Five years ago I received this question. I still hear it! And I would still answer it the same way. A question that makes a lot of sense in one way actually doesn’t make a lot of sense looked at in another way. I suppose a lot of our questions are like that…. Here is the question and response.
QUESTION: The one thing that I do not understand about you is that you have stated you have lost your faith. That being said, how do you continue to work in your field? Have you ever wanted to redirect your academic career to study other subjects?
RESPONSE: I get this question a lot. On one level I understand it: if I don’t believe in the Bible, why would I dedicate my life to studying it, researching about it, writing about it, and teaching about it? From the perspective of someone who has strong feelings about the Bible – for example, as a believer who holds that the Bible is the word of God or as an atheist who thinks the Bible is the root of all kinds of evil – it may seem like a mystery that someone in my boat would be interested in spending such an enormous amount of time and effort in studying it. Or from the perspective of someone who is completely apathetic about the Bible: why would you bother?
But from another perspective the question always puzzles me.
That’s because …
To see the rest of what I have to say, simply join the blog. I costs about five dimes a week, and for that you get five substantial posts, almost all of them dealing with intriguing issues in the study of the New Testament and Early Christianity. Every one of those dimes goes to charity helping those in need. So why not join?
Off topic but I wanted to wish you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a healthful and happy New Year.
Thanks. And to you too!
Thanks for re-posting this.
Dr Ehrman,
A question I have is about “confirmation bias”. Obviously, in your teaching, researching, debating, and life experiences you have come to very strong conclusions about Christianity and religions in general. How do you handle your own “confirmation bias” when you come across information that might contradict your beliefs?
I try to look at the evidence and decide if I find it persuasive. If you’ve been on the blog much, you’ll see that I change my mind about a lot of things when I see how the evidence goes! But no one can be perfectly objective!
There are questions that are very good; others, simply good; many are indifferent; and many more, stupid and dumb. And others that are so illegitimate, that don’t even deserve to be called questions.
Dear friend Bart, I am sorry to tell you, but I think you do not need to apologize at all for being a great Bible scholar who does not believe, quite rightly in your favor, that the Bible it is the Word of the Judeo-Christian God, in case he existed
Doubting that the Bible is a legitimate object of research and academic studies is typical of ignorant people in what it is and represents historically, sociologically, aesthetically and so many other subjects, the Bible and what is the academic research of texts that are as important as the so called Holy Scriptures.
Christian authors frequently write about other religions and even atheism, but then Christians object when people from other worldviews write about Christianity or the Bible. How odd. I suspect for some it springs from the belief that since Christianity is the only true religion, it therefore deserves special status and protection. For others perhaps it is an insecurity of having their house of cards examined by those who are not already committed to their belief system.
Perhaps a related question could be “Why would anyone who still identifies as a committed Christian be interested in what Bart Ehrman has to say?” For me, it is because I no longer regard the Bible as a book with all the answers to the question of “how should we then live?”, but rather as a collection of writings that invites us into a conversation with God and other people that has been going on for millennia and will continue into the foreseeable future.
Maybe because scholarship matters? Most of the things I think about the Bible are what my Christian scholar friends think. Has little to do with me being an atheist-agnostic. This kind of stuff is what I learned in seminary!
“the easy ones”, funny!
Prof. Ehrman,
This is an eloquent answer to a question I, along with many others, have thought while reading your work. I’m currently reading Did Jesus Exist? Its interesting seeing you here take a different stance against a different antagonist (mythicists) from your usual work. Anyone who criticizes you as being against Christianity should read this book. I would have described myself as a militant atheist many years ago but you’ve helped me gain a greater critical appreciation for Christianity, The New Testament and religion in general. Thanks!
Sort of off topic: how many personal copies of the NT do you own and, in terms of publication date, what is the oldest and most recent?
Ha! No idea. I have a couple from the 18th century. And the most recent is probalby 2018.
Dr. Ehrman,
Would a schloar applying at a secular university, such as UNC, for a professorship position be taken seriously if they were trained at a seminary or a divinity school? Would a schloar with a doctorate from Harvard Divinity School or Union Theological Seminary be seen as credible as someone from Harvard or Columbia?
