present the results of serious scholarship to readers who have not had the opportunities to pursue research in New Testament studies as a career.
Which takes me to the next question:
QUESTION:
Without having an actual copy in my hand, e.g. ordering online, which of your books (if any) have academic prerequisites, and which can even a layman read, popular audience or not?
RESPONSE:
Some of my books are the sorts of things you really would not want to look at if you’re not a scholar trained in the field of New Testament studies, specifically in the study of the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament. These would include Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels (when people tell me “I’ve read all your books!” I’m always tempted to ask how they liked my book on Didymus. J ); The Text of the Fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origen (a book on a comparable topic); The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (I co-edited that one); the fourth edition of Bruce Metzger’s book that I helped him produce, The Text of the New Testament; and, probably, my collection of (my own) essays Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
Other books are meant for scholars but if you don’t mind working hard and slugging through a work of scholarship at a relatively deep level, these would be relatively accessible to a lay reader who is reasonably well informed about the field. I would include in that category The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament and Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics.
Other books are meant to be scholarly tools that could be useful to non-scholars as well, at least in part. Here I’m thinking of translations of ancient texts that I’ve done in which I include the original language (Greek, Latin, and Coptic) for scholars who want to see what the original-language text that I’ve translated says. That would include my two-volume Apostolic Fathers that appeared in the Loeb Classical Library and the volume I co-edited/translated with my colleague Zlatko Plese The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations. (Anyone who wants just the English translations of these Gospels, with simpler and less detailed introductions to each text, can get them in the volume we published for those not interested in the original languages, The Other Gospels).
Other books are textbooks for college/university students. I have two on the New Testament, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings; and The New Testament: A Brief Introduction (the latter is a simplified version of the former, shorter and less detailed) and one on the entire Bible The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Even though a lot of people may not be interested in using a college-level textbook, one value of these books is that they cover the entire set of questions one might have about the NT/Bible, and include bibliography at the end of each chapter for further reading on each topic/NT book.
Other books produced for college-classroom use are anthologies of texts that would be quite useful for broader audiences: The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings (all the books written by Christians – including the NT itself – prior to 130 or so, i.e., in the first century of Christianity); After the New Testament (a large selection of Christian writings from the second and third centuries); and Christianity in Late Antiquity (co-edited with Andrew Jacobs, a collection of writings from the fourth and fifth Christian centuries). Again, these books all include bibliographies for further reading at every point.
All my other books are meant for a general audience. So take your pick!
If you don’t belong to the blog yet, REALIZE! You get 5-6 decent-sized posts a week by joining, and it costs less than a once-a-month-cup at Starbucks! You get lots for little, and every penny goes to charity. So JOIN!!!
I myself was an agnostic before you were (not only am I older, I’d become one by my mid-twenties). But the Catholicism in which I was raised would definitely have considered you an opponent of Christianity! I was taught that the Resurrection was all-important – and beyond that, that no layperson should question things that are in the Bible (only the Church hierarchy could understand how they do, in fact, fit together and make sense).
But I’m sure very few lay Catholics read the Bible. When I was young, I thought of “the Gospel” as some boring thing the priest read – in English – during Mass, for which you had to stand up. Then you got to sit down while he delivered a “sermon,” which might or might not have anything to do with what he’d just read.
Still, I’m grateful for having been raised Catholic, because when I was in high school, a priest introduced me to the *concept* of starting out, first, by questioning whether there’s reason to believe in a God; then (he assumed you’d conclude there is) whether Christianity is the true faith; and finally, whether Catholicism is the true form of Christianity.
Hello Bart. I have a question for you to consider for a future Reader’s Mailbag. It concerns the date of Paul’s conversion. Based on my readings, historians tend to date Paul’s conversion between 32-36 CE. That has always struck me as overly optimistic because so much had to happen before Paul could even become aware of Jewish Christians, let alone witness the risen Christ. The specific events I refer to and the questions they raise are: 1) Jesus is believed to be executed around 30 CE. 2) His disciples flee Jerusalem and return to Galilee. How much time passes before they experience the risen Christ? How long do they stay in Galilee? 3) Acts says the disciples return to Jerusalem to set up shop. Do they begin their missionary work to other Jews immediately? 4) At some point, the Apostles message leaves the confines of Jerusalem. How does it spread? To what cities does the message of the risen Christ travel? 5) How long does it take for that pronouncement to be accepted by a group of Jews and how long does it take Paul to notice them? 6) Paul persecutes this group and perhaps others. He becomes well known as an enemy of Jewish Christians. For what period of time and over what distance must Paul travel to earn this reputation? 7) Paul has his conversion experience around 32-36 CE. Apologies for the long buildup, but how in the world can all these events transpire in 6 years or less? Would appreciate your thoughts.
