This will be a very personal post, about being an enemy of the Christian faith.
I’ve long been amazed, surprised, and perplexed about how, when it comes to religion, comments made in one context are completely non-problematic but when the (exact) same comments are made in another context, they are heinous and threatening. Some of it almost certainly has to do with tone and general attitude. But I wonder if it isn’t actually much broader than that.
One of the ways I’ve seen this over the years is in the use of humor. When I was a conservative evangelical Christian at Moody Bible Institute there were all sorts of jokes we would tell about the faith or about our commitments or communities: just about Moody, we would call it Moody Instant Bibletute; or say we went to Moody, where Bible is our middle name. Or someone would say (with respect to the view that the “rapture” would occur prior to, not after, the millennium – something we were very big on indeed!) that he was so pre-millennial that he wouldn’t eat Post Toasties.
We all thought that kind of corny humor was funny. But when later in life I would say the exact same things, evangelicals found them highly offensive.
OK, maybe I’m not so amazed, surprised, and perplexed about it. Context changes everything. What is self-deprecating humor on the lips of one person can be a malicious attack on the lips of another. Same words, different speaker.
The issue keeps coming to mind these days, in a variety of ways. Recently, as you know, I’ve been posting on the issue of whether the book of James could be a forgery. “Forgery” is a word that most New Testament scholars really don’t like. They think it is crass and in your face and hopelessly negative, and so, typically, they completely avoid it, either preferring a term they consider to be more neutral (e.g., “pseudepigraphon.” Who would take offense at *that*, when no one knows that it means?) or claiming that in fact in the ancient world people didn’t think the phenomenon (an author falsely claiming to be a famous person) was deceitful – or in fact that no one in the ancient world was in fact deceived.
I think that’s completely wrong. Ancient authors talked about the phenomenon and they consistently disapproved of it, and often said nasty things about it. For me, if someone today were to publish a novel claiming to be Stephen King, when in fact he was Herman Schmidt, we would call it a forgery. Why not when someone named Samuel from Antioch claimed to be James of Jerusalem? It’s true, writing conventions were different then, and there was no such thing as copyright or legal proscriptions etc etc. I go into all that in my books. But the phenomenon was seen in a very similar light in antiquity. It was wrong to call yourself by someone else’s name in order to promote your writing for one reason or another.
The other interesting thing is that when modern people hear about such ancient forgeries, they have different reactions to it. My sense is that most readers of the blog would say that if a book is forged then Christians are flippin *crazy* to think it could be inspired by God.
This will strike many of you as weird, but I myself don’t agree. As you know, I don’t believe in God, so it’s not that I think such a book actually *is* or *could be* inspired by God (God can’t inspire a book if he doesn’t exist…). But I used to believe in God, and as a scholar I certainly believed, even back then, that a number of the books in the New Testament were not actually written by their alleged authors, that the person who wrote 1 Timothy claiming to be Paul was not really Paul, or the author claiming to be Peter in 2 Peter was not really Peter, e.g. But I still thought that they were the inspired word of God.
How could that be? I remember what my great teacher, one of the great biblical scholars of the twentieth century, Bruce Metzger used to say. He was himself very conservative in many ways, and a highly committed and pious believer. But he was also a learned scholar. He didn’t accept all the findings of “liberal” biblical scholars, at all. But there were times where he too had to admit that there were problems with the Bible. He agreed that there was almost no way Peter actually wrote 2 Peter. And he thought that the creation stories of Genesis 1-3 were “myths.” He would use the word. But he still thought they were Scripture, revelations from God.
And when his conservative students would object to him calling the creation story a “myth,” since it was in the Bible, Metzger’s reply was always: “Who says God can’t inspire a myth”?
I still rather like that. Why *can’t* God inspire a forgery? I certainly don’t think he does, since I don’t think he exists; but when I did think he existed I thought he had inspired forgeries. So it’s certainly possible to believe he did. (I mean empirically, it’s *proven* that it’s possible to believe it, because some people do!)
And so I’m back to why a view is acceptable in one context and not in another: the view that there are pseudepigrapha in the New Testament was completely acceptable to those of us being trained as biblical theologians and ministers at Princeton Theological Seminary, but completely Verbotten at Moody Bible Institute.
And so the personal question that I struggle with a good deal. OK, this is really highly personal, it’s just me. But I often feel sad about being seen as an “enemy” of the Christian faith. People tell me I am all the time – both people who despise me and people who are rooting me on. Yet the views I put out there for public scrutiny are almost NEVER things that I’ve come up with myself, that I’ve dreamt up, that I’m trying to push on others with no evidence or argument – just crazy liberal ideas I’ve come up with to lead people away from the faith.
So why am I an enemy?
Of course I know why, and my views were given additional support last week, at the international meeting of New Testament scholars I attended in Marburg. I was talking with a German scholar about advanced training in biblical studies in Germany these days, and he told me that in German theological schools (in his experience), students simply are not as a rule very interested in the historical study of the New Testament per. The kinds of historical issues we deal with on the blog are simply not pressing matters for them. These are not why they are in theological training, either to teach or to minister in churches.
Instead, he indicated, the ONE question / issue that most of these students have is: “How can I be Christian in this increasingly secular world?”
Of course they are interested in historical knowledge – but it’s not what’s driving them. Instead it is an existential question about faith. That makes so much sense. It is what was driving me at that stage too. But when this fellow scholar told me that, I realized even more clearly why I get so much opposition, even in some learned circles.
Most of the people who are in the business of studying the Bible are committed to faith. That’s what generates their interest. And these days it is very hard. Christians are under attack. From science, from philosophy, from the neo-atheists, from a society/culture that increasingly doesn’t care. And the problem with someone like me is that I’m not helping the cause. On the contrary, I’m not just someone from the outside taking potshots at this faith. I’m someone who came from within it, and left it, with good reasons, and who argues views that are taken by people in the wider culture to be “evidence” that the faith has no good rational basis. Even though I disagree with that assessment (since I know full well that people can be devout believers but still agree with everything I say) (not that anyone agrees with everything I say) (sometimes *I* don’t agree with everything I say…) – even though I disagree with that assessment, I get it.
Christians – even Christian scholars – want to cling on to their faith, to cherish it, and promote it, and what they see as negative assaults on the basis of their faith is threatening, especially – this is the key point – if it comes from someone who is *outside* the community of faith but who used to be inside it and understands the views of those who are still inside it extremely well, but who now rejects these views. And says things that can lead others to reject them as well.
