(20 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...Most people who contact me about a book they would like to write – or that they have written – are not talking about a work of scholarship (though some are); they are talking about a book that they would like to publish that “reaches the masses.” They have some ideas about early Christianity, the historical Jesus, the life and writings of Paul, the Gospels, the entire Bible, or some related topic, and they would like to publish a book to make their views known.
I never encourage them.
This will probably be the most intellectually snobbish post I’ve ever made on this blog, but I think maybe I should just tell it like it is. In my view, no one should write a book if they lack the necessary expertise. And expertise doesn’t come from wanting to have it or wishing to have it. It comes from years of hard work – in this case, intellectual work – after being trained sufficiently to be able even to *do* the work. I may really, deeply want to play second base for the Yankees (in fact, I did want to!). But there’s really not much point in my writing Derek Jeter to ask him how we can make that happen. It ain’t gonna happen. I just don’t have the ability.
Why do people think that it’s different when it comes to writing a book? My guess is that there are lots of reasons. For one thing, all of us know that there are truly awful books out there on just about every subject, and when we run across one, we say, “Hey, even *I* could do better than that!” Moreover, we now live in a world where it is possible to “publish” your thoughts just by typing them up and hitting the right sequence of keys and *presto*: they are in the public sphere (on the Internet). That makes us think that writing a book is pretty much like *that*.
But I’m afraid it’s not like that. My view – here is where the intellectual snobbishness kicks in – is that…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN! Or you may never find the truth you have spent your entire mortal existence seeking! It costs very little. And everything you pay goes to charity.
Excellent points! In my field of study (history of weightlifting and bodybuilding- particularly 1940-1969)- I spent years building a database filled with references to source materials. I have stopped visiting other iron sites because of the frustrations involved in reading posts by well-meaning (I hope) but ignorant, writers.
Dr. Ehrman, although it does come off as elitist, I can certainly see your point. But I think it does raise a couple of questions. For one, what does it say about the reading public when they prefer the books of non-experts such as Bill O’Reilly and Reza Aslan over the books of experts such as Paula Fredrickson and John Dominic Crossin? Is it because the former are better writers (which one could argue for Aslan, who is a creative writing teacher, but certainly not for O’Reilly), and the latter are not?
Also, what about the people who managed to shift the paradigm without the advantage of the academy — such as Einstein, who revolutionized physics not from a university but from a patent office, or Spinoza, who revolutionized philosophy not from a philosophy department but from his Amsterdam apartment, where he ground lenses for income, or even one of your favorite Jesus scholars, Albert Schweitzer, who also was not a NT scholar? (Though, to be fair, Einstien did have a PhD in physics.) I guess what I’m saying is sometimes, on very rare occassions, the outsiders do get it right, while those on the inside are wrong. What do you make of that?
Yes, the reading public prefers excitingly written and controversial views, for obvious reasons! Einstein: yes indeed a one in billions! (But he was an academic obviously, whose original publications were purely academic. Schweitzer was highly trained in the relevant fields.
Oh yes, you’re right on the mark! And I suppose the *worst* cases of this are when the authors are “celebrities” like Bill O’Reilly. If they feel compelled to write books expounding on their favorite theories, they should do it in fiction, clearly labeled as such.
That is very correct in the field of non-fiction. Not snobbish at all. But what of poetry or autobiography, or humor, for example as well as other forms of writing that are not scholarship based? How can the poetry of Rumi be considered research based?
Regarding Bill O’Rielly…I doubt that he wrote any of those ‘killing” books on his own…he lists another person who helped him, who I expect wrote the books…but, regardless, they were based on opinion, not well researched facts.
When it comes to reading non-fiction I do want well researched information, but I also want to read the well developed conclusions of the writer based on that research.
Actually, there is substantial scholarship on the poetry of Rumi, as it turns out!
Do you recommend any trade books about Rumi and his poetry by one of your scholarly counterparts?
