I was looking through some old posts from years ago, and came across this one, which continues to be an issue for me. It’s the kind of thing I continue to hear on occasion, and so I thought maybe it was worth approaching again.
Sometimes I hear someone criticize me, or another author, by saying “he just wants to sell books.” That has always struck me as a very strange thing to say. Of course I want to sell books. Why else would I write books? Would I want to write books so no one would read them?
What people actually *mean*by that comment, of course, is more snide and offensive. What they mean is: “he will say anything in a book in order to get people to buy it.” There may indeed be authors for whom this is true. I can’t speak for them, only for myself. This is a charge I really bristle at.
Almost no one of course comes out and actually makes the charge directly. But it must be what they mean, since, as I just pointed out, no one actually faults someone for writing a book and wanting it to be read. So how would you judge if an author is simply making sensationalist claims in order to sell books? In other words, how would you determine if an author has sacrificed his or her academic and personal integrity in order to become rich and famous? (For that’s what the charge means: the person has sacrificed integrity.)
In my view, one way to determine this is to see if the books the person writes promote wild, idiosyncratic, and reckless views without supporting evidence and without the backing of the academic discipline that they claim to represent. There are lots of books like that, of course. But you won’t find many like that written by bona fide scholars.
Just speaking for myself, it is so much the opposite of what I try to do when I write that I simply scratch my head when someone says that I am “just trying to sell books.” What I find especially striking is that while some people make this objection, other people – or even the same people! – also complain that in my trade books for a general audience I “don’t say anything new.” That is to say, I present established views of scholarship to a wider audience without trying to advance new views based on a fresh examination of the evidence. So in what sense am I doing anything I can to sell a book? (Not that I’m getting defensive here or anything…)
It is true that in most of my trade books this has been the case — i.e. that I’ve presented little that is “new” but explained views scholars have long held but others do not know about. Sometimes I do advance new views, but not often — for example, in How Jesus Became God I did promote a couple of views that are not widely held (e.g., that Paul understood Christ to be an angel before he became a human), but they were not views that were central to the thesis of the book; the thesis and overall argument of the book was based on massive scholarship promoted for over a century). My books have, as a rule, been designed to introduce lay people to the sorts of things scholars have said for a very long time OR that are debated among scholars but for which I have a strong opinion about which I explain (e.g., in the Triumph of Christianity, that it was reports of miracles that led to most ancient conversions). But if that’s the case, how have I sacrificed my integrity by presenting sensationalist claims unsupported by evidence widely acknowledged within my discipline?
Here is what I think is the problem. In my books I try to present the evidence in ways that are interesting and compelling. And people who have other views find that threatening and off-putting. So they charge either that I’m just trying to sell books or that I’m saying nothing new or both.
I think about this a lot with the first book I wrote that got much of an audience, Misquoting Jesus. There has been a lot of response to the book. There were five books written by evangelical Christians meant to be direct refutations of it. The book has been disparaged by conservative Christians in debates and in lots of places on the Internet. But what is striking is that there is almost no one who can point out a mistake in anything that I say. (In fact, offhand I can’t think of a single mistake someone has pointed out, even though opponents say I’m “wrong”!) That’s because I’m presenting what scholars have long known, even if they have been highly reluctant to tell lay people about it. Here are my central claims in the book:
- We have over 5600 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, far more than of any other book from antiquity.
- Some of these manuscripts are small fragments uncovered in trash heaps in Egypt, others are full length and magnificent tomes that have been around for centuries.
- No two of these manuscripts (except the small fragments) are exactly alike in their wording of the various verses of the New Testament.
- There are hundreds of thousands of differences of wording – called variant readings – in these manuscripts, some scholars say 300,000, others 400,000, most recently others are saying 500,000.
- It is simplest to put the matter in comparative terms: there are more differences in our manuscripts than there are words in the NT.
- Most of these variants, however, are insignificant, immaterial, and don’t matter for a single thing, other than to show that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than college students can today (much worse in fact, since they didn’t have dictionaries, let alone spell check). The majority of our variants are in fact variant spellings and other trivia.
- Some of the variants do matter, however. Some of them matter a lot, affecting the meaning of a verse, or even of an entire book.
