Bart D. Ehrman dicussions

Menu
Skip to content
Home♦
Books etc.♦
Comments and Moderation♦
Vita Brevis

The New Oxonian
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient










Sex, Salvation, and Violence in Radical Islam
Posted on January 8, 2015 by rjosephhoffmann
 

A friend wrote to correct me recently, after I posted my theological reading of the current crisis in Islam, caused by a growing number of groups committed to the use of violence to pursue their religious (and political) goals.
My reading is fairly simple: It is that “mainstream” Muslims delude themselves in trying to make the crisis “Unislamic” when all of its markers–proof-texts, idioms, images and models–are drawn from a selective reading of Islamic history and tradition. Unfortunately, Islam lacks a central authority structure that would permit it to define what is “orthodoxy” and what isn’t. Its إمامة‎ (imāmah) is a barnyard of bleating goats each claiming some splinter of tradition to lend authority to a religious opinion. It (if it deserves to be called a coherent it) possesses neither wisdom nor theological acuity nor imagination.
Usually the discussion of religious experts is no more than text-quoting without context–a theological slanging match between factions–as if the whole prior tradition of Islam, which once rivaled the Hellenistic rabbinical schools for philosophic depth, came to an end around the same time Europe was waking from its long medieval slumber. Islam at the teaching and preaching level is now virtually illiterate. Its imams are at the service of popular opinion, of all stripes, from the Yemen to Santa Barbara, and service opinion like mechanics service cars. If all politics is local, then Islam is all politics.
It is one of the deficiencies of Islam that there is no tradition of outing stupidity and charlatanism amongst the clergy–no Elmer Gantry, no Chaucerian Pardoner, no Rabbi Copperfield–or Tuckman. To be honest, this is rather surprising. Fictional clergy in Western literature have traditionally been used to mark the gap between the virtues and values enshrined in a religion at its best, and the shortcomings of human nature as they represent it.
Islam thus lacks the “teaching authority” (magisterium) of an ancient hierarchy like the Catholic church, which can point to a longstanding tradition of development and accommodation of its religious views. Islam lacks as well the theological and hermeneutical sophistication of the liberal Protestant and Jewish traditions, which do for those faiths what hierarchy does for Catholicism. Simply put, Islam is a horticultural mess and it is within such untended gardens that confusion and violence grow like weeds.
But to keep track of my main point: Islamic violence must be called Islamic. To say that Islam owns it, produced it, and has to solve it is not saying that all Muslims agree with the tactics of ISIL, contract killers in Paris, or child killers in Pakistan. Most people–Muslim and non-Muslim alike–are torn between horror at the grotesque images they see of severed heads being held aloft “in the name of God, the compassionate,” and total confusion at what long-term goal Muslim-on-Muslim violence is supposed to achieve. We are looking at real blood, real guns, real heads. But we are also looking at men and groups who, once they have exhausted their video clip seem to have all the strategic savvy of Gaston and Pierre or the Keystone Cops.
To say that Islamic violence is specifically Islamic is to say that there is no convincing social analysis possible without first acknowledging that these things are not imported from the West, are not responses to deliberate strikes against Islam, and are not really analogous to modern outbreaks of violence in Judaism or Christianity. The proof of that (as I said in a previous post) is that Christians don’t kill Christian children and Jews do not blow up Jewish schools. No one is denying a general pattern of religious violence since the beginning of religion, which is tantamount to saying, from the beginning of our species or its predecessors.
Religion begins in violence. Its archetypes and myths are saturated in blood–the predations of Ishtar, the cannibalism of the Greek Titans, the binding of Isaac, the crucifixion of Jesus. Its holy books are full of violence.
Islam is no exception. It is the rule. It’s important to say however that no religion but Islam seems suicidally bent on making violence a permanent part of its contemporary world-view and operations manual. There seems to be no doubt that, at least as represented by its most visible adepts, Islam is the religion which brings us into closest contact with the religion of our vicious tribal past. Religions may begin in violence. But they usually do not survive through violence.
Tracking it Down?
But I started by talking about my friend’s contention that we can pinpoint within Islam the source of the trouble, and for that reason we should be careful not to tar Islam in general with the sins of the few. I agree with most of what she says, but I feel that the risk in pinpointing is to trivialize the scale of the problem, to ignore the peripheral sympathy for extremism within the Muslim community, and to force the finger to point elsewhere for the ultimate causes of what we see happening around us today.
The pinpointing argument is that terrorism is chiefly (she says 90%) from the Salafi school of thought, which originates in the West-friendly (or dollar friendly) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but spreads out along a vast Sunni-Islam network. Salafism is complex: the simplest thing one can say about it is that it grew up as a sectarian movement in the nineteenth century to oppose certain core European ideas, such as democracy, secularism, and other political and religious trends that were seen as dangerous to the ideals and beliefs of Muslims.