You might try the book by my colleague at UNC, Carl Ernst, The Philosophy of Ecstasy (about Rumi’s poetry)
You’re absolutely right. I believe that any one who disagrees should reflect if they would prefer to undergo say… plastic surgery by a trained surgeon or by a butcher. Or getting their wisdom tooth pulled out by a podiatrist. And so on…
Ha! Good point!
This is what I try to tell those in our beloved skeptic community who gesture excitedly at such books as David Fitzgerald’s “Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All,” The Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S. or Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill. The inevitable response is, Well, you know, Matt, truth can proceed from any source. It’s the strength of the arguments themselves that counts. You’re appealing to authority. I don’t need no expert on a book of fairy tales to tell me what’s true and what’s not. Many atheists and agnostics really need to get over this arrogant notion that they are the first ones to think about these issues skeptically. They alone are endowed with the faculty of reason while most scholars in this area are biased by personal devotion. Why else, they think, would one spend so much time and money studying this subject?
Well, anyone who thinks that Acharya S. or Atwill can stand on the “strength of the arguments” needs to get some training on how to evaluate arguments. Truly awful works!
I personally do not think your post comes across as snobbish. As a lay person, I do not want to be misled by people like Reza Aslan to think they are experts in their field when in fact they are not.
Actually, your Civil War comments remind me that local history is a major exception. The reason could be cast as saying that if you are writing about a topic no one has previously addressed using sources no one has previously used, then you can probably go for it. But then this is never the case for big “controversial” topics such as Biblical scholarship where highly trained experts have pored over every word of the relative handful of sources available.
I’d say the Civil War is something I want only experts to write books on. I know lots and lots of people who consider themselves experts (here in the south!)– and they can regale you with information (oh boy can they…); but it’s a complex field and really does require expertise….
I would agree with you on the Civil War as a whole. What I was saying is that local history is a field where people really can become an expert without the same level of training, and I connected it immediately to the Civil War because one of the ways they get published is through the “Civil War Sesquicentennial Series” from History Press, which is mostly 150-page reconstructions of minor battles or the experiences of specific regions or mid-sized cities like Harrisburg, PA or Frederick, MD. I could extend this to local historical society publications on, say, Greek immigration to Carlisle, Pennsylvania or the major taverns of the Cumberland Valley. Some of this stuff then even gets “absorbed” in that it is cited in more scholarly monographs.
My comments, though, also go back to how we train students to understand what they can and cannot do. For example, as class projects, undergrads have published edited volumes on the likes of African-American Civil War veterans whose graves were found in a certain cemetery nearby. This is obviously mentored, but part of the mentoring is learning what goes into even this kind of small project, and thus being realistic about what they could do if they go to work for a company like History Associates or get jobs like finding stories to highlight at museums with varying levels of fame. Also, the difference in some of this is that it is a question of whether any Ph.D. would ever take on such small topics which initially have only local interest. And relating to your post, this is the kind of thing you can do effectively with less (but not no) training, but there is clearly nothing comparable within New Testament Studies.
Bart, you presented many good points about book publishing and the importance of author credentials.
I would add also that prospective book readers and buyers can’t necessarily rely on book reviews and ratings posted on sites like Amazon.com. Reviewers are often uninformed and biased or never even read the books they rate. Many of the Jesus mythicist books, for example, are often loaded with substantial doses of pseudoscholarship and weak, invalid or implausible arguments (every Biblical person seems to be a sun god, moon god, fish god or zodiac constellation) and yet are often given very favorable ratings by people of like-minded beliefs, not by dispassionate reviewers. Ever wonder why books about ancient astronauts by Erich von Daniken or books about climate change conspiracies, Nazareth frauds or the Holocaust “hoax” frequently get top-tier ratings?
Actually, I never have wondered. 🙂
How about articles in scholarly journals? Aren’t they subjected to blind peer review by scholars? If that is so, then even someone who does not have academic credentials might be able to get some of their ideas published if their arguments are good and supported by the appropriate references.
