(33 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...When the editor at Newsweek asked me if I would be willing to write an article on the birth of Jesus, I was hesitant and wrote him back asking if he was sure he really wanted me to do it. I told him that I seem to be incapable of writing anything that doesn’t stir up controversy. It must be in my blood. Still, he said that they knew about my work and were not afraid of controversy, and they did indeed want an article from me.
What’s interesting to me is that I’ve been getting it from all sides. I don’t know why that should surprise me. It seems to be the story of my life. For years my agnostic and atheist readers were cheering me on from the sidelines as I talked about the problems posed by a critical study of the New Testament: there are discrepancies and contradictions, the Gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, and the stories they contain were modified over time, and many of them were invented in the oral traditions before anyone wrote them down. Etc. My “non-believer” readers were pleased that all this was coming out in a popular format for the general reader.
And then I wrote Did Jesus Exist?, arguing that there is no serious doubt for virtually any real scholar of antiquity (whether biblical scholar, classicist, historian) that Jesus of Nazareth really did live. And many of my agnostic and atheist allies suddenly felt completely betrayed and began to attack me even more virulently than the conservative Christians had earlier done.
You can’t please all the people all the time, and sometimes you just never can please everyone. But so it goes.
You’ll need to be a member of my blog to keep reading. It’s an interesting idea, that some agnostics and atheists don’t think I’m skeptical enough, but actually find meaning in the Bible. To see what I have to say — join the blog!
Bravo!
I think that’s the danger of inviting the public in rather than a closed community of colleagues.
You get all kinds of personalities and intellects.
You get people who are intensely interested and devoted to the topic and others who are from other walks of life who are obsessed with other topics but this topic has always been in the background.
I’m sure glad you let us in to and I promise not to comment often.
Love the works of the aforementioned Marcus Aurelius and Seneca. After becoming an agnostic a short time ago, I found their philosophical yet practical approach to life very helpful.
Bart,
At some point you still believed in Christianity, even after you figured out the Bible is not a particularly historical book. Why did you still believe.? For me realizing that Jesus was a failed Jewish apocalyptic preacher, who’s predictions never panned out in his followers’ lifetime, was enough to make me lose faith. I do agree that Christianity does not rationalize suffering sufficiently either.
My view is that Christianity did not start out as a religion about the Bible and that only in modern times has it been about the Bible; I’d say that most critical NT scholars agree that the Bible is problematic, historically, and that Jesus predicted things that didn’t come true — but most of them are Christian anyway. That’s hard for a lot of people to get their mind around, since in our time only fundamentalist Christianity is promoted as Christianity….
As long as the bible is not elevated above other human writings, I wouldn’t have any problem with your view.
So Professor, the reactions “against” your article and work prompted some more curiosity about such strong dissent along the lines of authoritarian sensitive versus insensitive people (my characterizations). Frankly, I was looking for potential links to Julian Jaynes Bicameral Mind hypothesis. What I found, linked below, was correlation of authoritarian sensitivity with fundamental defense mechanisms which appear related to our primitive past. Perhaps not surprising but, also disappointing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5830723/ Don’t get hung up on the BODS angle, it’s just one defense mechanism.
“Teach the ignorant as much as you can; society is culpable in not providing a free education for all and it must answer for the night which it produces. If the soul is left in darkness sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but he who causes the darkness.”
― Victor Hugo, Les Misérables
Thanks for the lights prof.
Great book. Reread it (second time) a couple of years ago. THough I have to admit, this time I did skim a lot of the Battle of Waterloo, not to mention the famous Paris sewer system.
I couldn’t agree more. As an aside, a recent show on British TV attracted a lot of complaints. It was a short comedy about a small town theater company whose productions always go badly wrong because of poorly executed SFX and general incompetence. In this episode, the cast attempted to stage a Nativity play and most of the complaints centered on perceived irreverence/blasphemy. In particular, the complainants didn’t like a scene where the three wise ‘men’ (who were played in good old British pantomime tradition by two women and a man) lose their pantaloons thereby revealing a lot of flesh from the waist down. In another scene, ‘King Herod’ is caught in a revolving chair (poorly executed special effects are again to blame) and is gradually divested of most of his clothes in an hilarious scene. However, some viewers found this nudity distasteful. It did strike me, though, that the Biblical epics of Cecil B de Mille (which I love) were hardly devoid of scantily clad women and/or orgy scenes and I don’t recall that many complaints – but maybe there were at the time! Anyway, as Dr Ehrman says, you can never please everyone. Happy New Year.