Thanks, Jay
It would depend completely on who they studied with, what they were interested in, what their research expertise was, and what their career goals were. I myself did a degree at Princeton Theological Seminary, and I’m a bit of an odd duck on research university faculties.
I think your agnosticism adds substantially to your credibility. I don’t have wonder if perhaps your faith is creating bias in what you say.
Your last paragraph, especially the last two sentences, speaks volume on this subject and your mission. There is without a doubt a battle that has erupted between non- believing scholars and theists ( scholars). No matter how collegial and informative these debates, studies, research and speaking forums are, they divide and not harmonize. Just read Dr. Licona’s recent posts. The responses are divided. Very few are willing to admit to another’s point of view because of personal belief. The difference with you Bart, I think, is that you were once a believer and now you have become an enemy to their very core. You disprove their understanding in academic reasoning (evidence based) vs Theological views, which are more faith based. Moreover, those radically shifted reasons you speak of , were first based on Theological views (faith), considering where you attended school, and now more academic reasoning, hence doubting the inerrant book you trusted for a long time. Ravi Zacharias, the Christian apologist, states that for centuries, the greatest search for Philosophy of all time has been the search for unity in diversity. Universities were created to accomplish this but never could. I don’t think Ravi debates but you and him I would love to see. Two questions; 1) Your last paragraph is revealing. You state, ” I refuse to yield the field of Biblical studies to fundamentalist who want to thump the Bible and the field belongs just as much, if not more, to secular historians and literary scholars…..” I sense a feeling of personal revenge/defend in that statement, your position against fundamentalists. Why is this important to do this? 2) In US colleges and Universities, depending where you go for Biblical studies, do schools change your thinking in a way to conform with that school’s philosophy ? I mean if you were to become a minister,,would a conservative college be better off than a liberal one? Thanks. Love your candid honesty and agree with your post.
Thanks. 1. I think it’s important because of fundamentalists are the ones who control the meaning of the Bible in the public sphere, they are welcome to promote social policies that hurt people — once it was slavery, then and now it’s the oppression of women and the hatred of anyone who identifies as LGBTQ. 2. Yes, different schools teach theological topics differently. A fundamentalist Baptist theological seminary will teach the Bible VERY differently from Yale Divinity school, or harvard, etd. It matters very much where you go.
The canon of stories and letters that evolved into what we call the Old and New Testaments are at the very least a fascinating repository of the cultural history and values for a significant proportion of the world’s people.
In conjunction with the Quran, Analects, Tao Te Ching, Shruti, Avesta, Pali Canon, etc, they give us insight into the hopes and dreams of their writers, as representatives of their respective cultures.
But are any of these books divinely inspired or dictated? I think not, but others clearly disagree. I envy them: I wish that I could come to faith through rational thought, but no, the best you can get to through this process is to the edge of a cliff in a state of hopeful belief, but fatally tinged with doubt.
Kierkegaard intimated that to go any further would require a leap of faith. Absolute faith would provide great comfort and sense of purpose. I also envy those that Calvin said come to know that they are the chosen ones, although I doubt that they are correct. I am resigned to remaining in the gutter with Oscar Wilde, looking at the stars. As a Doctor, I see a lot of people lost and in despair, searching for a renewed sense of hope. The modern secular world presents a considerable challenge to those that stop to think about their existence.
You ever wonder why nobody asks this question of Richard Carrier, or Robert Price? Not that they really qualify as professional scholars, but somehow that just makes it worse.
Timely post! Literally today is my graduation day–at 61, I just completed a bachelor’s in Religious Studies. Everytime someone asks my major, I feel compelled to add that I studied it from a historical perspective–I’ve been a staunch atheist since I was 16.
And thank you, Dr. Ehrman, for inspiring my interest in this as a scholarly field. See you next year in Egypt, and also probably again next year at the SBL meeting.
WOW!!! Congratulations! Well done!
Agnostics and people of all sorts should be Biblical scholars. Intellect, knowledge and integrity are key. Hopefully, they have a passion for the field.