There are Salafist “Purists” who focus on non-violent da’wah, education, others who define education as being, essentially fiq and Quranic instruction, others who support authoritarian regimes (Madkhalists), and others who believe that in order to defend core doctrines such as God’s oneness (tawhid) and reject shirk, taqlid, ijtihad, and bid’ah (the vices sins, and errors), endless jihad is the only way to serve Allah on earth. Others within this loose confederation (which becomes looser) simply want to exterminate the Shīʿah.
The difficulty with pinpointing is that even if it were possible to trace all extremist Muslim ideology to the sands of Arabia and one anti-colonial movement that has grown with cancerous ferocity in our day, we still would not have described the present situation.
The fact is, there are literally thousands of young Muslims in Central Asia, in Turkey, and living as second generation citizens in Britain and France and Germany who are simply attracted by the rigidity, simplicity and purity of the Salafa tradition or its kindred ideologies. It speaks to the young and satisfies the old–which is always the case with war and battle. It requires energy and action. It creates a Manichean division of the world into good and evil spheres, the things God wants and the things (and people) God hates.
It is too simple to assume that Salafism by itself explains the pathology of violence in Islam today.
Jannah (Paradise) and its Discontents

Violence is a seductive and effective solution to both personal and social stress. It has been since the time of Cain.
Cain (קַיִן), you’ll recall, is a violent man. His murder of his brother is a simple solution to a problem that Freud would later describe as a particular kind of stress, sibling rivalry. For Judaism, Christianity and Islam the story of Cain is the story of the first murder. But even at this basic level, it is intended to show that virtue does not long endure in the world: Adam failed. His first-born son failed. Almost everyone after him fails as well. What is truly remarkable about the Hebrew Bible is how few heroes, in the classical mode, there are in it. That is why it’s easy to remember their names. And even those who are put forward as patriarchs are not spotless exemplars of human conduct. Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, David, Solomon–whatever else we know about them–are morally ambiguous in Hebrew. But not in Islam. Islam possesses the names, but seldom the story, the rounded character, or the critique. We can agree on Cain because history makes him not only the first killer but also the first penitent and a symbol of a long line of men who would reject the commandments of god and his prophets “slaying prophets, messengers as well as the righteous people.” (Q5.31-32)
For Sigmund Freud, the tale of Cain and Abel is half a story, the unwritten part of which involves the killing of Adam himself (or an equivalent primeval father) out of sheer sexual frustration and the desire to become emancipated males with rights over the daughters of the moon. Sex and violence are hence joined in our earliest history. There ensues, in the tale Freud analyzes, thousands of years of rivalry, bitterness, jealousy and “mayhem” “until the whole world runs with blood,” and God, in order to save humankind, destroys most of it. Freud saw more clearly than almost anyone in his day that religion is the sublimation of violence through myth, ritual, and morality. But at heart, it is still fundamentally a perduring neurosis, a delusion.
By reducing action and history to story and ritual we substitute what is most primal and hence most violent and passionately real in us: our desire for pleasure and our suppression of both physical and existential pain. Christianity, for example, teaches that the violent death of Jesus was brought about by the sins of the world, and that in some sense God required the death of his own son as a substitute for the death of every sinner. The Christian teaching about the body and blood of Christ is based on that story, and Christians, in many denominations, reenact it once a week in their Eucharist–an unbloody celebration of a bodily passion and death using symbols of life in place of death.
But for Freud and many psychologists since his time, what is essential is the substitution of the unbloody for the bloody. And even this substitution has a prototype in God’s demanding a ram rather than Isaac as a sacrifice. For almost anyone with an ounce of psychology, it is impossible to read Genesis without some awareness that it is the primitive story of how humankind learned to sublimate violence out of fear of its consequences, symbolized most poignantly as the wrath of God. God could do more damage than we ever could. Fear him, fear the terror of what he might do if he wanted to.
It has been a long time since scholars thought that books like Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism could be applied uncritically to religious phenomena. No doubt Freud privately worried about it himself, because when it comes to religion Freud is at his most speculative, sometimes his most unsteady. When Freud’s explanations were invoked, (all too often in the years after the Second World War) they were used as nostrums to explain everything from Hitler to the death camps.
But it would be useful to know what Freud would say about a religion that he scarcely mentions in his major writings.”The founding of the Mohammedan religion seems to me to be an abbreviated repetition of the Jewish one,” he wrote, “but Islam lacks the profundity which in the Jewish religion resulted from the murder of its founder.” This willful arrogance toward Islam, which is repaid in Islam’s ignorance of Freud, is a shame because I think Freud, had he bothered, would have pointed to Islam as partial corroboration of one of his key points about the role of violence, death and sexual desire in religion.