Wow — it’s a long and involved question. Not sure I can do it on the Mailbag — the question would take up most of the post! But I’ll think about it. For now, the reason for the dating of Paul’s conversion is in part what he himself says, e.g., in Galatians 1: after his conversion he waited three years to go to Jersualem; fourteen years he went back. This is all taking place some years before he wrote the letter to the Galatians (whom he visited long before he wrote), a letter that is almost certainly not much earlier than 60 CE. So if you crunch the numbers, as some people like to do, well…. you’ll end up around 33-34.
Thanks, Bart. Yeah, I know its a lenghty question. Have often wondered if one solution might be to date Jesus’ death earlier? What if Pilate had him executed in 27 CE, for example? Apprciate any further thoughts you may have. Also…side question, is there a way for readers to be notified when you respond to one of their questions?
I have to admit, I’ve never delved *deeply* into issues of Pauline chronology, as it’s a highly technical discussion and one I have never been able to generate tons of interest in. Notification: apart from reading the blog, I don’t think so!
As John A. T. Robertson said at the close of his book (which arrives at my house tomorrow) “Dates remain disturbingly fundamental data”
The two notifications choices (aside from Do Not Send Email Notifications) in the “If A New Comment Is Posted” drop-down list at the bottom of the page below Responses are
“Send Email Notification Whenever a New comment is Posted” and
“Send Email Notification Whenever a New Comment is Posted.”
If you pick the second, it won’t tell you whether it’s Bart who is responding but, if you open up your email notification, you can see. BTW, when you click on one of these, that’s it; there’s no Save button or the like.
Still reading your book (I’m on page 207). I have to ask: *Why* did people in antiquity – whether Jesus himself or the Gospel authors – use *parables* instead of saying flat-out what they *meant*? I find it hard to believe listeners or readers in that era wouldn’t have been as turned-off by “parables” as I am.
Maybe the parable *is* what Jesus meant!
Re “parables”… I was really thinking of the ones you’d explained, about the “bridegroom.” You explained what they meant, and in light of that, that they really didn’t go back to Jesus himself – they reflected the concerns and beliefs of Christians decades later.
Your explanation made the whole thing clear. But when I thought back on it later, I realized that *without* your having explained the symbolism in the parable, I *never* would have understood *any* of it! And I think that’s also the case with Jesus’s parables.
So how could *ordinary people* in Jesus’s era have understood them? And even if they could, *why* did Jesus and/or the Gospel authors use *symbolism* instead of plain language?
In our earliest account, Mark, Jesus tells parables precisely so people will NOT understand, since otherwise they would turn and repent!! (Mark 4:11-12)
Having trouble following this sentence. You mean he did not want them to “Turn and repent”? If he didn’t, why didn’t he?
Mark doesn’t say, except that if they repented, then they would be forgiven!
I’ve taken it to mean that he was handing out the secrets of the kingdom to the 12 disciples, not to the masses, so that after his departure they would be the ones to divulge on a grander scale. Also, he exonerated those who rejected him personally (Luke 12:10), but the coming of the Holy Spirit (after the ascension) was another matter……
Of course, I see Luke as a 51-57 & 60-62 AD “keep Christianity in the good graces of the Roman Govt.” research project written by a man who had direct access to Paul, Peter, Philip, John, & possibly even 74 year old Mary the mother of Jesus.
And I see Mark as the 45 AD remembered-from-memory sermon material penned by stubby-fingered Mark who had heard Mr. sometimes-shoots-his-mouth-off Peter, hundreds and hundreds of times.
If one sees Mark and Q as the ‘purest’ and Luke as a post 70 AD anonymous corruption, then one comes up with a much different way of thinking about the text……………..
“The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus,” by John Dominic Crossan
The entire nature of fundamentalism (theist, atheist, whatever) leads those who embrace it to see any disagreement as heresy, and those who disagree as evil.
That’s why it’s the most pernicious and destructive force in human thought. Nobody owns the truth, and nobody should pretend that they do.