So no wonder I’m the enemy. As we all say these days: duh.
One word, ‘Tribalism.’ ‘I can tell my friend he is ugly because he is my friend but if you say it I will punch you.’
Well, at least you actually believe Jesus existed, unlike say Richard Carrier. I’m sure you will be in a slightly higher rung of Hell than he. :o)
But yeah, jokes from within the group are less offensive than jokes from outside the group. I can joke about me being fat… but I don’t like other people doing it.
Ehrman believes that Jesus was a real person who wasn’t God, a reasonable conclusion that results in him being called a heretic by both Evangelical Christians _and_ Mythicist Atheists!
With considerable vitriol from both camps!!
Love your enemies, for they are the greatest of friends in the communal search for truth.
Thanks so much for sharing this as your more personal blogs are always your best ones. The other side of this coin is that there are many of us struggling to make sense of it all who find almost no one out there with a basic understanding of the historical issues needed to serve as a foundation for theological views. You have provided that over and over again. Please keep doing that. The historical knowledge just has to come before the theology. Through the years, I have been amazed at how respectful you are about people reaching theological conclusions different than those you reach even if they have the same historical knowledge that you have. I wish I could be as generous, but often times people reaching these theological conclusions, in spite of the historical evidence, just does not make sense to me. How in the world do they do this?
Initially, I, too, thought that the word “Fraud” was too strong a word, but you explain your use of that word quite well in your book entitled “Fraud.” I recommend that book to blog readers.
Extremely well said; my comments to describe the attitude(s) covered in the OP likely won’t be allowed past the blog’s word sensitivity bot. Maybe I eat too many lemons or I’m just a grumpy old phart. 🙂 🙂
“The other side of this coin is that there are many of us struggling to make sense of it all who find almost no one out there with a basic understanding of the historical issues needed to serve as a foundation for theological views. You have provided that over and over again. Please keep doing that. The historical knowledge just has to come before the theology.”
Historical knowledge doesn’t have to come before theology if they don’t want it to or if they have no desire to look into it. We can’t force people to see it our way.
Unfortunately, Bart, this country and much of the world has become very divisive. It’s “Us” against “Them”. If you don’t believe the way I do then you are WRONG and become the enemy. The concept of tolerance of other beliefs has just about become extinct. In my opinion those who cling so desperately to a belief, religious, political, or whatever are the ones who are the most insecure and feel that they have to protect at all costs whatever it is they believe in or their world will come crashing down. To me, someone who is secure in their beliefs is able have a sense of humor and poke fun at themselves. Theologically you and I are worlds apart but I have nothing but the utmost respect for your scholarship and how, even as an unbeliever, act in a more Christian manner than many who call themselves a Christian. Keep up the good work and don’t let the “antiEhrman’s” get you down.
“The concept of tolerance of other beliefs has just about become extinct.”
Sadly, this is so true these days.
“To me, someone who is secure in their beliefs is able have a sense of humor and poke fun at themselves”
And to discuss it freely without getting triggered.
“Theologically you and I are worlds apart but I have nothing but the utmost respect for your scholarship and how, even as an unbeliever, act in a more Christian manner than many who call themselves a Christian.”
Amen. A lot of Christians could learn a great deal from Bart, not only from his teaching, but in the dignified and respectful way he conducts himself.
Well, Spinoza was thrown out by his fellow Jews and to boot was hated by the Calvinists. Double whammy.
“Although your mind’s opaque, Try thinking more if just for your own sake…Think for yourself ’cause I won’t be there with you”
Perhaps we should be guided in our approach to the Bible by looking at the way the Biblical writers viewed each other’s work. Matthew and Luke clearly regarded Mark’s gospel as authoritative in some way but that didn’t stop them from modifying, adding and deleting his text to suit their own needs. They clearly didn’t regard Mark as inviable, inerrant or infallible.
I consider myself to be a devout, authentic Catholic and I certainly don’t view you as an enemy of Christ.
I imagine that most of those that treat you as an “enemy” are not Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox but rather Protestants who have built their faith on a house of cards that treat Scripture as magical and inerrant in all aspects rather than as a vehicle that allows God to speak to us through human instrumentality.
Seeking all aspects of truth only serves our ability to encounter Truth Himself in a more complete and fuller manner.
“I imagine that most of those that treat you as an “enemy” are not Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox but rather Protestants who have built their faith on a house of cards that treat Scripture as magical and inerrant in all aspects rather than as a vehicle that allows God to speak to us through human instrumentality.”
Amen!
“Seeking all aspects of truth only serves our ability to encounter Truth Himself in a more complete and fuller manner.”
^ ^ This is gold.
No disrespect. I’m neither Catholic or Protestant. There are many Catholics in my family and I love them deeply. But historically, even Catholics haven’t been very receptive of those who disagree with their theology. For many, whether it’s Sola Scriptura, or “scripture backed by tradition” it is still a “house of cards.” That’s not something that “Christians” take lightly.
So do you see that your enemies love you as commanded? I would think some do, but some don’t seem to live their faith. Maybe they should take note of James (whomever he was) and look at your good works????
I’ve struggled a bit with this matter as well. For instance, for you to say that we cannot know 100% what the original NT said is not an attack, it is a point of fact because we do not have the original NT. If other fine textual scholars believe that this statement lacks perspective and/or nuance, fine, but it does not nullify the basic reality; the original NT was not preserved and the current NT has been reconstructed from thousands of Greek manuscripts and tens of thousands of non-Greek manuscripts. I am at a loss to see how this is an attack. What if we did find all of the originals and they could be verified as such. How would that change the fact that the message about Jesus is one of faith (and responding with faith) and not one of simply acknowledging (reliable) historical data about Jesus (no evangelical in the world would say that one is saved by acknowledging historical facts).
Similarly, why is it that conservative scholars insist on historical reliability? How does historical reliability create theological verisimilitude? At the end of the day, the NT, in the hands of conservatives, is a theological book, and no amount of historical reliability of the documents can either validate or negate a theological statement, and, as you argue, no amount of historical doubt should necessarily lead individual believers to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Gospels are faith-promoting stories about Jesus, each with their own perspective, and, of course, contain historically reliable information, as well as statements Jesus most likely did not speak. They appear to have been written for the purpose of promoting faith in the person and work of Jesus (theology), though aspects of who Jesus was (according to church tradition) and what he accomplished on behalf of humanity (again, according to church tradition) cannot be known from historically reliable data, they must be revealed by the authors of the Gospels.
