(28 votes, average: 4.82 out of 5)
Loading...I wrote this post a while ago, and now that I reread it, I think I might be kicking a dead horse. (Something, in case you wonder, I’ve never actually done.) But, well, I suppose it’s sometimes OK to leave written what has been written, so to say. So here ‘tis.
There are times when I debate a committed evangelical or fundamentalist Christian on whether the Bible is reliable or not, and I feel like I’m talking to a Martian. Or maybe I’m a Martian. We are both educated human beings and do indeed seem to be speaking the same language (English); but how we understand what very same words virtually certainly have to mean is completely opposite. How can that be?
Again, I’m not going to be trying to provide further counter-arguments for the back and forth that Matthew Firth and I had over whether there are contradictions in the Gospel or not. I said emphatically yes, he said emphatically no. But both of us seem to have felt like we were talking to a wall, and I’d like to explain why I felt/feel that way. He is free to respond if he chooses.
I have a deep sense, based on what debate partners often say themselves, that extremely conservative Christians who think there are not contradictions in the Bible read the Bible very literally when doing so supports what they already think (the world was literally created in six days something like 6000 years ago). But if a reading runs contrary to what they think, they say the text can’t be read overly literally. Instead, it needs to be read in a non-literal way so that what it says is not what the author actually meant. Anyone who doesn’t see this is “arrogant.”
That’s how some conservative Christians can …
To see the rest of this post you will need to join the blog — dead easy and an incredibly good value. Over twenty posts a month, month in and month out, costing less that month a third of a burger at Five Guys. And much better for you!
Well done Dr. Ehrman. The debate did get a little technical at times and required re-read, but you really did a good job explaining it all in this post. Furthermore, I wonder if the word “contradiction” means something different to different people. This is why the religious often say that “the gospels are different perspectives and this is why there are no contradictions”. And as you have said, they are then just writing their own gospel.
Example: book 1 says Frank travelled east. Book 2 says Frank travels west. We say there is a contradiction. The religious conservative says he traveled east and then west or vice versa. See, no contradiction. Just one left out the other.
I think you reference this also in a talk about what jesus said during his crucifixion. Some people say he said all of those things, but each perspective just catches part.
When you play this type of game there can never be a contradiction because you just get to re-interpret it until there isnt one. It’s the Kobayashi Maru for the non religious.
Speaking of Fundamentalism , just saw this in NYT this morning
So it’s now been 100 years that modern US Fundamentalism has been a ‘position’. Just FYI Dr. E.
I enjoy your blog and books/great courses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/25/opinion/the-day-christian-fundamentalism-was-born.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Thanks for the link. Great article!
Examples from both perspectives, either from antiquity or currently, are so important because they provide a place to work from to gain understanding. In my ministry I’ve learned that many (most) Christians don’t want to gain understanding of another’s perspective (truth) because it might turn their world upside-down. They hold so tightly to what they’ve been taught that sharing a higher truth with them is like ‘pouring new wine into old wine skins’ and the result is similar to when a child fiercely defends Santa Claus and then has to be told Santa is not real, but a ‘spirit of the season’. It can be devastating.
Contemporary communication (maybe all communication) at the personal level seems loaded with illogical weight. The levels of human experience and understanding, not to mention education, are often magnitudes apart; yet we must have some common ground where the essentials that are important to us individually get addressed, or at least “addressed at”, to coin a nuance. Shortcomings of such communication are overlooked with little apparent consequence as our lives march forward. Careless, imprecise, and even wrong utterances are regularly used to accomplish exchanges of signals that may have little or nothing to do with what is actually meant. At this point I could go on for many pages of examples; but I will leave that to the experience of the reader. If what I have said is at all true, it will be up to the reader to come up with their own examples, assuming that the concept is sufficiently interesting at this moment. Otherwise, it is “in one ear and out the other”.
This phenomenon is common in matters of religion. Stakes are high; emotions too. We reach into the toolbox that we have with us to get through to the next moment. Truth is not the first priority, especially when it appears to be an unattractive path that may lead us somewhere out of our comfort zone.
I have a theory that one can’t learn anything that one does not already know. This sounds extreme if taken literally. It means that one must have relevant mental structures in place in order to fairly evaluate a concept and incorporate it into one’s own thinking, one’s own “canon”. Learning is to some extent a process of modification of prior incorporations of information and disinformation into our operative thinking. This is a deeply personal process that is often beyond the influence of fact, and is not to be confused with fact. It is a kind of artistic creation that defines us, masks our weaknesses, and even protects our outward persona.
This will all seem like meaningless gibberish to anyone who has not already established a framework amenable to some of the ideas. If there is no fertile ground, there will be no sprout.
Perhaps the best one can do is to avoid low-level “Jerry Springer” situations when attempting to communicate with someone who has different goals for the spectacle. Change threatens.