an excellent post and i agree totally. bouncing around many different internet sites, you tube, political, and just news in general it is sadly amazing the levels of disagreement and vehemence and levels of hatred between people, those that have less than an open mind. while i am personally a non believer, i have always been of the mindset that a charismatic person(jesus) existed and was a “rabbi or teacher” that predicted the end of “these horrible times” was coming very soon. and so has every generation since and probably some before, and while i do not fully understand the deeply held beliefs of many in todays more enlightened world, i also personally know those that “NEED to believe, and I make no effort to attempt to change their beliefs. it does continue to amaze me that they can totally disregard massive amounts of evidence in many fields(i think its more of a stick my head in the sand, i don’t WANT to know anything that may contradict what i want to believe) so goes humanity
Not sure why atheists would object one way or another if Jesus was a real person or not. Why should I care if Jesus, Mohammed, or Moses were real people if I don’t believe in God, Allah or Yahweh in the first place.
Oh, well. As my grandmother would say “Try to stay above the eggshells”. And have a great 2021, one and all.
Possibly because the Christian apologists will use this as a gotcha, to pummel atheists, and counter apologists of all traditions. They will say “we have vanquished you! Accept defeat and convert!”. Maybe that’s why it’s rather touchy to acknowledge the existence of this Jesus figure.
I think everyone comes upon “meaning” and purpose via a different journey….some need God to have it make sense. This is where I have a problem with the “new atheists” who seem to root every negative feature of society in the belief in God. They seem to miss all of the good that is done by people motivated to be more like Christ….from soup kitchens, to orphanages, to hospitals, to ministry to the old and lonely, to collection of food and money for the poor. On the other side, people miss the boat that there can’t be morality without God…that there isn’t a strong evolutionary pull to cooperate and have a rational organization to society….with rules of behavior govering stealing, lying, and killing. One’s understanding of life depends on these philosophical anchors….and when something is perceived to challenge that anchor, there will be blowback…I’d actually be more surprised if there wasn’t.
Bart, you put it beautifully! Thank you for your erudition, research, intellectual courage and humanitarian endeavours. In my view, you contribute to making the world a better place.
If NT studies didn’t generate interesting questions and curious positions on same, it would not be a very interesting endeavour, would it?
I enjoy the presentations of Mythicists, but all they have are just-so stories to explain away the historical evidence for Jesus. I appreciate and encourage scepticism in all things, but criticism of an academic consensus theory needs to itself follow rigorous rules for evidence and logic.
If you were going to make up Jesus, you wouldn’t get a book like Mark. You might expect a lot more agreement among the gospel stories as well.
Good points!
“You can’t please everyone. So you got to please yourself”. Ricky Nelson, Garden Party, 1972.
I think of the OT as the mythical history of the Jewish people. Like the Norse sagas are for the Scandinavians. The NT is a continuation of the OT sagas with focus on one mythical god-figure–Jesus of Nazareth–and the story (mythical) of his life, his death, and, afterwards, of his followers who divinized him.
How then do these “thoughtful believers” actually differ from you? Don’t they consider the Jesus story, even with it historical problems, to be more than just good literature? If so, what?
And how do such “thoughtful believers” handle all these historical problems and still remain “believers”? Doesn’t actual history matter to them?
On the other hand, I have, and I am certain that you have, as well, known people whose lives were dramatically changed for the better by a “belief” in Jesus. (For example, someone was, but is no longer a drunk because of Jesus) What are we to make of the power of that? I think, if I remember correctly, that even Carl Jung stated that religion had more power than he to cure alcoholism.
I think, in fact, actual history does matter to them — that’s why they refuse to believe that myths adn legends in the Bible are historical; they are myths and legends. But the Christian faith for most of its 2000 years, has not been about the historical accuracy of the Bible; it’s been about the salvation God provided in Christ. That part is true (for them) no matter what kinds of myths and legends are inthe Bible.