 Among other things, Islam requires the sublimation of sexual desire in exchange for future happiness and fulfillment. In a minor way, it is repeated in every traditional Muslim marriage process: the bride and groom meet (or their marriage is arranged), then stay apart, in blissful anticipation of a touch of paradise on their wedding night. For unmarried males not even this glimpse of eternal happiness is possible.
The idea of Paradise (جنّة‎ Jannah) itself is predicated not on mere images of virgins and young male ocupantes, but on the belief that the Arab luxury of the sultan’s tent will be extended to all alike, and for all eternity, but particularly to the men, if they manage to pass the tests of Judgment. There will be no shame in sexuality. Every desire will be fulfilled. Everyone will be 33 years old, except for the bespoke virgins, who will be younger and the “immortal youths” who will serve the guests at a perpetual banquet table, bejeweled, drinking out of golden goblets and sweating perfume.
It is nothing new to say that the Islamic Jannah is essentially an erotic fantasy, a pleasure feast for males. What is not so obvious is that violence in the real world of sexual frustration and disappointment is a natural response to pleasure deferred.
“Islam” David Yeagley wrote just over a year ago “is Freudian libido unleashed.” He may be right.
In radical Islam, undirected sexual energy is being expressed in gruesome ways: in child rape, in the killing of children, the beheading of foreigners, mass conversions and forced marriages. In normal cultural context, libido can be expressed directly (sexually) but often in sublimated ways–in art, music, business, comedy, athletics–what Freud calls (often) “substitutionary satisfaction.”
But in Islam, sublimation is removed. When this happens, what analysts of Freud’s day called “mayhem” occurs: incest, cannibalism, random murder, rape. The taboos that society had erected for its own preservation. These protections are periodically threatened by war, of course, as Freud knew. But society persuades itself that war is not murder and through this mechanism the erotic and libidinous aspects of war are further removed form consciousness.
In the sort of religious extremism we are now seeing, “civilized inhibition” has been removed from the picture. Young, literal-minded paradise-hungry men are desublimating violence: the beheading of an infidel, the killing of unbelievers, Muslims or their surrogates, is a ticket to the gates of the blessed. Bodily dismemberment—-decapitation, the chopping off of body parts, the compulsive delight in blowing a human body to pieces–are not acts of terror but pornographic-religious acts with specific libidinous effect.
In some cases, as with Boko Haraam in Nigeria (but also increasingly in Iraq and Syria) the de-sublimation is directly sexual: the rape of teenage girls, and in the backwater of Pakistan, the beating or disfigurement of women and the torching of girls’ schools–all designed to preserve the male fantasy of an opulent, guilt-free Paradise.
This pathology does more to explain what is going on than lack of education, poverty, political ideology and (even) religious doctrine. The Islamic radicals want now what they can’t wait to have: Dying is a small price to pay for glory as it exists in Jannah. Young (on average about the age of all the citizens of Paradise), sexually starved, and true believers in the promise of a hereafter in which all their desires will be satisfied, the jihadists (wherever they come from, whatever the source of their belief) do not see violence and death as we do. For them it is a sacrament. For others, perhaps, it is the reinstatement of real blood and flesh for the tokens of bread and wine.


About these ads


 
 


Share this:
Facebook45
Twitter5
Email
Reddit
Print







Related


Giving Up on Spirituality
In "atheism"

Killing History: The ISIS War on Civilization
With 9 comments

Of Love and Chairs
In "historical jesus"

Bookmark the permalink.
 