Well, this sounds just like the very frustrating political discussion I had with my neighbor last night about how he could have never voted for Hillary Clinton because she had the father (Vince Foster) of her daughter (Chelsea) murdered. My neighbor has sources which state this and any fact checking I might do is just “fake news” which he contends I will believe because I am a ‘Trump hater.” I know we don’t discuss politics on this blog, but it illustrates the issue quite well in this case. My neighbor then ended our discussion contending that everyone is entitled to his own opinion implying that one opinion is as good as any other opinion. There has to be some philosophical way of understanding and dealing with these “walls.” I suggest all watch the recent “Live” showing of “All in the Family” and the “Jeffersons” for even better examples. It is available on “Spectrum On Demand.” Let me know if you get this solved.
The last time I went through something like that, I just said “There is an opinion that you are an adulterer, murderer and thief and you would say you are not. Are opinions really equal so there is at least a 50% chance those things are true about you? Or should we look at evidence or facts to see if that opinion isn’t really based on any evidence and all opinions aren’t equally valid?”
A potentially interesting project for someone with too much time on their hands. Collect all the attempts, both historical and contemporary, to reconcile the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, Some of them are quite intricate and clever and one can admire the ingenuity of such attempts if nothing else.
Prof Ehrman what is your appraisal of Mike Licona’s concept of “telescoping” in trying to resolve Biblical contradictions?
Thanks
I think biblical authors *did* telescope their narratives. And when they did so, they often created contradictions.
So… as I hear around these parts from Bible conservatives: the Bible is inerrant and literally the perfect word of God. You just have to know somehow when things have been telescoped, translated incorrectly, misunderstood, should be symbolic or allegory, etc. When in doubt, you can get help in understanding it from any one of the 30,000 or so Christian groups out there that have the answer. Then you can take it literally. 🙂
Exactly! Just because the author may have had a good literary reason to change the narrative doesn’t mean that there isn’t a contradiction. It means that the reason behind the contradiction can be understood.
I agree. I had to re-read Rev. Firth’s replies several times in order to try and follow his reasoning/interpretations. I still don’t follow much of them. The sentences he re-interprets are simple, declarative sentences using non-ambiguous terms; “die”, “appear”, “go” are not words with multiple, varying meanings. His arguments remind me of Bill Clinton’s famous “It all depends on what you mean by ‘is'” comment.
This is why the old adage “never argue politics or religion” holds true.
Rev Firth has too much invested in his beliefs to ever argue rationally. I had a similar and equally fruitless email debate with the Bishop of Lichfield some years back. Like you I employed Ockham’s razor but to no avail.
I’ve read many apologists and watched debates and just shake my head at how they can compartmentalize this kind of thinking – I’m sure they don’t live their everyday lives using this kind of interpretation of what people say, and in fact when they go after other religions they definitely don’t.
I once heard a lecture by Richard Dawkins on evolution. Afterwards, a member of the audience said “after hearing your talk, I am more convinced than ever that evolution is false”. This is why I think that debates can be counter-productive. It’s worse than talking to a wall. People seldom if ever consider your arguments rationally — they try to find reasons why you are wrong. And when they find one, no matter how invalid, it just reinforces their original beliefs. (That’s my theory anyway.)
As someone who used to be “the wall” (so to speak), debates like this can create the little cracks that eventually bring the entire edifice down…even if they don’t seem to have much effect right away.
Yes, but isn’t Dawkins pretty wall-like himself at times?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/311230/
Most Christians are more open-minded about evolution than Dawkins ever will be about religion.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/30/5-facts-about-evolution-and-religion/
So let’s not ignore the irrationalism of atheists, just because the irrationalism of theists happens to bother us more at times. If irrationalism is the enemy you fight, fight it wherever you find it.
You forgot to mention that you told your friend you were going to give them an orderly account of how the fire broke out so that they understand the truth of the fire. 😉
Ha!
The great philosopher, Paul Simon, said: “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”. True in 1968, true now.
Arguably the best songwriter of modern times!
Orthodox Christians, sometime after the Arians were beaten back, were all obliged to believe both that Jesus of Nazareth was a man and that he was God. That’s very difficult to do, and most Christians simply cheat, by holding beliefs about Jesus the man the in fact are consistent with his being human. They deny the humanity of Jesus.
Those who, for some peculiar reason, maintain the belief that scripture is free of error must hold a similar belief about the humanity of the human beings who wrote the scriptures–that they, unlike any other five dozen human authors, never erred in anything they wrote, even though they are often dealing with the intersection of the divine with the mundane, an area of inquiry much more challenging than most. Inerrantists don’t precisely deny the humanity of the authors of scripture, but they do attribute to them characteristics no actual human being has ever exhibited–the ability to hold beliefs entirely consistent with one another, and entirely accurate and fully nuanced, and to find words to get these beliefs down on paper without error. To err is human–except when it comes to the writing of the books of the Bible. Of course it may be that God guided the authors of scripture, but that they followed this guidance without error–that makes them superhuman, unlike any actual human being ever known, unlike what any finite being can even be conceived to be.