I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. I’m not particularly worried about anything anyone has to say about it. If there discrepancies, contradictions, implaussiblities etc. I want to know. People are allowed to believe what they want. God gives people that freedom (though there could be consequences) and so do I (though I wish for as many as possible to belive God’s only message of salvation for mankind as found in the Bible). I’ve joined this blog not to pick fights but to get involved in meaningful discussions about something that means a lot to me. As a seminary student at an evangelical bible college I came into contact with much of what Bart teaches in an introduction to the New Testament course. I knew that our textbook was more on the liberal side of the discussion but I nevertheless gained new insights into the NT documents themselves. But the point is, I learned something even though I disagreed with some of the others ( eg. That Peter never wrote 1 and 2 Peter). So I joined in hope of learning more; and becuase all the proceeds go to charity 😉
Knowledge should never be a bad thing. For anyone: No matter atheist or religious fundamentalist, you should know why you believe what you do and not just base it on what you were told. And friendly discussions are how you learn and understand in any area. It is such a shame politics has gotten away from the “assume noble intentions’ approach.
It’s always amazed me when around fundamentalists especially that they criticized me for reading a wide range of information to get “data”. After all, even the Bible warns against false teachers and prophets. So how would you identify them without study?
Even if someone believes the Bible inspired, in what way? Studying could determine you still believe but the difference between a literal take on the Bible or as a guide. I’ve known too many fundamentalists that actually worship the Bible, not Jesus or god. What if a fundamentalist literal interpretation of the bible WAS a false teaching? How would you decide without studying all sides?
I’m an atheist and a humanist. And I know that for many people, their belief in God gives them meaning and inspiration for good. And for some, their belief in God saves them from despair and gets them through the night. I would not want to pull the rug out from under them, even if I could. But for those who can consider letting go of God, I provide information.
Dr. Ehrman,
As a self-professed agnostic/atheist, how do you justify your strong conviction in objective morality as is expressed in this statement from the above article (“ I am dead set against such views and the people who hold them.”)? To be clear, I am asking sincerely for your thoughts on the philosophical basis for such a view given an agnostic/atheistic worldview.
All the best,
Tre Brickley
I don’t believe there is such a thing as objective morality. WHen I say I’m dead set against something, that doesn’t mean that I claim I have objective morality and they have subjective morality. It means that I believe my moral code is superior to that of people who believe in being self-centered egotists who don’t give a damn about any one else.
Exactly !! ,,,and ,,,, btw ,,, if you shout out in the jungle ,,, what sounds do you expect to receive in return beside a lot of roars ,,, ??
A quest for truth can never be wrong !!,,,and what is outside of it?
For 2000 years and even before the ink dried on the manuscripts of the NT, there have been scholars, lay and religious trying to work out what they exactly say and what it means, church and politics aside. Besides your early testament work there are others who research the works of the later commenters of the pre, early, late middle ages, the turbulent reformation period leading into the study of Camp Revivals of the 19th century. Now we have, sensationalism aside, archeology and other research that makes us rethink what has been handed down. Its all on youtube, PHD’s and all. That said, most still miss the simple messages like “love thy neighbor as thy self” rather than burn them at the stake. In India where most people are Hindu, even if you are an atheist (carvarka) you are still a Hindu as it is as much or more about culture than gods. 2000 years, that’s a lot of PHD”s for the faithful to deal with and not all are correct at least today. Perhaps you might consider having some of your colleges in other periods post from time to time?
Yes, I’ve done so. If you’ll do a word search on othe blog for “Guest Post” you will find most of them.
Dr bart we do know human have believe on god by device in their heart its happen in point that you have no choice but to ask god like in plane accident for example, belive on god indeed give us hope and proof towards god is closer than the ignorant of atheist who simply dont know, if we have israel , tomb of prophet, proohecy from holy book that comes true than that’s more reasonable, than died in the drkness , also i want to ask how doyou know there is forgeries becuase the original wasnt there? Whether the difference of story style sufficient and strong proof ?
THe detection of forgery is very complex and sophisticated. People still uncover forgeries today (there are experts), and many of the methods they use are the same that ancient critics used as well. I talk about it in my book Forged.
I am an atheist but have always been interested in the history of Christianity. It was and is always difficult to find an expert scholar who is not a believer with the inherent bias of a believer. Many are clearly well educated and I just though out anything that goes beyond historical analysis of Jesus, the early church, the split with Judaism, competing theological movements, etc…. The great part about your scholarship and trade publications is that that is precisely your focus. You keep faith and superstition out of it and provide valuable information to someone like me regarding textual criticism and history. Since you neither push faith or try to create apostates, then you will never please those with agendas, but you perform a much appreciated service for those, like me, trying to learn.