Yes they are. And that’s why it’s almost impossible for non-scholars to get anything published in those journals. Their articles almost never pass muster.
Agreed. Guys like O’Reilly do such a disservice to the general public. It forces the rest of us in the general public to have so many unnecessary, head-slapping conversations. There is a profound difference between “following current scholarship” and “producing current scholarship.” I have an MA in History and am still only capable of the former, and not the latter. I enjoy reading scholarly books on early Christianity, but I often have to slug my way through some of them and reread them several times. There is a place for sharing opinions and conspiracy theories: blogs, Facebook posts, Debating Christianity, etc. Even much of the scholarly work out there needs to be carefully examined in the field of early Christianity, as so much is theologically driven and disguises dogmatic agenda in the cloak of scholarly work.
Quick question professor, did you actually make it all of the way through O’Reilley’s book? I borrowed a copy from a friend and couldn’t make it past the first couple chapters. They were pretty hilarious. So many inferences in the birth narrative scene that I lost count. Aslan’s book, on the other hand, was an enjoyable read, even though many of its arguments are no longer fashionable. It left me wishing he had given in completely, turned the book into a piece of historical fiction and taken more creative license He would be up for the challenge, I believe. I had always hoped that Wilbur Smith would tackle early Christianity in the same way he did ancient Egypt.
Yeah, it was tough going….
Bart, I keep a close eye on the authors you mention in your books’ chapter endnotes. … It’s almost foolproof in my quest to read some books you did not author yourself, but are still well worth reading.
I wouldn’t go this far–you can write well about history without being a trained historian. Your specific field is more technical, obviously. It does take a great deal of reading and study to write well about any era of history, and to contribute seriously to the scholarship–to change our understanding of a given historical subject–you really should be a scholar, have spent a lifetime acquiring the knowledge and skills. But as you certainly know, most academic writing is–how can I say this politely?–academic. Meaning that most people will never ever read it.
So there is a place for generalists, people who can absorb the scholarly works, do some research of their own, and create something laypeople can enjoy–and many serious scholars such as yourself have done this. But there’s never enough who can write well. It does matter, very much. And an important insight could come to anyone. But not Bill O’Reilly, no. I think he’s installed some kind of software to block them.
Remember, if only trained scholars wrote things down about history, historians would be very hard-pressed to find the raw materials they create their more exacting works from. Somebody has to do the groundwork. I don’t think you’re saying only people with Ph.D’s can write books about things that actually happened. Tolstoy wasn’t a trained historian, and many scholars of Russian history would take issue with some of his theories, but I think we’d all miss War and Peace. 🙂
I agree that if you’re not a historian you can write about history. But I also would agree that if you’re not a dentist you can, if you choose, extract someone’s tooth. But I don’t think it’s a good idea. Tolstoy, you’ll notice, was writing a *novel* — and that’s what he was an expert in.
He actually didn’t consider War and Peace a novel, technically speaking. And anybody can write a novel, many have. Few could have done what Tolstoy did, and many scholars, including historical scholars, have been influenced by his ideas about history (Isaiah Berlin, notably–his area is, or was, the History of Ideas).
History is not a science. It aspires to scientific exactitude (not that the hard sciences are so infallible either), but it is still properly part of the humanities. To write a novel, all you have to be is a human being who can write. To write a novel well is a combination of hard work, talent, and experience. To write a good work of history, you add research. To write a good SCHOLARLY work of history, you add the solid grounding provided by a long hard apprenticeship with experienced scholars.
The dentist analogy doesn’t work, because the actual practice of dentistry is not an exchange of ideas and information–history is. Historians, as you know well, are constantly arguing with others in their specialties (the fights can get fairly bloody at times). What was once established fact becomes discredited a generation later. This leads non-scholars to think, wrongly, that they can join the argument as scholars–they can’t. You need the training to join that type of conversation. But the larger conversation is going on around it–has to. Otherwise, what’s the point? A handful of scholars talking to each other, nobody else listening in. It achieves nothing unless some writers–scholars and non-scholars–report what has been learned to the rest of the world.