The doctrine of inerrancy is bad nature-of-man theology, akin to the denial of the humanity of Jesus Christ.
(Further inquiry into these issues would require distinguishing the moral and the intellectual failings of man, both of which infect every word a human being says or writes.)
I would say that almost all Christians believed Christ was both human and divine *before* the Arian controversy. I talk about all that in my book How Jesus Became God. But yes, I agree with the analogy. Fundamentalist Christians have a hard time saying that the Bible is in any real sense actually “human”
Even the Arians felt that Christ was both human and divine! Just in a different way than the Orthodox.
Matthew Firth might be exhibiting “true believer” syndrome. I caught a youtube video a while back in which a fundamentalist averred that if the Bible told him that 2+2=5, he would not hesitate to toss his pocket calculator in the trash.
I think the frustration comes from the fact that in a sense you’re both correct. By any normal reading of the text there are contradictions in the gospels. But Matthew Firth’s claim is that he can re-interpret everything in such a way as to avoid contradiction, which is also correct.
So the new testament *can* be interpreted in a contradiction free way. However the real point is that there’s nothing impressive or unique about this; its true of every book ever written.
The question then is whether *any* contradiction can exist in *any* book. And if not, then what’s the point of saying it doesn’t exist in the Bible?
Guess the point is that it gives the illusion of a miraculous occurrence.
Any book can be interpreted to be have contradictions or interpreted to be free of contradictions.
The real debate should be, does the natural interpretation of the texts lead to contradictions. In which case I think Rev Firth would concede that it does.
Yeah, I doubt it.
Great post, glad to be a member of the blog after hearing Dr. Ehrman’s excellent interview on the Making Sense podcast. One of the most interesting cases of talking to a wall ironically is that of Dr. Aron Wall, a physicist but ardent Christian believer – here’s an example of his arguments. Try to nail him down and it’s like picking up mercury with a fork.
http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/christianity-is-true/
He especially tries to dismantle a naturalist reading of the Bible, but I admit my cognitive dissonance is in overdrive at the fact such a gifted scientist also takes such willing leaps of faith. Literally talking to a (W)all.
When I was a conservative Christian, no argument could sway me from my cherished beliefs. I was *intellectually dishonest*, based on my emotional needs. Now I at least try to be honest, even tho I am not perfect.
Hi Dr. Bart- thanks for what you do…it matters, greatly. Many of us recognize that there is an emotional cost to wall-talking, so again, thanks. Sometimes “talking to a wall” has value, unseen…as long as it doesn’t become “banging your head against a wall!”
I have been saying this a long time, it’s like I am speaking to aliens when talking to Christians, I should know, I was one of those aliens. The indoctrination is so complete that no reason prevails and since religious indoctrination is acquired emotionally, their beliefs are immune to reason and logic.
After years of study I am of the mind that the “wall” one comes up against while talking to the faithful is part of the evolutionary makeup of the human brain. Before children achieve the ability to reason the young brain is hard-wired to accept all it is told by authority figures, mainly parents. Of course religions require steadfast belief and come complete with a framework for belief at all cost, including denial of logic that threatens that belief. We have all seen the intellectual acrobatics required to stay faithful in the light of mounting evidence that disproves our sacred beliefs as tradition and not fact. It is frustrating but not surprising to witness the violence done to reason just to keep alive the ideals we had “forced” upon us as children. Of course there are no contradictions in the gospels because that would mean they are not what we were taught they are and that can be threatening to a person’s sense of identity and security. Maybe there’s a 12-step program(?)
1)Bart is an authority figure. He’s an actual authority in his field.
2)People can get obstinately attached to ideas they read about last Tuesday on the internet.
3)Atheists are, on the whole, just as wall-like as theists, when they take a mind to be. “Jesus is a myth! Bart Ehrman is dumb!”
So no, I don’t think that works. Lots of people raised with this or that religion are quite reasonable, and lots of people raised with no religion at all are more stubborn than Francis the Talking Mule.
I think it comes down to personality, which is the explanation for pretty much all human behavior. It’s innate. We are not all built the same way, and we react differently to the same situations. This is why changing belief systems never changes people very much. They retrofit the belief system to suit themselves.
It comes down to a function of, and the relationship between, attitude and standards. Motivated reasoning devours intellectual honesty. And, with low enough standards for evidence (or excessively high standards for ‘necessary contradiction’), all is possible.