It is the same reason why men are OB-Gyn’s and why women treat prostate cancer.
Hey Bart, I often hear you mention that “most critical scholars” think this or that… and you seem to explain that while there are many Christian/Conservative scholars that are well credentialed, what *really* matters is what critical scholars think. If this misrepresents your position, I am sorry… But I was wondering, why do you dismiss the Christian/Conservative scholars when they are well-credentialed? Thanks Bart
I don’t dismiss them actually, but read them and take their views into careful consideration. But the reality is that on a number of important questions (but NOT a number of others!), their scholarly views always line up with their personal religious views in a convenient way, when just about everyone who does not share those views has an alternative perspective. For example, just about everyone of every persuassion — except for conservative Chrisians who are committed for theological reasons to believing the Bible has no mistakes in it and *cannot* have mistakes in it, since it is, for them, a perfect revelation from God — agrees there are contradictions in the Gospels. Those who think that don’t all have the *same* view; they have a wide range of views. But all those views differ from this one group that has one major reason for disagreeing, and it is a theological reason, not a historical reason. So on this particular issue, it looks like theology is driving the conclusion rather than history. Which means on this point they are not, in the judgment of the others, engaged in critical historical research but in theology. that’s fine, but it’s not the same thing, and needs to be pointed out. “Well-credentialed” just means they have graduate training in the field. Most of them have written dissertatoins that do not touch the issues subjected to critique by other critical scholars.
Bart:
This is somewhat or maybe entirely off topic, but since you know so much about the history of Christianity and are divorced from belief do you have any speculation on the rise of evangelical militant Christianity in Brazil. I understand they are a very powerful force in Brazil and believe very strongly in the use of force against opponents, mainly Catholics, in some cases killing them (use the sell your cloak and buy swords scripture). The little I have read of them indicates they are a very charismatic and mystical group of Christians with some similarity to Pentecoastals in the US. Could you offer us any insight into this movement, it’s similarities to early Christianity or other Christian movements. Does it perhaps offer insights to what is going on in Brazilian culture and politics. Here is a link to a recent Washington Post article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/soldiers-of-jesus-armed-neo-pentecostals-torment-brazils-religious-minorities/2019/12/08/fd74de6e-fff0-11e9-8501-2a7123a38c58_story.html
I”m sorry to say I know nothing about it.
Given the immense importance you ascribe to the Bible in terms of its impact on Western civilization, what do you think of the fact that in America today, a person can go from kindergarten to a PhD in most fields without ever opening one?
I think it’s an indictment on the liberal arts.
Egyptologists, don’t often believe in Ra, but they’re fascinated by the beliefs and culture of ancient Egyptians. How much more interesting to study a live religion of today! And really, we need this study in order to scrutinize the belief system, who else is going to do it? The Christians? Jim Jones isn’t going to tell the followers that the Kool-Aid is poisoned… When I was a Christian, I studied religions I didn’t believe in in order to better understand them (and counter them) and I certainly wasn’t the only one!
Great post. Thanks!
Importantly, millions of people use the Bible to materially affect the lives and well-being of their fellow homo sapeins. That alone makes the study of the texts of vital importance, in my view. It is the reason I pay attention to those who know them best. There are lives in the balance.
Your explanation makes perfect sense to me. However, I am always puzzled about your emphasis on the importance of Jesus himself. It seems to me that the key drivers behind Christianities’ impact on western civilization are Paul’s letters, and the Gospels of Mark and John and their interpretations of what Jesus said and did and of course the evidence they give for his Resurrection. In addition, I think that Jesus followers’ ability to pick up the pieces after his crucifixion played a strong role. I don’t see that the basics of his message as the decisive factor. It is the interpretation relayed by the Gospel writers and Paul that makes the biggest difference. Without access to their writings we would not have the Christianity that we have today nor would western history have been so influenced by Christianity. It is what the Gospels and Paul had to say that was so appealing to subsequent scholars and salvation seekers and provided such a basis for civilization to collect itself and then begin to forge a new way of thinking about the world called modern science, which is still struggling to supplant Christianity as a way to understand reality. Also note that part of what they had to say had to do with the considerable effort they went to explain Jesus in terms of the Old Testament as well as the basic scholastic knowledge that Paul and the Gospel writers had of Hebrew scripture needed to make that justification. My reading of Jesus himself is that his message was not that much different than other strands of messianic Judaism and Judaic thought of his time. John the Baptist may have been a more important prophet at the time of Jesus’ death. The important thing was the take on his death that mattered and amplified his prominence relative to other streams of thought and then the continued interpretation and explication of his message to make it more appealing. I suppose these thoughts may exposes a lack of understanding of what you and other scholars have said but it is my current thinking for what it is worth. Also not sure you would disagree as much as I think.