I’d no more say that only academic historians can write history than I’d say only clergymen can preach sermons. But the more technical the field, the more technical knowledge is needed.
There’s a danger in overspecialization, just as there is in viewing all opinions as equal. Your opinion is vastly superior to Bill O’Reilly’s (and will never sell nearly as well, because of name recognition, partisanship, people wanting to be told comforting lies instead of hard truths). But it’s still an opinion. You’ve never pretended otherwise. Because you, unlike O’Reilly, have done the hard work of sifting through both the facts and the many conflicting opinions those facts have inspired. But a layperson can do this as well, and honestly–don’t we all need to do this? Should we leave the work of thinking to a tiny exclusive priesthood? If you really thought so, I don’t think this forum would exist.
Let me put it more simply–why does O’Reilly’s book fail? Why do the various books written by non-scholars about how Jesus is a myth based on Egyptian myth, or whatever other nonsense, fail? Because they went into the inquiry with their minds made up. They weren’t asking questions–they already knew the answers, and they were only interested in finding the answers that agreed with their preconceptions. And they were writing for an audience that wanted to hear these lies.
There have been trained historians who wrote like this. You know it. And there have been writers without academic accreditation who approached the study of history with an open mind. It’s the quality of the mind, the honesty of the inquiry, that matters above all. But I agree completely that there does have to be an established standard of evidence, maintained by trained people–by a collective who are devoted to maintaining professional standards.
That being said, nobody dies from reading a bad work of history. People do die from incompetent dentistry, or may end up wishing to.
Anyway, don’t people short on funds go to schools of dentistry to get work done by kids who haven’t finished their training yet? I may be no great hand at ancient languages, but I’ll have you know I aced the analogies sections on all those standardized tests. Dentistry and History is a bad analogy, sir. 😉
What did Tolstoy think War and Peace was if it wasn’t a novel?
According to Tolstoy himself, “It is not a novel, still less an epic poem, still less a historical chronicle. War and Peace is what the author wanted and was able to express, in the form in which it is expressed.”
He was a weird guy.
Bart, I saw a thread on your blog mentioning a book about hell. I can’t place it at the moment but I was thinking this: I think you would be doing the world and Christianity a huge service by writing a book on hell from your perspective. I think it is a horrible doctrine and should be abolished. Please dispel the myth. As an ex Christian who’s had to reason his way out of these untruths, I can’t thank you enough for your books, your videos and your blog. Please consider the topic of hell for a book. I also think it would be fascinating if you would incorporate what science has to say about the physics of the human body and the afterlife. Sean Carroll comes to mind. I feel sure you are aware of his thoughts on the afterlife. Thank you again and please don’t stop doing what you do. Sincerely, Brian A. Long.
On that note I will leave you with a quote from Robert Ingersoll:
“I have no respect for any human being who believes in hell. I have no respect for any man who preaches it. I have no respect for the man who will pollute the imagination of childhood with that infamous lie. I have no respect for the man who will add to the sorrows of this world with the frightful dogma. I have no respect for any man who endeavors to put that infinite cloud, that infinite shadow, over the heart of humanity.”
-Robert G. Ingersoll
Note: I also posted this on your Facebook page.
Yes, a book like this is on my (growing) list!
Prof Ehrman
I’ve noticed the phenomenon of the so-called “Independent Scholar”, these being PHDs who’ve done the work and do research but are not associated with an accredited institution, i.e., they can’t get a job in their academic field. To be charitable it is hard to get such jobs in the current climate and it might be possible for these folks to do good work. So how important is it to be associated with an institution when considering academic publishing?
thanks
It may be important to a publisher — but probably not overly important, given how hard it is to land academic positions. More important is having the degree from a top-quality institution.