Unfortunately, human nature is such that nearly no one will change their mind during a debate, especially if the participant has an onlooking audience of supporters. The psychological need to save face, or save their supporters’ esteem, is too high. I’ve seen some of the smartest and normally open-minded humans on the planet dig in on their position when they have “a stake” in the interchange. If they had been the onlooker, they’d have howled at someone making the same arguments.
Few people have the intellectual honesty concede a point midstream in an interchange. Dr Ehrman does it. Regularly. But for most people, it’s in the quiet moments reflecting on a debate (or argument or article..), when trying to scratch that itching sense of “something is still bugging me”, that minds change. When no self-image is immediately at stake. When the arguments can be mulled over carefully. When that sinking sense of realizing one is wrong can wash over unencumbered by embarrassment. That’s when attitude allows the proper standards to prevail – and walls come down.
Then new walls get built in its place. And the Circle of Strife goes on. 😉
I believe you are correct regarding Jairus’ daughter but incorrect when discussing the birth narratives. What the gospels in general are doing are not recording the birth stories like a forensic investigator writing records for people 2000 years later. Rather, they are relating oral traditions they have received and weaving them into the overall gospels.
For Luke, he is neither confirming nor denying the flight into Egypt. It is likely he doesnt know about it. For example:
Yesterday, I went to visit my mom at the nursing home. On the way home, I stopped at the gas station. When I was discussing the situation with one friend, I discussed stopping at the gas station and running into a mutual friend. I discussed that information because it was of interest to both of us.
When discussing it with a family member, I left out the part about the gas station. It was not of interest to that family member. Both my friend and my family member were curious how my mom was. Only one was interested in me seeing my friend at the gas station.
The gospel attributed to Matthew SEEMS to have been written by a Jewish believer and likely intended for a Jewish -Christian audience. Hence, the flight into Egypt (where Jews had escaped to many times during times of persecution and where there were Jewish communities) would be of great interest to Jewish believers. In fact, members of the Zadokite priesthood had built a temple in Leontopolis when the Maccabees installed their own priests into Temple service.
The gospel attributed to Luke was NOT written by a Jewish convert. His writing was written with a Gentile or mixed audience in mind.
It seems to me that you are expecting something out of these gospels that they were not written to provide nor intended by their authors. It is a misuse of those works to treat them in some literal manner that far-too-many fundamentalists always seem to base their beliefs on. It seems as well that in this case, you see a contradiction that does not necessarily exist.
Maybe the problem is that you both speak Martian but just different Martian languages. Perhaps, in this case, the proper way to understand them is to read/dissect them in the context their were wriitten in and with the authors’ intentions, backgrounds and worldviews in mind.
Just my thoughts.
I completely agree that the birth narratives are based on oral traditions, and that Luke didn’t know the traditions recorded in Matthew. And that differs from the case with Jairus’s daughter, where Matthew changed a written text he had in front of him. That means they are contradictions created in different ways. But they are *both* contradictions (however they came into existence). If we agree on that neither of us is a Martian!
Two things, the first you get because you’ve been there, the second bolsters the first.
Saying the bible is infallible is not something for an evangelical to prove or disprove. It just is. You and I and many on this blog have been in the same place. If anything contradicts the bible, it must be wrong. Not the bible.
The second is that most evangelicals, and especially Firth, have a lot ridding on their belief. I would venture to guess that most of us that eventually overcame ‘inerrancy’ were already becoming disillusioned or had very little stake in it. Firth has build a career on it. Many evangelical Christians believe that if the bible has ‘lies’ in it, their whole faith must be a lie. To people like Firth this is even greater. If the bible has a lie in it, he feels his whole life is a lie. The stakes are too great. No amount of logic can overcome that.
I enjoy your posts and find them very honest. This is why I and most on this blog, Christians and non-Christians, rather read you than someone like Firth.
I’m not really sure why you would worry about it, as you’ve created a legacy that will long outshine theirs. More and more people in the country are openly becoming ‘nones’, so the fundamentalists aren’t winning at all. Of course, most of those same ‘nones’ aren’t taking a critical look at the NT either, so maybe we aren’t winning at all either. Harumph.
When I was a fundamentalist, inerrancy meant that the entire Bible was literally true with no contradictions whatsoever. But I am wondering if views for inerrancy are changing, albeit slowly. For example, Firth doesn’t think there are contradictions, but doesn’t he also say that the Genesis story is not literally true? Even some from my former fundamentalist organization are looking to Dan Wallace as someone who is a trustworthy Christian that will not lead them astray. Some of them have given up the idea that the KJV is the only translation they should read, and to my surprise, a few have accepted the shorter ending to Mark. When I was a part of that organization, Dan Wallace would have been seen as unsaved and hellbound. I wasn’t even allowed on the internet, and now, they’re all pretty much on Facebook and Instagram.