You’re the kid who tells his classmates that Santa isn’t real. No kid wants to hear that. Jesus purportedly said “Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free” yet most of us would rather cling to the comfort of our inherited beliefs, whether in Santa or God or anything we hold dear. I recall from your writings that your movement from faith to atheism wasn’t an aha moment and done, it was a long agonizing process. It took me years as well to leave Christianity. The truth is hard to deal with even though most of us say we seek the truth. I have a good friend who always says “we don’t have any money” but then the next time I see him he says “look what I bought”. I’ve tried to convince him to track his spending and develop a budget but he won’t do it. It bugs me each time he claims to have no money when I know it is simply the choices they’ve made. He lies to himself, he doesn’t want the truth. I lie to myself about my daily calorie intake while I’m trying to lose weight. I think we all probably have areas where we prefer comfort over the truth and anyone who tries to shine a light in that area is seen as our adversary.
Changing topics, in this post you said “Christians are under attack”. I’ve heard this a lot and yet I don’t think it is true. You certainly aren’t attacking anyone. There aren’t protesters in front of the churches in my area. No politicians are calling for the abolishment of freedom of religion. But this notion is gaining steam and in my area of the country churches are training their members on hand guns and promoting conceal carry while in church and posting notices on their doors that they are armed. Liberty University promotes carrying guns on campus. Yes, the Charleston shooting was horrific but it was a sick lone gunman, not a systemic attack on the faith. I think the conservative faith is challenged by abortion rights, LGBTQ rights/marriage, evolution, etc. but I don’t think Christians are truly under attack and I think it feeds a false narrative and promotes fear to say that.
Well, you could argue he’s the adult who tells children Santa isn’t real, and when Trump did that, saying at seven years old you should know better, people were very upset. Rightly so. Now Bart isn’t a rude ignorant bigoted narcissist–anything but. And people studying theology at a high level aren’t children (though in some cases, not yet full adults, I personally don’t think anyone’s an adult in the true sense before thirty). But in both cases, somebody is telling them something they’re not ready to hear yet.
And for the record, I’m equally guilty of telling atheists that their beliefs are ridiculous. That you can’t know God is a myth, even if you know specific stories about God or gods are. That Jesus was a real person, no matter how many Richard Carrier videos you blow your money on. That cons and frauds exist everywhere, not just in church, and some religious people are smarter than most atheists, just like some atheists are more moral and decent than many religious.
Everybody has myths. Everybody. Without exception. You do. I do. And that’s apparently because we need them, they are part of how we survive reality, and they do express deep and lasting truths, and when believed in a group, they can give us a sort of corps morale, that is hard to come by in this world. You can’t be a human being without believing in things that aren’t real. I’ve never once encountered anyone who didn’t believe things that can’t be proven.
And if I question those beliefs, I do run the risk of offending them. And sometimes I choose not to do that (as with a child who still believes in Santa Claus, or a pious religious person who I see is doing only good with his/her beliefs, not attacking others for believing differently (as most of them in fact do not). And sometimes I have to do it. And sometimes so does Bart, and there have always been those who questioned the beliefs of others, which is how beliefs change, which is how we grow.
The irony here is that Jesus was probably crucified precisely for questioning the beliefs of others. Bart just gets irritable comments. And I get flamed by people who only exist for me as words on a screen.
Modern times. 🙂
I like the word “myths” versus “lies” that I used. And for the record the Santa reference was my poor attempt at humor.
I disagree with that. Christians are under attack all the time. I’m not a Christian anymore, but I won’t pretend the faith isn’t attacked on a daily basis in some form or fashion.
My view is that *everyone* is under attack all the time.
True
Honestly, atheists are still mainly ignored these days. The fact that the late Christopher Hitchens could form an alliance with conservatives over the Iraq War (and that a man raised Presbyterian who doesn’t know if Presbyterians are Christians is now President) is prima facie evidence that people care far more about politics than religion at the present time, and therefore it’s what side of the political struggle you put yourself on that matters.
If you confine yourself entirely to religious matters–pro or anti–people aren’t that interested. It’s when you’re perceived, rightly or wrongly, as having taken a political stance that you get hammered. Religions is politics, and politics is religion. And that’s awful, but that’s how it is.
I think the problem in Germany, as in most of the rest of Europe, is that Christians in anything other than the nominal sense are increasingly in a minority position. Still a very large minority, but an increasingly embattled one, and they feel like you changed sides. That’s not really what happened, and you’ve said many good things about Christians, and had critical things to say about the ideas of some atheists (for which you’ve also been criticized), but you have written a book called God’s Problem, which is not about early Christianity’s development, but rather about whether religion in its present form is even relevant to modern times.
You had every right to express your opinion, but in my opinion, that question doesn’t fall under the heading of anyone’s scholarly expertise. You may not have meant that as a political work, but how could it not be perceived as such? Dawkins used to write about evolution, then he started writing about how people should all be atheists like him. Nobody is an expert on what anyone else should believe.
This all worries me, because it’s indicative that we’re going back to the Roman idea that religious loyalties are political loyalties, and that just believing differently can be seditious.
“Christians” versus “the Christian faith”. People versus the belief system. Yes, I think the belief system of Christianity, the faith, is under constant attack. But Christians, real people I know, claim they are under attack and want to arm themselves. When I ask them for specifics about them being attacked they never have an answer. I see a BIG difference between attacking a belief system with arguments and attacking people physically. That’s why I think it is dangerous to say “Christians are under attack”. If you said “Christianity is under attack” I think that is true. If you disagree and have specific examples of people being attacked please educate me.
I agree. Sure, the conservative faith is challenged by some things, but none of those things are denied them. They want to dictate what I can and cannot do. They don’t need to have an abortion (yet they do); they don’t need to have any LGBTQ people in their ranks (yet they do); etc etc. If one is clear and forthright and you analyse it, there is dishonesty and hatred and unnecessary, manufactured fear behind their “we’re under attack” meme / myth.
This is how bad people stoke up a war.
If someone saying true things (and relatively non-controversial things, in scholarly circles) qualifies someone as your “enemy”…perhaps it’s time to examine why the truth is so threatening? Fighting against facts is rarely a winning proposition.
As one who has come from inside the faith twice, as a fundamentalist, and from progressive Christianity, I deeply appreciate this blog. I appreciate what you do very much, using it to help Christian family members and friends see that the Bible is far more complex (and rich) than it appears, and to explode some of the anti-Christian myths (Jesus never existed, for example) of atheist friends. You are not Christianity’s enemy. These days, Christianity is its own.