I can’t express how priceless it is to have even one scholar that has proven his integrity to turn to when evaluating the work of other scholars…and non-scholars with clout. Thank you! And I sincerely hope that you are influencing other scholars with integrity to take other authors in their field to task in places that are accessible to us regular folk. As consumers of scholarly material, it is all important for us to know what information to trust and where to find it; especially when there is so much material out there of substandard quality. We are fortunate to live in an age where this kind of connection with scholarly material is possible. It wasn’t long ago that the average person had little more than a few outdated volumes of encyclopedia on the shelf to go to for scholarly information. It’s a brave new world. Thanks again!
“Israeli-Palestinian conflict”
Miko Peled has a nice lecture for those who never get to listen to the Palestinian side of the story.
I have never been grandiose enough to think that I could write a religious trade book. I did, however, summarize what I have learned so far about the topic in ten typewritten pages and shared it with my two sons. This is actually a useful exercise and readers of this blog might try it. This exercise really makes one think and then to get one’s kids to write similar summaries is a good thinking exercise for all involved. Moreover, my sons and I now make annual revisions to the summaries which is also a useful exercise. My summary was greatly aided by being able to refer to books that you have written (such as “Misquoting Jesus” and “Jesus, Interrupted”) in specific aspects of my summary. That saved me considerable time with this project.
I recently finished co-authoring a biography of the late, great five-string banjo master, Earl Scruggs. The book is titled, “Earl Scruggs: Banjo Icon” (Rowman & Littlefield, release in early 2017). I do not think the publishers would have taken the proposal as seriously if I didn’t have more than forty years professional experience as bluegrass banjoist, music teacher, and studio musician. My PhD in American History (with many years teaching experience) has also helped, and the fact that I am published as well. My co-author is also an experienced, published writer, documentary filmmaker, and musician. The experience, and the credentials certainly do make a huge difference. This is the first book to be written on Earl Scruggs. BTW, Scruggs grew up in Shelby, NC, not far from where you live.
Congratulations on the book!
Thank you
Dr. Ehrman, with all due respect, I think you are over-generalizing. David Quammen is a former Faulkner scholar who writes science books (THE SONG OF THE DODO: ISLAND BIOGEOGRAPHY IN AN AGE OF EXTINCTION). Jim Al-Khalili is a physicist who has written about Islamic history (PATHFINDERS). Stacy Schiff wrote a Pulitzer-Prize-winning history/biography (CLEOPATRA: A LIFE). Those are just the first three that come to mind, and none of these authors have an advanced degree in an area directly relevant to the subject of their book. I think it’s more about the quality of the writer’s research and how well they are able to synthesize the work of academics in the relevant fields.
I’m not saying that non-experts never write books on a topic. I know they do! But if you ask an expert in Islam about a book written by a non-expert s/he will be more than willing to tell you the problems with it.
A conscientious writer has at least one expert (usually several) review their text in order to identify problems and errors prior to publication. However, it’s not unusual for experts to have different opinions. So even a text that has undergone expert review may contain material that yet another expert may have issues with.
By the way, Dr. Ehrman, I also feel compelled to point out that your literary successes have made you something of a public intellectual. Is that a distinction you readily accept?
I actually make a distinction, and see myself not as a public intellectual but as a public scholar. If I had seriously wide-ranging intellectual abilities and interests, I’d be happy to be a public intellectual. But alas, I’m rather severely handicapped…..
What do you think of the idea that Polycarp was the redactor of the NT as we (more or less) have it today? He quotes copiously from the canon, but maybe he quotes from his own creation? Metzger says he quotes ~100 times from the NT. Is that a lot for Polycarp’s time period compared to the writings of other Apostolic fathers? (I guess I could laboriously look it up in Metzger’s book, but you probably know off the top of your head).
Yes, Polycarp quotes the NT writings a *lot*, far more than other apostolic fathers. And no, I don’t think there’s any way he produced a redaction of the NT.
Shew! My dream is still alive! You haven’t said anything about blogging or writing a biblical-based novel.
I would say blogging and writing novels are completely different from writing a book of non-fiction.