Conservative evangelicals have kicked up a lot of dust lately, but sometimes things have to get worse before it gets better. If Wallace and others like him help fundamentalist Christians move into a type of Christianity where they are at least able to listen to scholarly views, then that’s better than nothing. (Trying to be optimistic about it all!)
As far as the debate with Firth goes, it was maddening at times.
So what if there is a God and he guided the Bible. Perhaps he deliberately ensures contradictions so that people would not turn it into an object of worship and basically idolize it instead of his message!
Not saying that is so, but I think it is odd that fundamentalists won’t consider that as a possibility. Study the Bible and determine its nature and reliability first, then decide how you should take it
As you have pointed out before, not believing in an inerrant or perfect Bible doesn’t have to stop someone from being a Christian. Just how they take the Bible.
A few years ago I had an argument about the genealogies in Luke and Matthew. My opponent said that since there was no word for son-in-law , Heli could be father in law of Joseph and thats why Joseph is called son of both Jacob and Heli. That was one of tha arguments to say that Luke is the genealogy of Mary. So I did my homework and answered with the next paragraph but I would like to ask you If you think I am correct since I dont speak greek or hebrew.
“YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT THE WORD OF “SON IN LAW” IS FALSE. In hebrew “Ha-tán” was son-in-law and is different of “ben” that is only son. Check this text analysis oh Nehemiah 6:18 where both words are used in the same verse and that clearly shows it https://biblehub.com/text/nehemiah/6-18.htm. In greek there were words for father (pater), mother (mētēr), father in law (pentheros) mother-in law (penthera), daughter-in-law (nymphēn ) and were used many times in the bible. In this analysis of Luke 12:53 and John 18:13 you can see it. https://biblehub.com/text/luke/12-53.htm, https://biblehub.com/text/john/18-13.htm. Again, this is an invention of apologists, not historical or biblical facts”
However I am confused by 1 Samuel 24:16 were Saul (who was father in law of king David) callls him “son” with the word “bə-nî”. Why do you think it is not used the right word of son in law “Ha-tán”.
I’ve never been too bothered about that one. I always thought it was like what happened last night at dinner, when my waiter brought me my martini, and I said, “Bless you my son” (!)
Haidt has this wonderful metaphor where reason is like the presidential press secretary. The press secretary does not get to make policy, their job is to make arguments for the policy whatever that may be. And if these arguments happen to be convoluted or even self-contradictory… well, that’s just what the job demands.
Sure, if you get *enough* counter-evidence, the person you argue with may change their mind – but it’s more likely that they say “Well, I can’t argue with you but I know you’re wrong and that’s that.” If you want to change someone’s mind, it’s more effective if you try some kind of indirect tactic.
Dr. Ehrman,
I already added a reply, but I wanted to add something else that I thought you might find relevant.
I attended Boston University for grad school in religion. In my ethics classes I was seen as the ‘big conservative’ because I often argued against inferred liberal positions: anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, priority of the literal interpretation of scripture, etc. Before BU, I had similar ethics classes at Louisiana College. Here I was seen as the ‘big liberal’ because I often argued against inferred conservative positions: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-inerrancy, etc. I argued these positions in each respective institution not because I believed them, but because it upset me that they were so underrepresented. Studying a similar discipline in such widely different places taught me a valuable lesson, i.e., most of the time the one side is not seeking to understand the other side. They are content to just call the other side immoral or stupid.
While at BU I took a couple of classes from the then associate professor of Religion, Jonathan Klawans. He, probably without meaning to, taught me one of the greatest lessons I ever learned in dealing with people. Almost every time a student related a position, either her/his own or from another source, he would ask us to consider what was ‘behind’ that position. His point was (at least this is the way I took it) that everyone has a position behind what they are saying – some ultimate belief that they are seeking to justify.
I have come to believe that the key to accepting others is to realize that we are all trying to protect positions that are very important to us. What I don’t get is how one is supposed to help people realize that they are not being intellectually honest about the other side. How, for example, do you get Firth to acknowledge that your position on these issues does make a lot more sense unless you buy into the fact that the scriptures are ‘God-Ordained’ to begin with? I have my theories, but I’ll leave that to people much smarter than me to figure out.
Your politeness is commendable. The very reverend lost me when he accused you of doing what he does. Period.
He shamefully said “Surely a far more honest assessment is to assume that, like many ancient authors, Luke simply chose to omit an event that he knew to have happened. I suspect that you take a contrary view not because of any sound reasoning but rather because it’s something that you believe.” Right . . .
One of your best posts ever. You got some frustrations off your chest!