It is a serious mistake to consider all atheists as anti-Christians.
It is true that in Western Europe there are many that more than atheists, they are anti-clerical. But almost all atheists I know are by rational and enlightened conviction. In fact, atheists generally know much more about Christianity or Islam than the vast majority of believers. It is easier to be a believer than atheist with firm critical judgments and very well founded arguments.
After all, we must recognize that the Bible – and the Koran, although to a lesser extent – is the best manual to be an atheist “come-il-fault” that has ever been written.
Atheists are not usually enemies of any religion, but of the damage and deception that they have caused and cause many of them.
It’s usually more informative to read books by people who were in a movement and know the inner workings of it. I remember reading ex Jehovah’s witnesses and ex Mormon’s and Muslim’s and found their insights shed more light than Christians criticism of them. But of course I bet they were hated by their ex communities. But Christians would love to hear their story and praise them for seeing the faults and leaving. It’s a double standard, one of many in the religious world.
True, but wouldn’t the same apply to any atheist who became religous? Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s son, growing up with what one must admit was probably not the most desirable home environment, rebelled against his mother and became an evangelical preacher. He was certainly praised for this by fellow evangelists. And try if you will to find a single atheist who didn’t speak ill of him, if the subject came up. Even though they had in many cases done the same thing in reverse for similar reasons.
Jesus wasn’t God, but he was often right. Get the log out of your own eye. Judge not lest ye be judged.
Bart, I do not agree that you are an “ enemy” of Christianity. You are a seeker of fact. Some people may argue that fact and truth are separate entities but I like to think of fact and truth to exist outside of perspective but I don’t know if that is possible.
You remind me of Rabbi David Wolfe, who announced to his congregation some years ago, that based on sound research current archeological findings, and critical study of The Jewish Bible- The Exodus as stated almost certainly did not happen as described in Scripture. Rabbi Wolpe is quoted as saying that we have intellect and we should use it and that all scripture should be scrutinized according to the methods and science available to us today. He ended by saying words to the effect , “ G-d’s Seal is Truth”. Even for those who don’t believe in G-d – sound fact based evidence is still the seal of of Academia. You are not the enemy of anyone, Bart!! Keep up the good work!!!
I have found your writings, lectures, and debates extremely useful in the bible study classes I lead. It’s a mixed group of believers and non-believers. I like your stuff because it is rigorous, yet accessible to lay people. I’ve personally recommended your books and this blog to numerous Christians. In my context, you’re not the enemy. Just the opposite!
To some extent I echo the comments of others: you appear to me to be committed to the truth, and for the life of me I can’t see anything wrong with that. If someone’s faith can’t stand up to a close and careful and thoughtful examination, based on evidence, then they are better off without that faith. In the long run, living in fantasy land is probably damaging to one’s health. I can’t see that Christianity is under any kind of attack. Science is a method for discovering how things work, and it does an exemplary job of that. Scientific methods are unimpeachable and can be applied in history and many disciplines. If the results don’t square with one’s faith, your faith isn’t being attacked. If anything, that faith is being exposed as counter-factual– at variance with what we know to be empirically true. If your faith is in something that does not exist or does not exist as you imagine it, and scientific/critical inquiry exposes the defects– your faith isn’t under attack! If you believe that eating pebbles will nourish you, and people get sick after eating pebbles and doctors tell you that eating pebbles is NOT nourishing, is your faith in pebbles being attacked? Not at all. You’ve merely been exposed as a lunatic.
In my view, you are much more an enabler of the faith rather than an enemy of the faith. Thousands of us have used your work to sharpen our thinking about the faith and to see that there are other, well thought-out ways of understanding the faith that don’t require us to suspend our intelligence and that are not hate-filled.
As you say, it’s not suprising.. You may be taking food out of the mouths of the preaching community who may not be able to make a living doing anything else.
They need followers.
Isn’t that what Albert Schweitzer said early on in his book…” The quest of the historical Jesus” when discussing one German scholars theory about the disciples, theorizing that the resurrection was made up by them because they wanted to continue the disciples life and not have to get a real job.
They enjoyed the following, camp life, women followers etc…
Pretty good theory really.
Since you mentioned the “rapture”, I think we each are born equal and connected to good, most disconnect, and we can also reconnect with beliefs and actions that result from beliefs. I think you need to do it while alive on earth and the sooner the better. I don’t think it is predestined. You can choose eternal life with your daily prayers and actions.
I don’t think history is the enemy. We can make better decisions with history. History can help us understand the parables in the Bible.
The enemy may have convinced people to believe the Bible as history and to not look back at history.
We triumph over the enemy by becoming the master/ruler/king of our own thoughts and actions. We rule our own thoughts and actions instead of others. We learn to think and do good. We become responsible for our eternity, with the help of Spirit.
We have to help others to learn to love again. Love is kind and good. That is God’s will for us.
Inequality, hate, and enemies are the results of human wills. These are learned and can be changed.
Although I believe that all people are born good and in the light and that people from different religions can relearn to be in the light (Ancient Egyptian, Judaism, Catholic), I found that I couldn’t convert to Judaism. So this could mean that once you move forward from Judaism, you can’t (or won’t) go back. Currently, a combination of Catholicism and Ancient Egyptian prayers are working for me. I wouldn’t hate any ethnicity, gender, or religion. Know that people were all created good and equal. Some learned different cultural or religious beliefs that can be changed, but each person has to choose their beliefs and actions. You can help educate people to make better decisions, but it is still their choice.
Dr. Ehrman,
You do an excellent job of handling the material as an objective historian, and you are willing to acknowledge certain facts per the evidence. We need checks and balances in the field if we hope to arrive at the truth. If there are apologists out there who are saying negative things, they may be being disingenuous because apologists often quote you when they are looking for a reputable scholar who is not merely ‘singing to the choir’ so to speak. As far as your other point; on things that were once light and humorous, now being ‘offensive,’ some of that seems to be linked to the wider, now ultra-P.C. culture that most overwhelmingly claim to detest, yet it continues to devour.
The mentality that “you’re either with us, or against us” doesn’t leave much room for anything in between.
Interesting reflections – especially in this current climate of “alternative facts” where truth is constantly under assault.