I have expressed this view before, but I’ll repeat it here.
First, no argument with Bart’s essential point that ‘trade’ books for an educated lay audience need to be crafted by subject matter experts. The quick review as to the apprenticeship required to become an expert in a given field is a useful reminder of the obvious and, presumably, a check to the inappropriately ambitious. (An ignorant lay audience is likely beyond redemption.)
Second, it is critical for the development of that well educated lay audience that subject matter experts ‘descend’ to the level of a ‘trade book’ to pass on the fruits of their professional labours. Leaving the results of one’s life’s work at the purely academic level is, to my way of thinking failure. There is nothing so complex that cannot be expressed in language so that a reasonably intelligent and diligent reader cannot pick up the thread of the argument and so learn. It seems to me that writing for the elect alone is essentially arid.
Finally, the chief difficulty experienced by a lay audience is when the subject matter experts disagree. Most of us are unable to judge the merits of the argument and so are left to contemplate the relative levels of logic between the contending parties. Debate as to translation, or version, or meaning of given foreign words or terms are beyond resolution. Often interesting though!
Luke saw himself as an expert in the history of Christianity, and maybe by the standards of the day he was. He tried to make it clear that he knew what he was talking about and you could trust his account over any of the other gospels around at the time. John asserts that he got his information from an eyewitness that could be trusted. Does this suggest that people at the time were sceptical of the different gospels around at the time? (There may have been others we don’t know about)
Yup, could be!
I do share your general sentiment concerning authors’ credentials, and I am (probably) equally vexed by the sheer amount of inaccuracies and untruths readers of non-fiction have to sift through to get to substantive books (particularly on the topic of religion).
A question, however, remains. Your remarks seem to be rather dichotomous. Either one is certified and credentialed on a certain subject or one isn’t. Wouldn’t your latest book (which I haven’t yet had a chance to read), informed at least in part by psychological research, be a violation of your own criterion? Wouldn’t talking about psychology (albeit within the context of religion) be the exclusive purview of experts in psychology? I’m not trying to be snarky, but this question was gnawing at me.
Great question. I’ll deal with it in my Friday Weekly Mailbag.
Thanks Bart,
For some reason I couldn’t help but remember Richard Carrier when I read your post; the guy has a PhD and his books are piles upon piles of B.S.
Yeah, I could see you smile there 🙂 … but I agree with you. I honestly never read any book unless it was written by a *world-leading* expert.
But what if the book was all about intentional lies?
This is the premise of my book which is surprisingly non-fiction:
Joshua Lie, once a devout Christian, loses his faith when his orphaned granddaughter falls prey to leukemia and decides to take his frustration out on God. He claims the Evangelists misquoted the Old Testament to prove Jesus was the Messiah and decides to misquote their own gospels in return. Seeking inspiration from Gnosticism and alchemy, he misinterprets the gospels to advance a bizarre Jesus no Christian ever dreamt of. He notices the bible suffers from many internal inconsistencies and decides it is best to introduce his Jesus as the solution to all the old problems. All goes according to plan, until Lie finds his theories so convincing he is tempted to believe his own lies.
Hello Dr. Ehrman:
I really appreciated your input on the topic, Who Should Write Trade Books? Your comments were frank, objective, and honest.
As you astutely mentioned, there are many reasons why people decide to write. In my case, I had been previously “witnessed” (several times) and literally challenged by a “believer”… Unfortunately, in my opinion, the material that I attempted to read, with a few exceptions, was insufficient and lacking. Consequently, I devoted eleven years to research a controversial topic. Literally I travelled to over twenty seminaries and universities to access scholarly, peer review material (books and journals), theses, etc. Here too, I found that the requisites that you previously discussed [years of study, mastering multiple languages, PhD, etc.] to be considered a “scholar” on a topic did NOT guarantee the quality or scholarship of the completed work. Often, what they wrote was mind-boggling. You, often have had the pleasure to debate many experts/scholars [with these requisites]… and at times, it looked like you were shaking your head in utter amazement (and thinking to yourself, do these “scholars” really believe what they spoke/wrote?).