Flat earthers, young earthers and inerrantists often use “Transference” (an alcoholic says “I don’t have any problems, it’s everyone around me that has the problems!”). Here they say, “I’m not biased, but the scholars, researchers or scientists are all biased against my position.”
As you have pointed out before, scholars of many and various faith and non-faith backgrounds agree the earth is round, old and there are Biblical contradictions.
By no accident, it is only committed Fundamentalists/ Evangelicals who hold to discredited concepts – they are biased against reason and logic. Otherwise, their particular world view will fall apart.
The psychological stakes are very high for them. Non-reason approaching insanity is their only option.
That is why I left their camp decades ago.
Productive conversations are probably not possible when one or both parties are utterly wedded to a particular point of view that the conversation somehow hinges upon. Some of our opinions are tangential, open to question–others are not. Religious views are certainly high on the list of such logical roadblocks, but they are hardly alone there. (Who would you rather be marooned on a desert island with–Rev. Firth or Richard Carrier?)
People yearn for something solid, something that can’t be questioned. Life is so uncertain, we look for stability. The undeniable fact that ALL beliefs (and even scientific theories) can be questioned only makes us that much more determined to say this particular one can’t be.
This tendency is much stronger in some than others. I talk to friends all the time who aren’t religious, and I question something they believe that has nothing to do with religion at all, and run into the same response (and not nearly so measured as Rev. Firth’s). Others can be more flexible, or at least less intemperate in their response, but I suspect they remain much the same in their thinking–like a sapling bending in the wind, then returning to its original upright position when the wind (that is to say, me) stops blowing.
The question then becomes–if you removed religion from human society and discourse–what else would these people latch onto? And would that be better or worse for the rest of us? And history does give us some clues there.
Firth. At least he could pray for us to be rescued….
Oh, I suspect you’d be praying too, after a while. 😉
My view is: whatever works!
I enjoyed, Bart, watching you beat your dead horse. I enjoyed it more, really, than the debate itself, lol.
In recent years, I’ve hosted a number of political debates on my Facebook page. I enjoy these discussions because they help me clarify my own ideas about political issues. I don’t, of course, expect to convert my interlocutors. I don’t expect them to understand, really, my arguments. Often, I don’t understand theirs. But, I *do* often learn something about myself; I refine my own views. So, I enjoy the discussions. My interlocutors do sometimes raise points I hadn’t considered and they do sometimes teach me something.
Now, I haven’t devoted my entire professional life to thinking deeply about political issues. I just like to kibitz about politics on Facebook. You, on the other hand, Bart, *have* devoted your entire professional life to thinking deeply about the New Testament and about what various parts of it actually mean. I can’t imagine that your evangelical interlocutors ever teach you much.
So, what do *you* get from these debates, then?
Maybe a bit of further insight into the approaches taken by your interlocutors, folks who are, after all, arguing positions which you yourself argued in your wayward youth? I’m not sure.
Anyway, I’m glad you did a debate here, Bart. Here in your home court for once. But, I wouldn’t mind if you moved on now and didn’t devote blog time to more debates in the future. Far better than the debates, from my point of view, have been the *wonderful* guest posts you’ve been hosting recently.
Thanks so much, Bart, for your beautiful blog!
🙂
Most of the time I get a fat paycheck that I devote to charity. This time I got direct donations for charity, maybe $3000. So definitely worth it!
Yes, I felt like I was talking to a wall recently when I debated a strong Catholic woman on Facebook about abortion rights. She told me all I said was just my opinion “and it does not matter, since all life belongs to God.”
OK, I ain’t goin’ there…..
I once heard professor Dale Martin (professor Ehrman’s colleague at Yale) talk about a Harvard educated geologist who came to the conclusion that ” if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of God seems to indicate”. In my humble opinion this tragedy is deeply rooted in our fear of death. As we crash the party called life we obviously talk ourselves into believing that the party is thrown in our honor and we want the party to never end.
Religion is the only game in town to offer an eternal life. Some people then jump at the chance of eternal life no matter how unlikely, even if it often means they have to accept the bible or the quran or… wholly, deny any contradictions despite massive evidence to the contrary. When I hear someone say that there are no contradictions in the hol(e)y book, in my mind it translates into : I don’t want to die, I want to live for ever even if it means I have to stand in the presence of God for all eternity bow down to him endlessly and worship him relentlessly because it still is much better than the alternative. It’s not.
I’m wondering. Where in the NT and/or the Church Fathers is it stated or implied that the words are to be taken figuratively and interpreted to reveal the true meaning of these writers? Are we to think that the 27 books of the NT are some type of gnostic writings that were produced for the sole benefit of the Christians–writings that are filled with hidden meanings that only initiates, like the Rev. Firth, for example, are qualified to explain? Is the NT actually the “Good News” for all mankind? Or does it need to be decoded for the less educated?