Yes, I actually make a big point of this in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. It is not the “historical” Jesus who altered history, but the “remembered” Jesus. It takes a long time to develop the argument — but that’s why it’s a book!
Fundamentalist have a right to believe anything that they want. However, I get upset when they try to impose their beliefs on others by claiming biblical in errancy and trying to scare people by telling they are going to burn in hell If they do not believe as they do.
And use their views to promote policies that hurt people rather than help them.
Bart: I appreciated your analogy about your wife’s love of Chaucer. One of the things that makes you an effective teacher is that your own continued feeling for the Bible comes through, and you are also able to step in to the shoes of a believer without compromising your status as an agnostic. This is one reason why my Bible study group [comprised of believers of various shades] appreciates your video lectures so much. Don’t let the haters get you down Bro.
I”ve survived with a cheerful demeanor so far! Thanks.
” I refuse to yield the field of Biblical studies to fundamentalist who want to thump the Bible and the field belongs just as much, if not more, to secular historians and literary scholars”.
Thank God you do ! 😉
Churches attendees and the wider public only ever hear the believers perspective of the bible and we sit there in the pews feeling uncomfortable. We know the stories arent consistent. We know that many of the morals presented in the OT ( and even God’s actions) are disgraceful. We know we are listening to worldview that is 2000 years old and well before the scientific method was introduced and yet we put that aside as we know no other perspective.
Your alternative finally gives us an explanation that makes sense. It doesnt rely on supernatural events ( of the sort we never experience in day-to-day life). Finally we can piece it all together. Why is Jesus like this in John’s gospel ? What is he saying the end is near ? Why is Jesus angry in this gospel but not in this one ? Why so much anger from the authors towards the Jews ? Read your books and it fits together. Without needing to claim divine intervention to make the pieces fit.
Thanks. Keep it up. And pls keep re-posting old posts.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is church history and the history of theology even more important than the Bible? What I mean is this: If you talk to 100 American Christians and ask them about their religious beliefs, for most of them their religious beliefs don’t seem very well connected to the words written in the Bible. But their beliefs do seem to be connected to theology.
For example, many fundamentalist Christians think that God is outside of time and space. But I don’t think the Bible describes a God that is outside of time and space. Also, take Calvinism. Many Christians are Calvinists. But does the Bible really support Calvinism? Or is Arminianism a better fit? The reason why I ask you these questions is that I recently read Dr. Roger Olson’s “The Story of Christian Theology” and it seems that the Bible has been ignored not only by people who sit in the pews of churches, but also the pastors and ministers!
And since I have enjoyed many of your books, I wonder if you would ever consider writing a book similar to “The Story of Christian Theology.” Maybe you’ve read it and agree with most of it?
Yes, I’ve been tempted to write such a book, but I prefer, I think, to talk to a specific issues in my books, for example, the afterlife in the current one, and the idea that the end of the world is coming in the next. The broad general sweep of history kinds of things are not what I’m as drawn to, since they require so many generalizatoins that can be shown to be problematic. But my hat’s off to the scholars who pull it off!
I trust an agnostic-atheist to translate the understanding of the testaments more clearly than any Christian scholar. I fear, like in any Sunday school class, what was taught in fifth grade is the Gods’ truth And nothing will change their mind. That’s probably why I read a Catholic Bible before a Protestant Bible. Not that Catholics are atheists, but being a Catholic I know the Pope’s word comes first.