- These would include such things as the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 7-8, and the last twelve verses of Mark, where Jesus appears to his disciples after the resurrection. Neither passage was originally in the New Testament.
I said a lot more than this, of course, but these were the main points. And which one of them is a sensationalist claim not backed up by evidence and years – centuries, actually – of scholarship? So far as I know, not a single one of them. This is standard knowledge among biblical scholars. But lay people had never heard of most of this before.
And why is that? In part because a LOT of biblical scholars have not wanted people to know because they were afraid it could hurt their faith in the Bible. And in part because most biblical scholars who focus on this area simply were not interested in, or able to, communicate this kind of information to a popular audience.
A scholar who wants to communicate this information has to figure out how to make it interesting and show why it is important. That’s what I tried to do in Misquoting Jesus. Was it so people would buy the book? Of course it was so people would buy the book! Why else would I have written it? This is really important information, and people need to know it – and have the right to know it.
Did I sacrifice my integrity by writing it in a way that was meant to be interesting? For the life of my I don’t see how. But, as I said: not that I’m being defensive or anything…
Awesome post!! Another one I often hear when defending your books which is similar to the “nothing new” charge is “people have been saying that for centuries”. I always think, “right, if people have been saying it for centuries then perhaps there’s something obvious and compelling about it!” I think the thought here is that if there was truth to the skeptical claim then Christianity would of died out centuries ago upon this news being first heralded, and since it obviously didn’t, the claim is bogus. Of course though, belief in Jesus survived the messiah being wrong in his predictions and dying. It can likely survive anything.
I deem your scrutiny over the history of Christianity is a psychologically delicate issue for most people -from casual readers to renowned scholars-, because, in many ways, this history is intertwined with key aspects of their “truth”. So, they don’t take kindly to what you do (or pay respect to the highly intelligent nuances of how you do it).
I think they feel threatened, and it is typical for someone feeling threatened to malign.
When producing valid criticism proves difficult or impossible ad hominin attacks are all that remain. You completely changed my view of the Bible and my belief system. Not much sticks in my cranium but the fact that the women taken in adultery is a fabrication continues to resonate with me. As I hear it quoted from the Bible by Christians and Non-Believers during the course of my days I want to yell out “that was made up by a scribe!” but I know that would do no good. It is a good bit of story telling though.
For me, the idea of someone accusing you, or even hinting at, a lack of integrity is not only offensive but utterly laughable.
Besides my enjoyment of all your books, a key reason I admire you so much is precisely the intellectual integrity you have publicly demonstrated in your personal life, evolving from conservative Christianity to atheism. Faced with the contradictions of scripture and the inescapable challenge of theodicy, you had the courage to change your beliefs accordingly, a rare achievement. Furthermore, you’ve been willing to speak about this openly rather than hide behind a pretense of belief. If only our politicians were as rational, honest, and brave!
I hope your integrity will be rewarded by your continuing to sell lots of books!
I’m reminded of the medieval prohibition against possessing a Bible without authorization from a bishop, also how Tyndale was hunted down and executed for daring to translate the Bible into the vernacular.
There seems to be some of the same antagonism here. I have difficulty imagining how a scholar would object to having another scholar’s lifework explained in layman’s language, even if they disagreed with it – unless they either (a) can’t refute the scholarly arguments or (b) can’t communicate well except to other scholars.
(Side observation: I’ve read a lot of scholarship where it seems the writer can’t communicate well even to other scholars!)
In either case, I would call it poor, even dishonest, scholarship to object to a non-academic presentation of a scholarly argument on the grounds that it would confuse or corrupt the faithful. Is that really what they are saying?
And no, you did not sacrifice your integrity by explaining your scholarship in layman’s terms. Loss of integrity could only come from misusing one’s scholarship.
Preach, Brother Bart!
I very much appreciate your having made Biblical scholarship accessible to a non scholar like me. What I’ve learned from your books has done more than anything else to dislodge me from the rut I was in on my journey to seek the true nature of reality. I must say that I don’t believe, as I think you do, that our consciousness is extinguished upon brain death, but neither do I believe what I used to. Letting go of dogma is both liberating and scary, but most of all it’s exhilarating.