I believe that C. S. Lewis suggests that the historical Jesus is the invention of Satan. I have been a liberal Christian and a scientist all my life and I have been very troubled with the realization that except for the past say 200 years your writings about the Gospels could get you tortured and or killed. I notice that liberal Christianity does not hold it members. What is special about those who practice science and scholarship, like you have been engaged in, is these people will give up strongly held beliefs in the face of new evidence. My question is does Christianity which is truly open to science and scholarship have a future. I know there are scholars and scientists who are Christians but what about their children and their children’s children.
P.S. My father was a scientist and a Christian. He died in 1967. He was also very interested in
the historical Jesus. I remember him telling me that early Christians did not think of heaven and hell because they thought Jesus was coming back soon. He also said, Christianity should be called Paulism.
Interesting. C.S. Lewis, of course, believed there was a historical Jesus, and he was pretty sure he knew what he was all about. Critical scholars don’t think it’s easy to know, and he objected to that and to their methods.
Hi Dr Ehrman
I agree with the part that says something like “the bible having a good effect on people (rich meaning and comfort)”. That would be really nice..
Only, so far, in my 46 years of existence I haven’t witnessed nor experienced any of that in my life yet..
The bible (or at least the interpretations of it) has affected me and many of my love ones in such a very unpleasant way, that maybe even GOD (if there is one) won’t be able to reverse its aftermath.
Even now I get a little emotional while typing this comment when remembering those sad and scary times..
Anyways, I’m in a better place now, thank you Dr Ehrman. And because 2020 was such an “unattractive” year, I’m sure 2021 will be way so much finer ?
I am coming to accept a few points regarding the historicity of Jesus:
– The only material available to attest to Jesus’ actual existence is (what has become) Christian scripture
– The utility of New Testament scholarship depends upon the historical aspects of Jesus’ life as described in the New Testament
-I don’t know (and will never know) nearly enough to question the word of those who do know. To that end, I am agnostic about the historicity of Jesus, and so I will remain.
Bart- you have it made !! You are living there in the southern part of heaven now. And you are one of a kind.
Keep up the good work.
Your last sentence in the Newsweek article is beautiful – that IS how I see the gospel, the good news.
You lost me at John Irving! 🙂
I think a good comparison would be to Homer and Aesop. No one any more believes they are history, but they offer some moral advice.
What would you say to John Shelby Spong who believes that a “liberal approach to scripture and its objective truth is as empty, valid, meaningless as the conservative approach to scripture is uninformed, unquestioning, and ignorant.” Spong also does not believe that “Christianity will be saved or even well served by what has come to be called the liberal approach to the Bible” (Liberating the Gospels, 38).
Thoughts? Agree or disagree?
I don’t understand the final quotation you give. Is it worded correction? I’m not sure what he means by “liberal approach”? Most people think he himself takes a literal approach. So he must mean something specific by it?
My bad on the quote, I took it out of context (a fallacy evangelical Christians are famous for!). Here is the full quote:
“I do not believe that Christianity will be saved or even well served by what has come to be called the liberal approach to the Bible. That approach seems to me rather to remove the Christian faith all of its power and authenticity by looking for natural explanations for apparently supernatural events.”
As far as Spong defines a liberal approach, what he means by that are those who are willing to part with much of the Bible, especially those veering toward the “supernatural.” For example the virgin birth, or Jesus transferring demons from a human host to a herd of swine, or a coin fond in the mouth of a fish, or the graves gaping open at Jesus’ death. In other words, the liberal approach is willing to say no to “did it really happen?” but at the same time preserving and treasuring what is left over.
I also find it surprising people believe Spong takes a literal approach, for he vehemently denies such an approach in his book, Liberating the Gospels (p. 37 for example).
Yes, it’s still a bit odd, since he definitely takes this approach himself, if I’m understanding how youre understanding it!
Bart, great explanation. I’m so glad you still feel that way, which is essentially what you expressed in Misquoting Jesus, the first book I read by you. Some people who are agnostic or atheist are so strident about their non- belief they are just as much a turn off as fundamentalists. You’ve never been that way.