“what they see as negative assaults on the basis of their faith is threatening”
I’ve noticed this too. I’m a liberal Christian which means I accept as a given that everyone will have their views and opinions, and they will differ with my own. I don’t feel threatened with other people’s views, instead, I enjoy discussing and debating them – hey, I might learn something!
This is one of the reasons I enjoy this blog so much. We differ a great deal in our views, but I really appreciate and enjoy discussing our differences – and hey, I’ve learned many things here and have occasionally changed my mind.
What I find disturbing is when I get very hostile and angry reactions from other Christians when I express views that differ with theirs.
A couple of years ago I was at a dinner party with a bunch of friends from my old evangelical days. They remain evangelicals, but I’ve moved on. We (mostly) get on very well, but at this one dinner I was casually explaining some of the research I was doing into the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke and said I found some evidence that suggests these weren’t original and that (in my view) Jesus was probably not born of a virgin.
One of the guests next to me immediately exclaimed: “But why would you want to make Jesus to be less than he is?!” (I’ve resisted using upper caps, but it deserved it). The room fell silent as I tried to awkwardly explain that wasn’t my intention. She was extremely angry with me and I soon left – never to be invited back again (she’s still mad with me).
I thought long and hard about that episode, and whether I should keep my mouth shut in future. In the end, I came to an inescapable conclusion: the reason she was so angry was that she felt her faith was threatened by my opinions, and the reason she felt threatened was that her faith was weak.
I now appreciate why you open your public lectures with words to the effect of “These are my learned opinions, but you must think for yourself.” If only everyone would take these words seriously.
I don’t think the problem is whether God can inspire a myth or a forgery. The problem lies in the lack of knowledge in general about the stablishment of the biblical canon, both of Catholics and Protestants.
The proof of the divine inspiration of a text is based, in reality, only on whether or not such text is included in the biblical canon. If it is, then it automatically becomes the Word of God (or more modestly, the Word inspired by God).
For example, the Catholic Church defined as faith dogma the divine inspiration of the books included in the canon in the Council of Trent, which was ratified in the Vatican Council I:
“These books of the Old and New Testaments, complete with all their parts, as listed in the decree of the same Council [of Trent], and contained in the ancient Latin edition Vulgate, must be received as sacred and canonical” ( DS 3006).
The question to be asked to Christians is whether in the days of the promulgation of the canon (both Catholic and Protestant) it had been known, with the very high probability of that being true that we have today that, for example, Paul did not write 1 and 2 Timothy or Titus, or that John is not the author of the Gospel of John and so many and so many that we know are a forgery, these books would now be part of the biblical canon and therefore, would be considered Word of God (or inspired by God).
If we analyze the criteria of canonicality both Catholic and Protestant, the only conclusion we can reach is that these books are not the Word of God or inspired by God.
Therefore, the fact that a text is considered inspired by God basically depends on historical circumstances and accidents, whose analysis and study must always be a matter of historiography and not of theology.
Of course, Bart, one must remember that it has not only been the religious who throw (thankfully metaphorical) stones at you.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10134
Were any of those German theological students that rude?
I don’t think there’s anything about atheism that compels people to be impolite, but at times it does seem that certain personalities gravitate towards it disproportionately–people who enjoy slaughtering sacred cows, get a sense of (sometimes unmerited) intellectual superiority from it.
It’s not disbelief that’s the problem (most people have doubts about religious claims), but POSITIVE disbelief, the desire to attack those who believe things you don’t, to create a world where everybody believes or disbelieves as you do. Voltaire wanted to ‘erase the infamy’–he also viciously attacked Jews as a group, creating a permanent blot on his noble legacy. It came from exactly the same place inside of him. Polemicsts are polemical. Satirists can’t live without targets.
Attacking those who are different is an effective way to build support, get people on your side, tighten the ranks–seeing a lot of that now. Christians were no different when their numbers were on the increase. Nobody is all that different, really. Some people are just more tolerant than others. Or more decent. Or maybe just not so concerned with convincing everybody that they and they alone have the truth.
Which is a lie, no matter who says it. The ideal is that we learn from each other, but we’re still very tribal creatures–only in a globalized society, we’re having a harder and harder time figuring out where our tribe is. Hence fundamentalist religion. Hence fundamentalist atheism. Hence fundamentalist everything. Doubts become the enemy, and the infamy must be erased.
Some conservative Christians may think that we are leading people into eternal torture in hell by the God of perfect love. Seriously.
And some atheists think joining with like-minded theists to achieve shared goals is treason. I read about an atheist convention that basically fell apart over this issue. There are conservative and even reactionary atheists, and there are very progressive Jews and Christians and Muslims–so why shouldn’t progressive atheist work with them? Shouldn’t it be about shared goals in the real world? No, said a lot of people there, it should only be about getting rid of all religion, and screw shared goals. If you believe in God, I’m better than you, and we can’t work together unless you admit I’m right. Not how all or even most atheists think, but of course the vast majority of Christians aren’t fundamentalists, and religion is a deeply progressive force in society on many issues.
Changing beliefs doesn’t change who you are. Just forming atheist groups means you are forming a religion, whether you call it that or not. Trying to evangelize, proselytize for your position does that as well, and what else would you call it? But tell an atheist this, and he almost invariably blows up at you. (And it’s almost always a he. Western atheism is patriarchal as all hell, with every single major spokesperson for it being white and male.)
In no way it is my intention to praise you to your face dr. Ehrman but in order to make a point I do need to say something about you. Having read all the books you have written for layman, listened to all your lectures on historical Jesus and bible from 90s (I guess) and onwards over and over at archive.org , watched everyone of your debates on internet and followed you on your blog for couple of years , it is obvious to me that it is your expertise and your vast knowledge, your razor sharp debating skills that have won you many debates (if not all) and you have subsequently made some ”enemies” along the way. However I am not sure if that captures the entire story. There is something about you that makes it very difficult to dislike you even when you are at the podium dismantling what people have believed all their lives. When people listen to you but don’t want to agree with you and at the same time can’t poke holes in your arguments, they search for character flaws in you. If they can’t defeat you logically and rationally perhaps then they could dismiss you emotionally. They scrutinize your conduct. Unfortunately for them your conduct is always impeccable. you are always very respectful of people who disagree with you, of course you attack ideas , but not people, you don’t ridicule and don’t gloat. As far as I know nobody has ever communicated facts about jesus and christianity so skillfully and eloquently as you and yet to say a derogatory word on the subject. You seem respectful of Jesus no matter who or what you think he was. You are genuinely modest despite your well known academic credentials, you show just the right amount of empathy without being condenscending.