What about someone like Dan Brown who – while not an academic – makes grandiose and completely false statements about history? Do you think he was honestly misguided or do you think he bent the truth to make his books seem more fascinating?
Edit: Oh and an important point, if someone finds out you’ve made a mistake in your book (not a different opinion about something but a real blooper) – admit it. Be prepared to change your mind as new information comes in and say “I wrote this book, but unfortunately it’s out of date now.” That’s what a real scholar does.
I really don’t know. But he makes a lot of howlers in the DaVinci Code that could have easily been corrected by someone who was well informed without affecting the plotline in the least.
Isn’t most non-fiction a matter of repackaging information in a way that expresses a personal framing by the author? Few books have more than one or two original ideas, but a book needs to be longer to be published. Thus, it will be filled with unoriginal material, presented in the author’s voice. Otherwise it is a blog post or a magazine article.
By the way, I loved your talk on the DaVinci Code when you visited All Souls Church in NYC many years ago. In fact, you received a similar question about popularizing and selling books, and you answered that of course you were using the Da Vinci Code as a hook, or how many people would attend a talk about Early Christianity? Nothing wrong with that.
If I could make one suggestion, when talking about the commentary that claims “[Ehrman] just wants to sell books”, cite and respond to specific commentators, rather than en masse. They’re not all the same, and it’s nice to see what the commentators actually say. Some clearly misrepresent your claims. But it doesn’t sound like Joel Edmund Anderson would have any issue with your “central claims” listed above, apart from the extent to which “variants do matter”.
Joel Edmund Anderson doesn’t like it when you stray beyond consensus, and talk about what you “think happened”, and suggests that here you are “purposely amplifying [your] rhetoric, because it sells more books.” But Joel also writes that “Scholars have various opinions. Here’s mine.” (*) So he also talks about what he “thinks happened”.
I think the real issue is that the commentators are committed to the idea that the Gospel’s are historically reliable, and that the events the Gospels relate can be broadly trusted to have actually occurred. Therefore they may be as respectful of scholarship as anybody else, some of them clearly are, but when it comes to making judgments or expressing opinions, no matter how informed, their tolerances are exceptionally tight.
(*) http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/can-we-trust-the-bible-on-the-historical-jesus-part-3-concluding-remarks/
This criticism is somewhat insulting to your readers as well.
An unrelated question. You’ve pointed out that the concept of forgery was not unknown in the ancient world. What about plagiarism? By ancient standards would Matthew and Luke have been subject to opprobrium because of their appropriation of Mark’s text?
Thanks
Yes, plagiarism was widely known and condemned. But Matthew and Luke did not commit it. Plagiarism involves taking someone else’s words and claiming them as your own, in your own name. It’s when I take a paragraph written by Resa Aslan, say, and republish it in a book written by me. Matthew and Luke didn’t claim Mark’s words for their own because they don’t claim to be anyone. THeir books are anonymous. So the author is not claiming *any* words to be his own. see what I mean?
Speaking of books, I just finished “Heaven and Hell”. The afterword gave me comfort. Thank you.
I’m glad. Thanks.
Your books played a part in my deconversion thirteen years ago. Since then, I have recommended your books to thousands and thousands of blog readers, along with a number of Evangelical pastors, evangelists, and missionaries. I recommend your books because you are able to take complex historical/theological issues and make them accessible to everyday people. And that’s why you are considered a “threat” in Evangelical circles.
Here’s what I know: I know of a number of preachers who deconverted after reading one or more of your books. Evangelical preachers often send me scathing emails about something I said on my blog about the Bible/Christianity. My typical response is this: “have you read any of Bart Ehrman’s books?” The answer is always no. I respond, “read one or two of Ehrman’s books, and then we will talk.” Sadly, many of these preachers refuse to read your books.
Evangelicalism is built upon a foundation of Bible inerrancy and infallibility. Finding out that this claim is a lie can be devastating. I was 50 years old before I learned that the Bible was not inerrant. Learning this was heartbreaking, and brought my theological house tumbling down.
Bruce Gerencser
That’s quite a story. Thanks.