No one of genuine faith will be offended by those who do not believe. They may try to bring you over to their way of thinking and believing, and that’s fine. But when they attack you for not believing, that only proves that their own faith is not as secure as they want you to think.
Dr. Ehrman, while I can’t say that reading your books led me astray from religion — for I was an atheist for decades before I’d ever heard your name — I can certainly see how reading your books might lead the sheltered laity away from their faith. I get the sense from the faithful that they have an unspoken agreement with their religious leaders that as long as those leaders continue to entertain the faithful’s delusions, as long as the clergy continue to give their congregation merely the accessible, palatable parts of their religion, then those religious leaders will be allowed to keep their jobs. I would imagine that a pastor who started off a church nativity play disclaiming, “Full disclosure, the majority of Bible scholars have concluded that Jesus’ birth narrative as recounted in the Gospels is probably a total fabrication…” well, unless we’re talking about a Universalist Unitarian church, I can’t imagine that pastor is going to be employed for very long.
I have “The Text of the New Testament” (which I thought was easily accessible); “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” (again, very good and accessible if you skip the Greek of which there isn’t a whole lot); “Forgery and Counterforgery” (similar to the last one I listed); one volume of the Apostolic Fathers (the one with Papias, very accessible, but probably dry for many people); “The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations” (again, probably dry for many); “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings” (easily my favorite of all Bart’s books); and “The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research”.
The last one I bought because I was hoping it would discuss topics of current research or interest in TC, but what I got was the most impenetrable and uninteresting book I’ve ever tried to read. I didn’t get anything out of that one and have hardly read any of it in detail.
I’ve had “After the New Testament” on my Amazon wishlist for a while so I’m hoping it’s as good as the other text book.
Bart, you shouldn’t under sell your college text book, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, to your blog members audience.
As a good order of progression, after your popular trade books, I think this college text book is a good next stop. It is really a fine read – it’s not at all dry and tedious (as college text books oft have a perception of). I’d say if folks liked your writing style in the trade books, they’ll be perfectly at home in your college text book too – lots of interesting side bars, lots of references to additional materials on covered subject matters, interesting study questions to ponder, etc.
Most importanly, the text book goes a wee bit deeper in trying to introduce the techniques of the historical critical approach. That’s why and where it works as sensible next step after the popular trade books.
I don’t mean to undersell it! In some ways it’s the best book I’ve ever written!
When you graduated from Moody, did you still think the bible was inerrant? I think what I find so frustrating is that scholars have known for a very long time that there are issues with the bible, but the general lay audience doesn’t know it. How many scholars like yourself do you believe are educating lay people?
Yes I did! How many? No idea!
Just a question:
Can you please post a bit on the Documentary Hypothesis?
I understand it is out of fashion a bit these days. What are the theories that replaced it?
Thanks.
Good idea. I’ll add it to the (long and growing) list of things to talk about!
Two more questions:
1) Do you dislike it when Muslims quote you in an effort to “destroy” Christianity even though you never consider your writings anti-Christian? I just keep on seeing how fundamentalist Muslims (Some of them members here!) quote you over and over again and I’d really like to see your reaction to this. It is also important they only quote you when you point out to discrepancies in the bible but never when you explain the crucifixion of Jesus is the most certain event in his life!
2) As a former Coptic I was very interested when I read that Gnosticism predates orthodoxy in Egypt, that St. Mark probably never set foot in Egypt and that most of the first popes of Egypt are fictional. Can you please tell me who is real out of the traditional list of Coptic popes? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coptic_Orthodox_Popes_of_Alexandria
Thanks
I never, ever, see any Muslim use (or mis-used) of my work, so I guess I’m blithely unaware rather than troubled.
The first Alexandrian bishop that we have any solid historical evidence for is Demetrius. The earlier ones are all the stuff of legend.
“I never, ever, see any Muslim use (or mis-used) of my work”
It’s ubiquitous. Go to YouTube and search “Bart Ehrman Islam”.
Yes, I know that I’m *able* to see it! 🙂
Ha, several times upon presenting certain facts about Biblical discrepancies, contradictions or historical errors to my fundamentalist Christian family (admittedly in hopes of opening their minds, after leaving Christianity myself), I was met with eye rolls and immediate dismissal when I cited ‘Bart Ehrman’ as my source; they’ve never read a word of yours as your name seems to be firmly on the list of authors to avoid, yet somehow they’re sure it’s all hogwash? I was told to go read the Bible “with an open heart, looking for God to guide me, instead of coming at it just to find issue with it”. Apparently the discrepancies/errors are all in one’s head? Suffice it to say, we avoid the topic of the Bible, and Christianity in general, these days.