It seems to me that Martin Luther had a similar idea. Priesthood of the laity. Every person his own theologian. Sounds like the slippery slope to me where anything can mean anything.
Most ancient authors simply thought that readers would take them at their word, though there were certainly some who were writing something like what we might call “allegorical” or “mythological” accounts. They almost always indicated that this is what they were doing, though.
I am looking at this having just come back from coffee with a Chassidic (Chabad) rabbi, who was telling me that when the trees (which require sunlight to live) were created the day before the sun was created, it was God had created nature and could do anything he wanted with it. There’s not really much one can do to counter that type of argument – though I tried. (I believe in lost causes.)
I’m not sure you’re the one supporting a lost cause on this one…. Did he explain how there could be a “an evening and a morning” on the first day (and following) before there was a sun?
Well, the lost cause is thinking that I could change his mind… 🙂
But I didn’t have to ask that one: I already know how he would answer – God had said “let there be light” and that’s why there was evening and then morning. Still, I find the general response to any scientific challenge of “God can do anything he wants” to be intellectually dishonest; it’s a cop-out to avoid hard thinking.
In the view of many ancient and/or primitive cultures, day and night are not caused by the presence or absence of the sun. The daytime sky is not bright because the sun inhabits it; it is bright simply because it is made of light and therefore self-luminous. Similarly, the nighttime sky is not dark because the sun has gone down; it is dark because it is made of darkness and therefore not self-luminous. (Notice that on overcast days the sky is still bright, even though the sun is nowhere to be found, and that on clear nights the moon is often quite bright, but the sky remains dark nevertheless. The “obvious” conclusion to be drawn from this is that neither the sun nor the moon is responsible for the state of the sky, but rather that the sky just is what it is regardless of them.)
In this view, it makes perfect sense for there to be day and night even when there is not yet any sun, because “day” and “night” are just the human names for the self-luminous daytime sky and the non-luminous nighttime sky. And it also makes perfect sense for there to be vegetation as soon as there is water and land to nourish it, because in this view plants do not need the sun in order to live–all they need is the light of the self-luminous sky.
All of this is quite clear in Genesis 1 if the narrative is taken on its own terms. The same is also true of the primary Egyptian creation narratives, which run along the same lines: water, light, darkness, earth, sky, and vegetation all exist before the appearance of sun and moon. The Egyptians didn’t see a problem with this any more than the Hebrews did, and for the same reasons. The problems begin when we start importing our modern scientific ideas into the text and try to make sense of it that way. It simply can’t be done, and it’s really kind of silly even to try.
Right! I’m not saying it makes no sense from an ancient point of view. I’m saying that given what we know now it doesn’t make any sense.
If someone could discover a mechanism to get around that form of hysterical blindness, what a different world it could be.
In terms of changing minds, debate is probably the least productive and most frustrating method that you use. I read my first of your books, “Misquoting Jesus” as a result of your interview with Terry Gross. I liked that you shared your faith journey, one that resonated with my own. Now several books, great courses and blogs later, I feel that i am really growing in critical thinking and understanding of the New testament and early christianity. This is something I wasn’t getting elsewhere.
The Great Debate from 1985 helped me see that the Oneness doctrine I believed so strongly in was incorrect. It had a profound impact on my life. Not everyone who watches, or in this case reads, a debate is unwilling to change their mind.
Pattycake1974: Could you explain what was the great Debate from 1985 and what is the “Oneness Doctrine”? Thanks.
It was a debate about the Godhead that appeared on The John Ankerberg Show, also called Oneness Vs.Trinity Debate. The Trinitarian side believes that God is expressed in 3 coequal persons—Father, Son, Holy Spirit—whereas the Oneness side believes God is 1 person playing three separate roles. For example, I can be a mother, sister, and daughter but I’m still just 1 person.
Oneness believers think that the Trinity is pagan and anyone who believes it is going to hell. Understanding the Godhead is key to salvation along with other prescriptive elements based on Acts 2:38.
Here’s some more information about it: https://www.namb.net/apologetics-blog/oneness-pentecostalism/
Here’s the link to the debate—https://youtu.be/1t1OIPb9JXQ
Amazingly, if you read the comments, people are still arguing about the Godhead!
I’m sure this one has been dealt with before, but I have to wonder the fundamentalists are so concerned with the genealogy of Jesus when at the same time they say he was born of a virgin? (Somewhat like that anaconda the other day….)
As a former fundamentalist Christian myself, it is very hard to even consider that your entire worldview is based on assumptions, conjecture, and ancient tall tales. That is why they fight it so stubbornly.
But keep putting out the evidence, Dr. Ehrman. It *is* having an effect. I am living proof. I left Christianity after reading your books. My children and most likely their children will grow up not believing in capricious gods and devils. And I’m sure there are hundreds if not thousands of others who could say the same. Thank you!