Who likes these aspiring qualities in an opponent? They should belong to the home team not to the other team. Therefore dr. Ehrman your expertise together with your decency, integrity, compassion and great sense of humor make you not just an enemy but a formidable one and you only have yourself to blame.
All of these conflicted, believing Christians who you mention have one thing in common: fear. These individuals have not reasoned their way out of the primal fear that burdens all humans: namely, fear of non-existence, i.e. that there is no afterlife, that there is no immortal soul, and that death is final. They are skeptical about some secular things, but the primal fear prevents them from being skeptical about their Christian faith (i.e. their beliefs that are unsupported by evidence). Their religious beliefs include belief that skepticism is sinful and that apostasy is the unforgiveable sin–religion’s ultimate defense mechanism against the wayward believer, namely fear of eternal punishment.
These true believers are trapped in this Christian fantasyland by self-erected walls of fantasy and fear that have been built by years of religious indoctrination. What you are experiencing is another facet of their fear–fear that their beliefs will be contaminated by your writings. As you say: it is what it is. Continued interaction with these Christian zombies eventually will be hazardous to your mental and emotional well-being.
Interesting post! How far would you agree with Jason Long?:
“A dispassionate outlook is an indispensable necessity when in search of the truth. Religious scholars who began as religious believers lack this critical component…
People who have an interest in pursuing a career in Christianity are undoubtedly those who have already been indoctrinated with the importance of it. If they believe in Christianity ardently enough to pursue a career from it, they are unquestionably more likely to interpret evidence so that it is favorable to their preconceived notions. So it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of experts in any religion believe in the very religion that they study… The opinions of these authorities, who began with a certain conclusion instead of analyzing the evidence to reach that conclusion, cannot be trusted merely because they are authorities. Conclusions based upon evidence are important. Conclusions based upon evidence that has been interpreted to support an a priori assumption are not. For these reasons, I put little stock in the opinions of people who began studying Christianity years after they settled on the existence of a talking donkey.
If an intelligent, rational group of people who were never exposed to the idea of religion were asked to become experts in the history of the ancient Near East, the unanimous consensus of the group would be that the Bible is bunk.”
I recently read the term “deconstruction” used to describe the slow, learned process of letting go of one’s Christianity. I want to thank you Dr. Ehrman for your books, blogs and podcasts. You have made my “deconstruction” less painful and very enlightening over the past 5 years. I am still fascinated by the Bible, but now can read it with an open, questioning mind.
I have trouble understanding how it’s possible someone can be a legitimate scholar of Early Christianity, yet still believe in the standard tenets of the faith, such as the divinity of Jesus, the Resurrection, the coming again on the clouds of heaven to judge the living and the dead, etc. I can understand their interest, just not their angle of approach. I guess the answer ultimately is that Christianity means, and has always meant, different things to different people.
(Hopefully not too much off topic): belief in God, or in the possibility of some vaster intelligence or consciousness behind the universe, is another matter. Our universe’s fine-tuning is impossible to explain scientifically without recourse to a multiverse scenario of some sort (which may well be the case – there are other, albeit indirect, lines of evidence for this). Just as a matter of logic, the only other options are to either simply accept our universe as a brute fact, or else entertain some sort of god hypothesis. This “god” obviously wouldn’t be the biblical version many may imagine, nor probably any other version in any other human religion, but would still nevertheless be a vast intelligence capable of, and responsible for, creating the universe we find ourselves in. It is what it is. To quote Jon Snow in an episode of Game of Thrones: “What kind of god would do something like that?” (Melisandre to Jon): “The one we’ve got.”
In answer to your first paragraph: most do!!
I am not a theist either. But I often wonder whether American Christian fundamentalists really reflect deeply about what words like “faith” and “inspiration” mean. If they accept the Pauline idea of faith, then it is belief that is secure even in the absence of evidence, not belief that is threatened by a lack of evidence. “Inspiration” seems to mean to be moved or motivated by or filled with the spirit of something, not necessarily to be free of all error or always literally true. A person might be inspired by God to help the poor and visit the sick, but that doesn’t mean they never make any mistakes. According to Christian faith, didn’t God stay loyal to Israel regardless of how often Israel erred, and didn’t God, in order to redeem human folly, completely enter the limited human condition? If so, then what need is there for the fundamentalist to be so afraid of a lack of evidence and human error? So what if Gospel writers got some things wrong and changed or embellished some of their stories? So what if authors of early Christian books sometimes claimed to be someone they weren’t just to ensure their books would be read? It worked, didn’t it–haven’t those very books have been held sacred for two thousand years? It’s like saying all American political ideals are worthless just because one finds out Washington never chopped down a tree and Honest Abe wasn’t as honest as people writing his eulogies made him out to be. If problems like that alone threaten one’s foundations, then maybe the problem is not that there is too much faith, but not enough.
Regarding the possibility of a god inspiring forgeries, I don’t think it’s the same as inspiring myths: if you are starting from the position of this god as THE moral authority, then I think it follows he couldn’t/wouldn’t inspire lying, especially in something as central as his word–the only way by which people can interact with him, barring a return to miraculous appearances–on Earth. (“Believe the truth of my word as told by this liar…”) A myth presumably could or would be understood as a myth; a song, a song; a parable, a parable. A forgery? Not so much.
But the substance of the post rings very true.
Dr. Ehrman
I was reading Origen’s Against Celsus and I’ve noticed a strange passage:
“Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this
James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine”
So Origen didn’t regard James as Jesus’s brother in flesh? Seems like he is reading galatians 1:19 the same way that mythicists do, or am I misreading it somehow?
I’ve never heard mythicists using this as an argument so im wondering.
I don’t think Origen is saying that James is *not* Jesus’ blood brother. He’s saying that what matters most for him being “brother” is his close relationship. It’s like my saying, “That’s not my wife; that’s my *soulmate*” It doesn’t mean she’s not also my wife. See what I mean?
Bart, one of the things that makes you a great teacher is that your love for your subject shines through, even though you’ve left behind your former faith. Many believers and doubters alike appreciate this. And God once told a friend of mine that atheists and agnostics have a special place in her heart.
Sorry, another question from me – are students at conservative institutions/ seminaries exposed to “liberal” scholarship (on forgeries or anything else) as part of their education but taught to discount it, or are they not taught it at all?
In most places they are taught what the liberals say and why they are wrong.