I agree that one should approach the Bible with an open heart. But ALSO with an open *mind*!!!
If we want to stay purely “scriptural” for a moment, while I’ve certainly heard the point of view that Elisabeth describes, I have to admit that I’ve never quite understood it.
In Matthew when asked to name the Greatest Commandment, Jesus says: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy **mind**”. [emphasis added]
In short, it would appear that a serious, close, thoughtful reading of any biblical Text is not something such a reader has any options about.
(Or to put this another way: If one were to accept the notion of anything like a loving all-powerful god, it’s hard to think of any more precious gift than a human mind. Abusing such a gift seems, well, at the least, disrespectful.)
I read or heard somewhere that in ancient Hebrew, the seat of the Intellect was the heart. Is that right and, if so, in what sense? Are there verses in the Tanakh (other other Jewish writings) that say as much?
Well, I can’t think of any, but maybe other members of the blog can help out here.
Question #1 is a good question with a good answer. Much of the criticism most be hard to swallow. People, as you know, are just very sensitive and very certain about this stuff. To a lesser extent, this is what many of us have experienced in church classes for decades whenever we try to honestly and seriously discuss something. Thanks
Question #2 is likewise a good question with a good answer and the number and range of your books continues to truly astound me. Do you really realize how much writing you have produced???
i honestly think your New Testament textbook is the book that has been most helpful to me because it covers so much rather than just one topic. I highly recommend it to readers of this blog.
I always look forward to the Friday mailbag. Keep it going.
That settles it. I’m taking it off my Wishlist and putting it into my shopping cart!
Virtual Alex: I hope you find Ehrman’s New Testament textbook to be as helpful as I have found it. I keep rereading sections of it. The book is amazing both in format and content. I would have considered it a whole career just to have written this on textbook. Ron
Dr Ehrman, I have a question that I need to ask.
First, I want to make it clear that I ask this with all possible respect and admiration. Also, that I –like, I am sure, many folks here– have echoed the discussion above by (vehemently) arguing with detractors that your work is a scholarly examination of the issues involved; and, while it may argue against a fundamentalist/literalist reading, it is in no serious way an attack against genuine religious belief itself.
Can you understand, though, how a serious reader might reasonably come to such a conclusion when you –to pick one obvious example– accept awards such as “The Emperor Has No Clothes” award from organizations like The Freedom From Religion Foundation?
Ha! I have to admit, I never thought of it. I can’t imagine that serious readers pay close enough attention to me to notice which awards I’ve one. The FFRF is a fine organization, btw. But in any event, I’ve won awards from *extremely* conservative groups as well, for example my John William Pope Spirit of Inquiry award! My policy so far has been to accept an honor if someone is crazy enough to extend one to me!
To be clear, I have no doubt that the FFRF is a fine organization.
It’s just that any organization that explicitly calls itself the “**Freedom**From**Religion** Foundation” [emphasis added] –or those who associate with it– should perhaps not be overly surprised if questions are asked about its disinterested neutrality. 😉
Oh, well no one thinks that it embraces disinterested neutrality. They themselves certainly don’t think that. But what religious or philosophical group does???
I like that FFRF sponsors things like The Clergy Project, but I do not see them as an altruistic organization. Some of their legal actions are more like bullying tactics. They purposefully misconstrue scriptures to mislead people and propagate nonsense. Here’s an example:
“On the whole, Jesus said little that was worthwhile. He introduced nothing new to ethics (except hell). HE instituted no social programs. Being “omniscient,” he could have share some useful science or medicine, but he appeared ignorant of such things (as if his character were merely the invention of writers stuck in the first century).
Many scholars are doubtful of the historical existence of Jesus. Albert Schweitzer said, “The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma.” No first-century writer confirms the Jesus story. The New Testament is internally contradictory and contains historical errors. The story is filled with miracles and other outrageous claims. Consisting mostly of material borrowed from again religions, the Jesus story appears to be cut from the same Fabric as all other myths and fables.”
https://ffrf.org/publications/brochures/item/23738-why-jesus
The above link is full of cherry-picked and misconstrued scriptures that misinform the public.