I believe that you have made significant contributions to one of the greatest movements in human history: the debunking of fear-based religious superstitions.
Once you assume inerrancy to be Ultimate Truth, then by definition you MUST be able to shove ALL square pegs into round holes somehow. Perhaps the debate needs to be engaged entirely on the core issue — why would anyone believe in inerrancy? After all, it is not a biblical doctrine.
Off topic question, I don’t know where else to ask but I assume you will see this on a recent post like this. What is a good resource or book about the Dead Sea scrolls that documents the discrepancies and agreements of the later manuscripts for both biblical and non biblical texts?
Do you mean a discussion of the biblical manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they differ from the standard Hebrew texts? I suppose the best place to go would be a book on the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible; the standard is Wurtheim, The Text of the Old Testament; he has an entire section on the Scrolls
Yes that is what I was looking for. Thanks!
Heh. For so many religious fundamentalists I come across, the claim:-
“You cannot disprove God!”
– appears to be some kind of proof that God exists.
But then, the rejoinder:-
“Well you cannot disprove Vishu!”
– is a proof of just how stupid non believers are.
Is this debate going to be uploaded? Would be nice to hear a new debate, its been a while.
It was a debate on the blog — a written back and forth. Just search for Firth and you’ll find the various exchanges.
I think I’ve mentioned before that what interests me aren’t so much the details of a gospel story, or whether contradictions exist between gospel accounts, but rather, how likely is it that a gospel story might have some historical truth behind it. Was there a story that was told in the oral traditions about Jesus, regardless of narrative details, before it was written down? In the case of the story of Jairus’ daughter, there is probably no way of ever knowing whether he or his daughter ever existed, but the question is (to me at least) fascinating. How do you come down on this, Bart? Do you think the story was just invented for literary purposes, or might there be some vague historical memory behind it? Again, not that the miracle actually occurred, but whether a story like this might have been circulating by word of mouth before the gospels.
Yes, my view is that the story was invented by an early Christian story-teller; there’s no way to know for certain, of course, but as with all such cases, the burden of proof is on someone who thinks there is a historical kernel here, and I don’t think there’s much evidence to suggest it.
There is a lot of power at stake when certain ecclesiastical circles make concessions to the interpretation of the text. Once they start to say their particular systematic view is a possibility among others it certainly starts to affect their legitimacy to persecute and execrate their enemies inside or outside their religious tradition – they won´t be able to perform certain acts claiming they are by the authority of the text. What is not a clever attitude in my opinion… for many reasons. To have listened what you heard from an ordinary evangelical is something expected in a certain way, but coming from a religious authority that has the intellectual background to debate honestly what is in the text and admit the conditions of the narrative, it proves what I said, that is not a matter of rationality or blind faith, but an “institutional” policy towards opposition.
Tim McGrew came to our “Atheist Christian Bookclub” last year here in Texas and made an attempt to harmonize the contradiction between Mark and John regarding the the timing of Jesus’s death.
You can see his explanation starting on slide 17 of https://slideplayer.com/slide/7872065/: “John does *not* say that it was the day of preparation *for* the Passover; he says that it was the day of preparation *of* Passover. Mark uses the same term, but he also tells us what it means: Mark 15:42—And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, … In other words, ‘preparation’ means preparation for the Sabbath.” I recommend reading his slides 17 through 23 for his full argument.
He seemed pleased to be able to undercut one of your favorite contradictions. How would you respond to his attempted harmonization?
I’d suggest he work on his Greek a bit…. In any event, it’s quite clear it’s the day before the passover in John: that’s why the Jewish leaders won’t go into the Praetorium for Jesus’ trial, as explicitly stated.
I know Christians that don’t have “the wall” mentality. I myself am a believer in the bodily-risen Jesus Christ, but, I don’t have any particular emotional attachments on the Gospels, nor any particular “need” for any of them as any kind of basis for my belief that Jesus was, historically, resurrected. I’ve said it before, but, I believe in Jesus’ historical, bodily resurrection almost in *spite* of the Gospels.
Of course, I know plenty of Christians like Dr Firth, with “the wall” mentality. But, I surely do know plenty of atheists and agnostics that have the same “wall” mentality. Just like I see plenty of Democrats with it, and, likewise Republicans (when it comes to discussing politics).
I don’t think that mentality is *caused by* a belief, one way or the other. I suspect strongly that a person like that sort of “applies” that same mentality to most every aspect of their lives, in some fashion. It’s a way of feeling some kind of “security”, I suppose, or maybe some kind of “control”, or “predictability” or something. But, in any case, I suspect it’s brain-wiring.
I completely agree. The Christians I run around with absolutely don’t have the wall mentality; and many of the atheists I refuse to run around with do!