“I didn’t become an agnostic until long after I had studied and revered the Bible as a hard-core Christian.”
You had referred to yourself as a “hard-core Christian” before. What do you consider a “hard-core Christian?” That is, what traits did you have or actions did you take that make you think of yourself as a “hard-core Christian.”
Also as an agnostic do you basically live your life as an atheist? I never understood how one could live as an agnostic on Christianity. Either you try to live it or you don’t right?
For me it meant devoting my life to God and Christ, believing every word of the Bible, and trying to convert others. I do try to live Christianity, in terms of my ethical life. I just don’t believe in Christ or think God exists. So I’m an agnostic if you ask me whether I “know” if there is a supernatural being out there, but I’m an “atheist” if you ask me if I *believe* there is.
“I do try to live Christianity, in terms of my ethical life.”
In my opinion that is what Christianity mainly about. I think Catholics tend to take that view – as Pope Francis even said atheists can go to heaven. I would quote the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) but I am not sure if you think that passes historical muster as coming from Jesus. I admit I do not always classify scripture based on historical criteria when I am analyzing what Christians should believe. But I am interested in how if we took the historical criteria as to what Jesus taught whether we would reach any particular conclusion on this issue.
I don’t mean to get too bogged down in theology and all that. But if you consider the historical criteria of certain passages do you think the historical evidence leans toward Jesus teaching:
1) a faith alone or
2) faith and action
3) action alone
Paul would seem to complicate this quite a bit. Because:
1) It is unclear what Paul’s views on faith and actions were. I believe when he was discounting works he was mainly talking about Jewish ceremonial works (circumcision and dietary laws) and not moral actions. But I concede there are some texts that challenge my view.
and
2) Even if we could be clear on what Paul’s views were, it is not clear he is claiming he came to these views were expressed by Jesus. That is he does not seem to say for example other disciples heard this from Jesus and then told him. So it is unclear whether his views on this matter should be understood historically as views Jesus actually taught.
Yet 3) Paul wrote our earliest existing Christian texts so it is hard to discount what he says.
So yes I recognize this could be complicated. But just generally I wonder if you have any thoughts on where the historical Jesus might come down on this debate?
In my view he definitely thought that a person would achieve salvation by consistently helping those in need. Period. (Matthew 25:31-46.
Though I’m in a slightly different field, I entirely agree–one does not have to believe everything, or anything, in a text to find it historically important and culturally significant. But I’m often caught in an ongoing debate about the ancient texts I work with between philologists and philosophers. I try to learn as much as I can from both perspectives, and there is no reason they have to be diametrically opposed methods. But philologists often accuse philosophers of not really caring at all about historical context or textual issues. And philosophers are often puzzled about how philologists can maintain interest in text when they–not so much don’t believe anything in the text–but don’t find the text of any philosophical interest at all. As far as I see it, though, I think the people in the two disciplines just don’t give one another enough credit.
Thank you, your reflections resonates with me !
I remember my (philosophical / scientific-minded) Religion teacher said in the late 70’s ,, (roughly quoted)
“Just remember that” Everything (minus) Every- thing (minus) Time = what you are, and what you are, is outside of a concept that no one can explain, which is beyond what you think exists, but in reality does not exists .. Why do we make God less! ”
In my mind he pointed out some essential things. It is true that reality cannot be explained, and it is proven that matter does not exist, nor does time. Even Einstein couldn’t understand the quantum physic at a subatomic level (relationship to physical laws or not), but did not reject it. The deaper you go in Physics, (or call it reality) the less you feel you understand of reality. The reality is just greater than most can comprehend.
So when I reflect on the phrases my old religionteacher said, I get an idea that he was humble enough to be on to something. When our brightest minds who had received Noble awards accept the greatness of the physical world, and cannot understand it, then why should we make God less.
,,,,and of course,,,I refer to a “roughly quote” which is more message/meaning than quote,,,,or if not I might end as an example of “Misquoting teacher” 🙂