They insult Christians–http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/23730-what-s-wrong-with-the-ten-commandments
“In essence, the first four commandments all scream that “the lord thy god” has an uneasy vanity, and like most dictators, must resort to threats, rather than intellectual persuasion, to promote a point of view…. How can anyone not perceive the pettiness, bluster, bombast and psychotic insecurity behind the first four commandments? We are supposed to respect this!…..Reflect for a moment that almost anyone reading this nontract could write a kinder, wiser, more reasonable set of commandments than those that Christians insist we honor. Try it!”
If you read the argument set forth on that link, it reads like a 5 year-old throwing a temper tantrum. The writer resorts to the very thing they’re against: pettiness and childishness to prove a point.
Their agenda says they are about educating the public. In what way? Through hate speech? By saying things like, “How can anyone not perceive the pettiness”… and basically saying people are forced to live by “commandments…that Christians insist we honor” They’re insinuating Christians are stupid and forcing them to live by their standards. Another thing is that there’s no author listed for these nontracts. They’re simply written by *The Foundation*. I don’t even go to church anymore and still find their publications rude and offensive. The end doesn’t always justify the means. They are not the good guys.
Pattycake, I hope you send your thoughts to the FFRF.
Thanks for the suggestion SB. I did send them my thoughts. Here’s what I wrote:
When I first realized the bible wasn’t divinely inspired, (not in the way I believed it to be anyway) I wondered what do ministers do when they have this realization? I happened upon The Clergy Project. I thought, wow, this is great! This organization “gets it”. However, what I have also found are your nontracts. Not so pleasant. According to your About Section of the website, it says you want to educate the public about nontheism. When I read “Why Jesus” and “What’s Wrong with the Ten Commandments,” I was not left thinking that you’re about education. I felt more like you hate Christians and think they’re stupid. Have you considered how rude and offensive those nontracts are to people? What if someone is wavering in their faith and looking for somewhere to turn? They can’t turn here because they’d be insulted just by reading one of the publications. It’s very obvious that the scriptures chosen for “Why Jesus” are cherry-picked. The argument set forth for “The Ten Commandments” sounds little more than a temper tantrum. If your goal is to help people, then HELP them! That doesn’t mean by writing hate speech toward the religious and bullying communities legally. If you’re truly about educating the public, you’ll do the *right* thing and stop trying to do things like convince people that Jesus was a myth. Surely, you’re better than that.
Dang that little box of theirs! I had 2 or 3 spelling errors in my message and didn’t catch them because of the small message box. Stuff like that drives me batty. Why didn’t I copy and paste?!? Anyway, I hope they take it to heart.
Reading “Jesus Before the Gospels”, made me thing about my own memory experiences. When I was a 15 year old junior at the University of Chicago, I took a mid-term exam with several essay questions. When I got the blue-book back, my test was marked “F.” When I asked Professor Morgan why I received this grade he told me it was because I cheated. When I asked him how I had cheated, he said that my answers were direct quotations from the textbook. I said, “Yes, but I marked the quotations with quotation marks.” He said, “This wasn’t an open book exam.” Realizing what the problem was, I handed him my blue book, asked him to open it to any page he chose, and select a quotation. He picked one with a full paragraph quotation. I asked him, would he like to hear the next paragraph in the book? He nodded, and I quoted the following paragraph, perhaps one hundred or more words from memory, verbatim. Morgan closed the blue-book, struck the “F” and marked it A+++
I had virtually the same type memory well into my sixties, even perhaps as late as my seventies. I could remember, without much effort, hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand telephone numbers of people in L.A., Santa Barbara, other California cities, New York, where I did business, Chicago, where I lived for 40 years, foreign cities I had visited—London, Paris, Rome, etc. , In some cases, if I didn’t recall your number, but had once looked it up, I was able to visualize it in the phonebook (who uses phonebooks these days), “Ehrman, Bart, and your phone number.” I had a similar aural memory, but of course, it’s not as easy to confirm that. Then, in my 80th year a doctor gave me a prescription drug I didn’t need for a condition I didn’t have, which threw me into serious, potentially life-threatening illness. I was under dialysis for several weeks, but I recovered—although I’ve sometimes wondered if they connected me to someone else’s blood. Anyway, I’ll be 86 in June, and since that event I still have a decent memory (except for the keys thing), and it may be above average, but it is nothing like my previous skill-level. I didn’t really miss it until I didn’t have it. When I still had unusual memory skills, I took it for granted and probably wasn’t as focused as I should have been.