Hopefully, my text [The Resurrection : A Critical Inquiry] has made a contribution to its readers. As with most, if not all books, there are errors or shortfalls. You clearly illustrated several examples in your blog.
Many years ago, I read an interesting preface to a 1,664 page text written on pathology. The editors of that work wrote “missing any errors is like trying to live without sin-worth the effort, but probably impossible.”
Keep writing! Your contribution to furthering our understanding is appreciated. Thank you!
Your posts on publishing scholarly and trade books are very intimidating, although undoubtedly accurate. I had novels published decades ago by Simon & Schuster and Delacorte; Perry Knowlton, the head of Curtis Brown, was my agent. But that was long ago. Since 2000 I have been self-publishing—six novels containing accurate historical and geographic information. In January I published on Amazon a 5 e-book series of historical fiction under the series title of The Murdered Messiah, which is my version of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. I read hundreds of books, attended many lecture and seminars (including a couple in San Diego where I met you and you signed one of your books for me), and I traveled to Israel, Jordan and Egypt a few times and did some on-the-ground research. I earned my A.B. with honors from the University of Chicago and J.D. from the U. of C. Law School, where I was Associate Editor/Managing Editor of the Law Review. I did my post-graduate work at Harvard Law. Despite this c.v., I understand full well that in writing about Jesus and Christianity, my credentials are miniscule compared to yours. Nevertheless, I not so humbly suggest that I am well-enough informed to write a fictional account of Jesus’ life, which is both plausible and original—and compelling. Professor/Minister Hal Taussig, whom you know, was kind enough to write a Foreword for me, in which he wrote: Lamensdorf’s] serious historical research … far outshines the recent similar works of non-historians Anne Rice and Bill O’Reilly about Jesus.” Well, you might point out, that’s not saying a lot. However, it does support my position that my effort is a serious one. There are also books out there like Reza Aslan’s Zealot, the very title of which proves that Aslan is about as informed about Jesus as Donald Trump is about the U.S. Constitution. Aslan claims Jesus was planning an armed insurrection—leading the Jews to drive the Romans out of the land by military force. Utter nonsense.
I know you don’t have time to read my series, but if you did, I believe you’d find an alternative vision of Jesus that is not only meritorious, but in many ways close to historical truth. I believe I read or heard you state that you doubted that Jesus delivered all the material in the Sermon on the Mount in one speech, let alone to a crowd of thousands. However, I believe the larger question is, regardless of whether these aphorisms were spoken in one continuous speech or in many separate speeches, what was the purpose of these truly astonishing admonitions? Jesus tells his listeners to love their enemies, to turn the other cheek if attacked, etc., etc. These sayings seem to come out of nowhere. Is this simply some “new” teaching—setting humble, if not humiliating, standards of behavior for ordinary people? I believe there was a powerful reason for Jesus to teach this way, but the reasons have been lost or obfuscated over the centuries.
I don’t know how many people you may have dissuaded from trying to write and publish books. It has become too easy technically to create something, no matter how bad, on a computer and then, using KDP, post it on Amazon. From time to time, there are articles in the press or online about Joe (or Josephine) Doakes who wrote a thriller, posted it on Amazon, and became an overnight sensation. People don’t seem to realize that the reason these events are reported is precisely because they are so rare. Anyway, it won’t be very long before Amazon decides too much is enough, and they begin rationing—by price or otherwise—the number of unsponsored books they accept.
My ability to spell minuscule is also miniscule. Sorry.
Hold the presses!!! Bill O’Reilly is anti-imperialist??!! Vulpes nuntium will be very disappointed.
On crucial topics like religion and politics, people *have* to have access to the views of intelligent and educated people who are outside of the scholarly guild.