One of my journalism professors said, “Never bother to write about a dog biting a man, but if a man bites a dog, then write about the man biting the dog.” Yes, we want to write about things that catch attention while we are ethically bound to integrity in our research and writing.
On a related note, some academicians look down their noses at colleagues who publish in the popular press for the unwashed masses (and make money in the process). They believe scholars should write only to/for other scholars in the pages of academic journals and monographs.
While I certainly value scholarly research and publication, I’m grateful to those who have translated and shared their knowledge in the popular press. I’m thinking of folks like John Gottman, Deborah Tannen, Sherry Turkle–and yes, Bart Ehrman.
Oh boy do they. “Popularizer” is the four-letter word they use for it.
I had a flash of inspiration, writing a book about Jesus and Christianity, “The Greatest Story Ever Sold”.
I”m afraid someone has beaten you to the punch! (Look it up on Amazon)
The spirit of Iranaeus is alive and well! 🤦🏻♂️
Dr. Ehrman,
This accusation towards you reminds me of a thought I had a while back when reading about apostolic succession. I found it interesting that Irenaeus claims that his teacher Polycarp was a disciple of John given that Polycarp’s own epistle does not seem to indicate that there is any influence from John on Polycarp. There is one quote from First John, but Polycarp mostly favors quotes from Paul, 1 Peter, and Matthew, and never from John’s Gospel and never using any Johannine language (e.g., Logos)! Do you think Irenaeus claimed that his teacher was an associate of the apostle John so as to give his own books and teachings greater authority (to “sell” them, as it were)? Or do you think there is a historical basis for Polycarp being John’s disciple?
I don’t think he knew John — but it’s certainly an interesting claim. I imagine Irenaeus is saying this to establish his own credentials, but surely he actually thought he was telling the truth? I don’t know.
Thank you for your response! Perhaps the same can be said about Ignatius of Antioch who was also allegedly taught by John. I suppose they would have to call them disciples of John if they wanted apostolic credibility since John was the only apostle reported to be alive at that time. Do you think there’s any historical justification for that claim about John’s longevity, or is that also more legend than fact?
I think it’s legend. Among other things, Mark 10:35-40 suggests he had already died by the time the earlier Gospels were written. But apart from that, we don’t have anything to suggest he lived so long until legends a century or so later.
Bart you’re in the best of company! Some of the most illustrious people who’ve tried to enlighten their fellow beings have suffered similar doubts & raised passionate disagreements. Inquiries into fields not directly related to religion but religious leaders have seen them as encroaching on their territory are Galileo, Bruno, Darwin, & Huxley. Some weren’t too fond of Faraday, Einstein, Bohr, Rachel Carson, etc. So pls please keep up the good work, enlightening those like myself who have been ignorant about religion as well as the majority of those who are members of the blog who’ve studied it most of their lives.
Scholarly research in every field is often unreadable because the authors write in stilted, formulaic styles without regard for readability. So “unreadable” is equated with “scholarly” while readable prose is considered popular trash. Then they wonder why their students fall asleep during class. Hmmm…
Dr. Bart – Thank you for your work. “Popularizer” is no dirty word to me.
My interest in the Bible was rescued by writers like Spong (not a scholar at all), Crossan and Borg.
I only later came across your work – not that I put away childish things, but I think you’re correct on Jesus as apocalyptic prophet vs. anti-imperial social warrior.
Reading your Judas Iscariot book now and I thought How Jesus Became God was astoundingly good.
Keep up the great work.
Well, I’ll own up! Not exactly ‘just to sell books’. But similar. But my assertion is from the opposite direction … that as good as your background and knowledgability is, you seem to avoid ‘the jugular’ in many instances. As if, you want to maintain the conversation (ie future books).
Dr. Ehrman, I’m sorry if these people gave you grief. Bump them! As for your books, well done you!
Keep it up. Thanks. In admiration, wu
Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and David Quammen wrote about evolution so I could better understand it; Stephen Hawking and Lisa Randall wrote about cosmology so I could better understand it; Bill Bryson wrote about scientific history so I could better understand it; Lee Smolin wrote about physics so I could better understand it; These people are sharers; they are generous; they are honest; People who would criticise them, or academics who would hide their knowledge in ivory towers . . . rude words.
Thank you Bart.