All this leads to my question: Is it possible that in “ancient” times there were people with memories like mine or even better who could potentially memorize certain oral events, traditions, sermons, etc. “exactly” as they occurred?. Let’s say such folks were recognized for that skill, and selected for such purpose, and then they transmitted their memory to persons similarly gifted, and on and on. I understand this is somewhat farfetched, and doesn’t account for story-tellers changing the stories to support a position they held, or for any other reason.
I have watched many of your debates, postings, etc., and you certainly have magnificent command of the material and you are able to quote relevant texts with ease. Has your memory experience been somewhat like mine?
Len L
Hey, I want your memory!!!
Yes, there were certainly people with those kinds of memories in antiquity — but like now, they’d be one in a million. And there were fewer millions back then.
You want my memory? So do I!! It’s long gone. I do understand that “total recall” is and was unusual. Recently, the actress Marilu Henner appeared on 60 Minutes and she could recall every date and event back to the age of 11. I don’t think that’s terribly useful, and according to a Wikipedia post, this is involuntary, and these folks can’t will themselves to remember something. Apparently there are several versions of these memory “tricks.” I liked mine the best–when I still had it.
How would they have been able to confirm the person’s recollection was accurate? What would they compare it to if the event wasn’t written down at the time?
Without writing, there is no way to prove it. (But ancient orators definitely could memorize very long speeches — even if not word for word)
Very impressive! There is an autistic student where I work that reads books with his nose pressed against the page. When he reads, he begins by placing his nose at the bottom of the page and moves up in a straight line. He reads every page of a book like that. It takes maybe 2 or 3 seconds for each page, and he comprehends all of it. He also remembers dates and events very accurately. We think he has an autobiographical memory. I don’t want to read a book with my nose on a page, but I would love to read it in just a few seconds!
I misspelled “think” as “thing” in my post. Sorry, Len
Hey Bart! 🙂
It’s Spring Break! Hooray!
Last year at Spring Break, I read your *Misquoting Jesus* and was blown away. I had known about you for years because of your New Testament textbook. But, I had never read you. I happened to run across a plug for *Misquoting* in an article about atheism I had read (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/03/living/friendly-atheists-next-door/?utm_content=buffer4f0eb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer). I gave the book a try and I’m very glad that I did! Over the past year I’ve read eight other books of yours and subscribed to (and thoroughly enjoyed!) your wonderful blog. I also had the pleasure of meeting you when you came to Dallas last year for one of your debates with a fundamentalist.
It’s been a great experience for me. You explain scripture to me in a way I can understand. I’m very much looking forward to your *Triumph of Christianity* next year!
Many thanks!
😀
When I saw the recent “Lie Witness News” clip on Jimmy Kimmel, I thought about some of the studies in your recent book. People sometimes say something happened (when it didn’t) based on their imagination of how they think it would happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jka3nb9CGV8 [4min]
Reader’s Mailbag Question: Any commentary on Thomas Römer’s “The Invention of God”? Would you recommend it?
I’m afraid I’ve never read it! Sorry!
Were the six “non Pauline epistles”…those claimed to have been written by Paul, written by the same person, or is there any evidence that they were written by different authors?
The same person probably wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus; the other three are by three different authors.
Bart-I think that your books are not controversial because you are necessarily wrong about what you and other scholars have been saying about the New Testament as it relates to our modern understanding of history. The views are controversial because you and all those other scholars are right. Those views are unpopular because they contradict what is taught in Sunday School classes. Most Americans have a “Sunday School” understanding of scripture. When publications contradict what is taught in Sunday School, those publications create cognitive dissonance, as a result. People don’t like cognitive dissonance, and their natural reaction is a kind of “doubling down” defense of their preconceived biases.
Fundamentalism is, among other things, a defensive reaction to cognitive dissonance. As a former fundie, I can speak from actual experience. I was shocked when I was exposed to the various historical-critical methods that scholars use to understand scripture. The findings of these scholars were utterly contrary to what I had been taught in Sunday School. Over the years, I came to realize the reason: Sunday School is indoctrination. Churches aren’t interested in the critical historical methods because those methods would free their members from the doctrinal chains that attach them to the religion. People might become be free to choose what to believe,with potentially disastrous consequences. (for churches)
Anyway, in my view, the negative reaction is in direct proportion to the veracity of your publications.
Not only was “Jesus was wrong in his expectation,” but John the Baptist and Paul in their similar expectations.