Bart,
Why “fundamentalist” Christians – calling them conservatives is a euphemism – pejoratively call “liberals” to those scholars and experts in the Bible, their history and manuscripts, when they do not support the absurd assumption of the inerrancy of the Bible — which in realitity, more than an absurdity, is a joke in bad taste — or that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, being so that these so-called liberals are those who use with all property precisely the great gifts supposedly given, according to the Christian faith, to humanity by the Holy Spirit, wich are: the search for truth, critical thinking and intellectual honesty?
That, Deo Gratias!, is typical of American evangelism. Little or none of that is seen in Europe (Catholic or Protestant), where there is not, save for a few and partial exceptions, the idolatry of the Bible. Nor in Latin America, despite the rise of a circus and amusement park Pentecostalism, because in that part of the American continent the supposed evangelical intellectuals only copy, badly and without any rigor, of what is published and preached in the United States.
Outsiders don’t get to say what insiders say, which has been true for as long as I can remember. I do believe you have an additional rock in your rucksack in that you are very popular, and that simply makes you the target–it’s the price of being number one. It’s similar to listening to conservative pundits complaining about Rush Limbaugh (even though they say the same things he does).
Dr Ehrman –
Very few people want to hear their most cherished beliefs are rooted in error. I know I don’t, even when I actively work at trying to listen dispassionately to the counter-evidence.
Curious if you were to stratify the complaints, what rough proportion would be from:
– Protestant vs non-Protestant
– Inerrantist vs non-Inerrantist
– Evangelical vs Mainline
For recognizing that average organism population traits change over time by natural selection, Darwin has been pilloried as public enemy number one within certain factions of religious conservatism. Outside physics, no other scientific theory has been so overwhelmingly reconfirmed by the data, and yet evolution by natural selection is dismissed by huge swaths of people.
If literally the entire history of life on our planet can be rejected with emotion on the basis of ill-fit with cherished religious beliefs, then dismissing the fact that Mark and John have Jesus die on different days is a cake walk. And it hits closer to home, because the threat is from within the house.
Protestant, inerrantist, evangelicals are the most frequent; but others get in on the fun as well.
I can’t agree that “Christians are under attack.” New evidence and new candid-ness has exposed Christianity. That’s all. There’ll be better analogies, but here’s a quick one: Newspaper readers are reducing in number because many of us are finding our news on the internet, not because they’re “under attack.” FEELING as if you’re “under attack” does not mean you ARE under attack, and honest Christians should see that. I personally think that this dishonest description is deliberately used by people who object to their ideas and myths – and yes, lies – being questioned.
In fact I believe the whole “crisis of Christianity” is because of dishonesty. It’s getting harder to deny reality and evidence and harder to get people to simply nod when they say things without evidence.
And its bringing out the worst – the “Burn-them-at-the-stake”, “Start a new Crusade” worst in some Christians.
When people who always believed prayer cured disease discover antibiotics which do cure disease, they need to re-think their beliefs, not kill the doctor or the pharmacist.
I think you’re being very hard on Christians. There may be certain belief systems difficult to deal with which exist within the faith, but generally speaking, I don’t see what’s so bad about them. Christians do a lot of good in this world. Churches in my area offer free meals all the time and would never turn away someone who’s hungry. A church just a few miles from me has a huge community outreach that includes a back to school program for school supplies, a fall festival with food and games, widow care that includes car and house repairs, a halfway house for women, divorce care, along with other outreach programs….it’s been around for years and it’s all free. The outreach at Christmas time for children is a huge deal around here as well. The church is so involved with the community, that without it, would be the detriment of many. It’s wealthy and conservative—not the stereotype we’re used to hearing about!
I don’t believe they’re knee-deep in lies and myths any more than anybody else in this world. If they were denying reality, they wouldn’t be striving so much to serve the community.
Christians aren’t being attacked physically but instead with the negative rhetoric they deal with on a regular basis, especially on social media.
I agree with Albert Hodges’ comment above. I am a pastor in a mainline Christian denomination and I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord. I in no way regard you as an enemy. In fact, I consider you a valuable resource. I trust you more than scholars of the faith and scholars opposed to the faith because you strive to be non-partisan in dispensing your knowledge. Of course, that won’t be appreciated by people who view scripture as the fourth person in the Godhead. Although I believe in the inspiration of scripture that isn’t a blanket statement that covers all scripture – each book must be evaluated on its own terms. And even what I consider inspired is not free from the human mind that may have been inspired but I doubt was possessed. I think anyone who is committed to a search for truth will always have antagonists – from within and without. Keep up the good work!
Its all about the $$$. The truth will jeopardize their seats and institutions.
Dr Ehrman,
Do you believe in Sins ? Or what is your position on sin in general?
I think people behave in ways that hurt others and themselves, and that it is wrong to do so, often very, very wrong. I don’t think of “sin” as an offense against God (since I don’t believe in God) but an offense against others (including other kinds of life forms)
I think your “enemies” can be categorized into a few groups rather than one lump of “faithful” people with theological perspectives. It may be that those you supposedly offend the most should inspect the mundane (earthly) composition of their needs as much as their ethereal aspirations. Generally speaking, it appears to me, your judiciousness is evident enough to indicate little intentions of making enemies. I don’t think it’s your desire nor interest to challenge faith however. But if you’re sharing a personal note about garnering enemies, you’re opening up a discussion of faith in general. It’s the power center of your core opposition but faith isn’t necessarily teneble on all counts. It’s a touchy subject; a question of how thin you’re willing to make your ice.
Hello Bart, my question may fit for this more personal post of yours. I’m currently reading the book “Faith vs. Fact — Why Science and Religion are Incompatible” by Jerry A. Coyne (2015). He’s a semi-retired evolutionary biologist with a striking knowledge of Christianity. He speaks of you on page 62 when he writes “How many Christians would remain Christian were they to know for sure that Christ was neither divine nor resurrected but, as some biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman believe, simply an apocalyptic preacher of the ancient Middle East?” Have you read the book? If you have, you’ll just have to take some other light reading with you on your next trip to the North Carolina beach (in April).
Nope, haven’t read it. Thanks.
Your work is a double-edged sword.
Be of good cheer – you write honestly and authentically as a scholar. What more can any seeker after fact and truth want.
The Presbyterian minister of my youth had a sign on his desk: “Love your enemies. It will drive them crazy.” Later on, in the Navigators, the Enemy, of course, was Satan, who seemed to be more omnipresent than God, lurking behind every shadow of a doubt of the inerrancy of Scripture.