It is not just that the scholarly guild can be wrong; rather, the very nature of a closed, specialized community such as the scholarly guild *guarantees* that prejudices and distortions will be as rampant among them as among any other group.
The advantage of scholars lies in their direct contact with primary evidence.
They do not have any special advantage when it comes to common sense, being unbiased, or even critical reasoning. As someone who teaches critical reasoning every semester, I can assure everyone that professional scholars are just as likely to mix up “If P then Q” with “If Q then P” as are lawyers, politicians, or bankers.
doctor ehrman
the dominant reading in matthews time was the reading in mark 16:8, yes?
is the gospel of peter also aware that the ending of mark ended at 16:8?
Yes and probably.
Because all you say is true … I’d say that Evan Powell’s *The Myth of the Lost Gospel* (by which he means Q) deserves honorable mention. Powell, not a trained scholar, takes a scalpel to conventional scholarly treatments of the Synoptic Problem. His work has since received serious treatment/mention in peer reviewed publications – Rob MacEwen’s *Matthean Posteriority* (LNTS, Bloomsbury, 2015) and my own ‘Streeter’s Other Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis’, *NTS* 62.2 (2016). Sometimes, just sometimes, an amateur’s point of view exposes lazy thinking by the professionals.
Writing is a way of thinking.
I think people who think and write well should publish trade books.
People should read these books and give those authors feedback,
giving the author encouragement to write subsequent editions.
You, Dr. Ehrman, want people to think better. Writing is a method of discovery and a way of thinking.
Bill O’Reilly writing a book, hahaha, the only expertise he has is insulting people. Maybe he should write a book on “How to call people pinheads that disagree with you”. I cannot believe people read his garbage. It makes me depressed about the state of humanity.
I had an online “argument” with someone who thought Bill O’Reiley’s book was a masterpiece. I said, “A masterpiece of what?” He argued that Bill was just as capable of writing the book as a scholar. I said, “Then you don’t know what a scholar is!” I’ve even had evangelicals dismiss your work like it was poppycock. To me, it is a no brainer—one reads the experts to learn what is true about anything. It is as simple as that. I do, however, find that there are many books written by people who lack the expertise in something and still get them published. Are publishers that hungry for writing? Certainly not by the volume of books that come on the market every month. When I decided to take the time to read about early Christianity, I did my research on who was out there doing scholarly work on the subject. That is how I found you and now 15+ books later, I am “little Bart” as my sweetheart calls me. I said to her, “I wish I was as smart and as accomplished as Bart Ehrman.” I agree that expertise is paramount to gaining the attention of any publisher when it is a non-fiction book. Writing fiction is not an easy field as well. How do authors get published even when they are wrong like Reza Ashlan?
O’Reilly: yikes. Aslan: he did a lot of research and had an intriguing idea and wrote very well.
I agree that it is better if books are written by PhDs in their field (I tend to avoid ones which aren’t) but sometimes the public is fooled by some authors and book publishers who publish unscholarly books by either a well-known person or a PhD in a different field.
For example, Christopher Hitchens was a well-known journalist but only managed to scrape a pass in his BA Journalism (I can’t find any evidence that he earned a higher degree), and Richard Dawkins has a PhD in Biology. However, both of these people published books on Theology and Philosophy which are lapped up by the masses who have been conned into thinking they were written by experts. Dawkins, despite being a biologist, even manages to misrepresent the hard Sciences in his popular writings.
I think my point is, be careful what you read!
“In my view, no one should write a book if they lack the necessary expertise.”
Does this mean you shouldn’t have written a book about the psychology of memory theory, since you are not an expert in that field, but merely did some independent reading much like Earl Doherty did about Christianity? lol
Ha! No, it means that if I had decided to write a book about cognitive psychology or neuroscience or something that I’m not an expert in, I’d be flippin’ nuts. My book was using the scholarship in other fields to help explain a problem found in mine. In my view that is completely legitimate, and is the sort of thing scholars ought to do. (My book is about how Christians remembered Jesus; it is not a book about cognitive psychology!)