I left evangelicalism (for years a devout missionary), as one similar to the colleagues you cite as still a believer but not a biblicist. Today, after much research including learning yours, is that the Bible is a record of human moral development, that includes the good, the bad, and ugly. It was never meant to be an inerrant religious rulebook (it even critiques itself). When we look at it that way, we can see very ugly things (God drowns the planet in Genesis) next to very beautiful things (Joseph forgives his brothers and God restores a family in Genesis). In the NT, Jesus’ powerful love ethic, is along side some (not all) unhistorical, contradictory, biased, sexist, retributive, misinterpreted, and mistranslated narratives. Once the likely errors/biases are weeded out, we can choose inspirational and historical truth. Your thoughts on this view?
I agree completely!
Doc, I sure wish you’d have your techies place the rating stars at the bottom of your blog also, right along with “Save to PDF” and “Print Page.” It starts at the top, but I don’t want to rate anything before I read it. I enjoy many of your blogs but don’t think about those stars when I get to the end of your writing because I’m absorbed in the subject. Yeah, I’m one of those with tunnel vision. So I often leave the site before I think about it. Could you have it placed at the top and bottom for slow thinkers like me?
THat’s a great idea. I’ll look into it.
In his biography of Albert Schweitzer, James Brabazon quotes Dr. Schweitzer, “There are two sorts of Christians – the dogmatic and the undogmatic. The latter follows Jesus and accepts none of the doctrines laid down by the early Church or any other church. That’s the sort of Christian I am.”
“Getting it from both sides” simply means you’re not an extremist. It’s an “all or none” thing…if you don’t agree with the far left/liberals/progressives or right/conservatives/traditionalists on EVERYTHING, you’re a “sellout”, “wishy-washy”, DINO/RINO or whatever. I would wear such attacks as badges of honor.
For me, like with the Apostle Paul, the central question is whether or not Jesus arose from the dead. If He did, then God and heaven exist and historical contradictions and discrepancies in the Gospels can be accepted as literary devices and stories illustrating truths. If He did not, then the best of Christianity is secular humanism with a lot of good, important socialization and maybe a bunch of ritual added in to the mix. So the big question becomes how do we know if someone arose from the dead 2,000 years ago when our sources of information were rather limited?.
I don’t think you can know it, if you mean “demonstrate it historically.” People either believe it or not. They almost always believe because they have heard others say with strong conviction that they themselves believe it, and when they too come to believe, it changes their attitudes toward life.
With all due respect I disagree with your conclusion.
Proving that Jesus rose from the dead doesn’t mean he’s God, it doesn’t make Christianity credible and it doesn’t make him creator of the universe. I mean it’s a neat trick but let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
I often find people who have become atheist or agnostic to be very hostile to the faith they once belonged to.
Did you always have an ambivalent view towards people of faith after you became agnostic-atheist, or do you think you grew to have a more neutral view with the passage of time?
I think I had a bit more of a knee-jerk reaction in my early years, though I never tried to argue someone out of their faith. My knee was typically jerking a bit over arguments of fundamentalists that I thought were either harmful or just flat wrong. I guess I still do get some serious twitches that way….
Thanks very much for this interesting discussion, both in the blog post and in the comments themselves!
I have two “quick” inquiries, unrelated to one another (and unrelated to the topic of this post):
1) Do you have any though or comment on the “Naked Fugitive” mentioned in Mark 14?
2) Is it accurate to say that the potential Pre-Pauline Creed contained in 1 Corinthians 15 is generally considered to have originated within a few years of Jesus’ death?
I know these both are probably both topics that would require a whole post so take them at your leisure. Thanks!
1. I think he is a symbolic figure; 2. Conservative interpreters always say that about 1 Cor. 15:3-5, but I’ve never seen any convincing evidence. All we know is that Paul told the Corinthians the tale when he was with them, many years after Jesus’ death. He never says when he himself first heard it.
I agree with your analysis that the NT has irreconcilable inconsistencies and when these inconsistencies exist either on or both are false (lies). Finding these inconsistencies in my own objective analysis of the Bible, based on my scientific training, actually forced me to find out what is consistent in the Bible. My analyses lead me to the Book of James that remained consistent with the OT (one possible exception, 4:5) and with the more charitably teachings of Jesus. The lessons in James made me a stronger and more active Christian. For more information, see my book, The Bible’s Hidden Treasure – James the Precious Pearl.