The information you convey in your publications are an obstacle to apologists. You make it easy to see what the problems are in some of their arguments (William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas come to mind).
I’ve been in a number of informal, amateur discussions with amateur apologists, and I learned to avoid asserting “Ehrman says…” to them. That results in an immediate rejection: “you can’t trust that guy, he’s an enemy of Christianity.” So I stopped doing that, and instead just present the information or reasoning that I’ve learned from you. But in a way, they’re right – you do make it easy for people like me to reject those apologetic arguments, so you are an obstacle to their mission.
Much better to use the arguments than the name of a person who makes them.
Sometimes I think the Bill of Rights should also include the “Right Not to be Offended”. Anyway, having slogged throu…, I mean read, Forgery and Counterforgery I can attest you have addressed this issue. You defined “forgery” and demonstrated how certain NT books fit that definition and your primary purpose in doing so was not polemical. However, you must admit the term “forgery” has pejorative flavor…many would envision the crime associated with false check writing… one who commits forgery nefariously does so for personal gain. Although you have taken pains to dissuade the reader from this concept, the word “Forgery” is what sticks and you are labeled as bashing Sacred Scripture authors. Can’t do much about that….just keep on going.
Yup, just as the ancient words had negative connotations. People today prefer “pseudepigraphon” to “forgery” since it seems so neutral. And it is indeed the ancient word. But they don’t tell their reades what the word means: “Inscribed with a Lie”!
Dr Ehrman, very good post. I think the main enemy of religion is their leaders. They refuse to educate their people in the things you say in your books. For me, it was the main cause to stop believing. There was too much important information that they never talked in thirty years of listening to them. That for me made me distrust almost anything they say and search for myself and what I found is that they were wrong in almost everything. However I refuse to attack religion because I think the evidence for the good it does is simply overwhelming, but I see the urgent need to educate the believers in order to avoid them doing stupid things following the inerrant word of god (usually manipulated by the leaders) and keep the good things religion provides.
My question is: How much do you relate or know or talk or identify with other very popular skeptics like Richard Dawkins or Harris?
I know them both. I’ve had dinner with Dawkins and have interviewed with Harris, and communicated a bit with them both as well. I’d say we’re doing very different things, though, since they’re scientists and I’m a biblical scholar/historian, and they are dead set against Christianity and I’m sympathetic with it and most religions), even if I don’t subscribe to it or think that it is necessarily the best thing the world has on offer.
Yeah I agree with you.
As you say Bart you make Christians particularly uncomfortable becasue you were fully on board like them, you studied the evidence (not like them) and you came to a new conclusion (also not like them).
So you are scary because you encourage that little doubt in the fundamentalists head that says ‘What if my belief system doesnt hold water ?’.
And to top it off you make all the years of biblical scholarsahip available to everyone. Any drongo (look it up) can buy your book and understand the complexities that were previoulsy denied to them by their pastor.
You have stated many times on your blog that the information that you provide and the books you write essentially do not provide any revolutionarily new information as it relates to knowledge among the majority of critical scholars (except Fundies!). Why do you think many leaders in Christian circles consider you the enemy?
Do you think that it is your delivery, which I think many would agree is succinct, accurate, and honest? Is it because you now reach such a broad audience? Is it because you are an open unbeliever? Because you are a Tar Heels fan (ha)?
Yes, all of the above. Especially being a Tar Heel.
Yes, this blog certainly resonated with me. My wife, a devout Catholic, will often respond to my pointing out problems in the Bible by saying that I’m just trying to be clever or I am trying to undermine her faith. I suppose one can at least say that we have moved on from the time when many of the views expressed on this Blog would have seen us imprisoned or worse. I took part recently in a free online course that looked at Jewish and Christian influences on the text of the Koran. The scholars running the course (most of whom were Muslims) were very sensitive and circumspect in what they said but still managed to attract some very strong (and I must say scary) outbursts from some of the students. It was certainly far more of a minefield (in every sense) than New Testament studies.
Dr. Ehrman, Thank you for remaining sympathetic towards Christianity even though your journey for truth has led you away. Personally, you have helped me in my journey for truth in a way that has not eroded my faith. If anything, you are a motivation for me to continue to ask questions, think out of the box, and approach apologia with as much critical skepticism and rational thinking as possible. I do not see you as an enemy to the faith, rather, a catalyst for truth. In this pursuit, we are brothers.
bart, I only recently became interested in ancient history and religion(past year or so) and your writings and videos have been extremely helpful, so appreciate your knowledge very much. have never been a believer and my studies have only reinforced that, but learning from the other point of view is always interesting. do not consider myself to be an enemy of Christianity in any way, but I do believe it will eventually go the way of the other mythical gods as people are more and more educated(it does amaze me that they can believe practically anything at this point) thank you again for what you do and please keep doing what you are doing
In politics and religion, the really important information is what you are NOT being told.
I really enjoyed this post.
Your words “Even though I disagree with that assessment (since I know full well that people can be devout believers but still agree with everything I say) (not that anyone agrees with everything I say) (sometimes *I* don’t agree with everything I say…) – even though I disagree with that assessment, I get it” I am one of the believers who agrees with a lot, sometimes, most times, etc I certainly don’t agree with everything I say either. I divide it into 2 groups: What I think, & what I believe. Anyway, I enjoy learning & growing in my faith, & your blog helps with that. How’s that for throwing a good knuckle ball? 🙂
Thanks again, I do enjoy the blog!!
You are misquoted in two newspaper articlse.
Jesus Christ bombshell: ‘No record of him!’ Historian delivers shock Bible bombshell
http://tinyurl.com/y2pr2rd5
Bible shock: Was the apostle Thomas actually Jesus Christ’s twin brother?
http://tinyurl.com/y4sy7f4a
Sigh…. (And all this in light of the oft-made claim that eyewitnesses and contemporaries can be trusted!)
Only a fundamentalist would insist that God wouldn’t inspire a myth, but it’s quite a leap from there to inspiring a forgery! There’s nothing morally dubious about myths, but if “ye shall know them by their fruits” — as Jesus is said to have advised in the context of recognising genuine forthtellers of spiritual truths by their moral conduct — what sort of fruit is a willingness to forge?
As for jokes told in conservative Christian educational establishments . . . I remember once someone quoted the song lyric “my God is an awesome God”, and the reply came back, “hey, so’s mine, I wonder if they’re the same God!” Queue laughter, right?
God works in mysterious ways.