Post navigation
← Theology and Falsification: The Hijacking of Antony Flew
Sex, Salvation, and Violence in Radical Islam →

5 thoughts on “Sex, Salvation, and Violence in Radical Islam”


 dwightjones

 January 8, 2015 at 11:25 am 

The master reaches into the font of wine and wisdom – a most impressive display of intellectual fireworks.
Nonetheless, the violence of the Mideast peoples is recent and short compared to the centuries of mayhem dispensed through the Christian portals, each European country more brutal than the next. Further, the intrusion of the West during our own time in support of Israel and the Saudis, ever-escalating until now there is ambient civil war throughout their lands – what would the US landscape look like in similar circumstances? Correct – the American civil war, which was not pretty – and with today’s gun culture it would be off the charts. Violence and sex are hardly the reserve of Islam.
If we would only stop prodding the wound, perhaps it might heal, But our agenda is to build F-35’s and sell them to the Saudis, not harmonize the species, so we have 20 year olds, allegedly horny too, bearing Kalashnikovs, as tar babies.
And Goebbels cackling in his grave as another Kristallnacht is “documented” by a perverted press.
Reply
 


 William

 January 8, 2015 at 1:50 pm 

I welcome this series of essays because, like many, I’m struggling to come to terms with events and place them in a context I can make sense of. Of late I have found myself in the company elsewhere of less-savory authors who rant from the right. I attempt to argue there is no need to lose our way like that, but must also admit I add my own criticisms of what I feel is not acceptable about Islam. I have no wish to slide down my own slippery slope and see a sorry ape in a reflecting pool at the bottom. I certainly abhore 99% of what the extreme right chooses as its causes and complaints.
What I need to decide is if it is justified to make the assertion that Islam, via sharia law, claims the right to order the civil lives of all, believers and unbelievers alike. More importantly, that it clearly mandates the death of apostates, as well as either submission or conversion on the part of others. These seem obvious, as these items are mentioned often, but at issue for me is to ensure this is not a poor characterture. That is, that these items of faith are no product of strange interpretation, or later addition, but are a core teaching: a tenet of Islam.
If these are indeed the tenets of Islam, subscribed to and shared by most any major school of thought within it, to me this means there can be no distinction between “extremist” and mainstream Islam, for I find these teachings quite extreme. And if this is “Islamic” in the same sense you mentioned, then how can we expect Islam to “own” and ever solve anything, unless the door is finally opened to questioning freely if Mohammed dreamt, imagined, made up, or actually heard anything at all.
Too, the striking oneupmanship of Islam in terms of “absolutist packaging” (direct angelic dictation of the whole, not “divine inspiration” of a succession of authors) as compared to the Judaism and Christianity around it in its day, I find astoundingly worrisome and unfortunate. To my eyes, it appears designed with express purpose to confer truculance in authority, and in mission designed foremost not to win souls, but to conquer land and exert control.
To confess further the tenor of my current thinking, I hold that if there is any group of any inspiration – religious, political, or criminal – who reserve the right to extinguiish my life unilaterally, that constitutes a punishable offense. What I mean to say is, does not a combination of (1) publicly stating adherence to (2) the tenets of Islam (3) constitute a clear death threat, with full intent to act? If so, that is illegal. Were one to make a similar assertion on some other basis, say, political, in most Western countries arrest and prosecution would quickly ensue.
I am aware that I have a greatly simplified view, am probably foaming more than a bit at the mouth, and could be in need of some sound, better informed reasoning. Please continue with this series. You mentioned a golden age? Anything helpful in terms of what Islam could become (and soon)?
Reply
 


 juliaergane

 January 8, 2015 at 4:23 pm 

I’ve always thought that Cain was set-up. YHWH was only interested in blood sacrifices. As temple Judaism was attempting to remove its pantheon an important Goddess would have been the Goddess of agriculture. Now there is no deity to give those sacrifices, so we have to get rid of Cain the farmer and bring back the wandering herders of the past. Now we salt the story with jealousy and voila — murder. (Then there is the tale of Jeptha’s daughter…..) It seems some human sacrifice is permissable.
Reply
 

Pingback: Sex, Salvation, and Violence in Radical Islam | The New Oxonian

Pingback: Killing Heretics: Now and Then | TaborBlog
 
Leave a Reply
 
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...


















Gravatar












WordPress.com Logo





Twitter picture





Facebook photo





Google+ photo

















  


Topics
Uncategorized

Archives
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
  
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.  |  The Book Lite Theme.
       





 
Follow

Follow “The New Oxonian”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

    

Build a website with WordPress.com
     

          







loading




https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/islamic-violence-as-sex-and-salvation/












Menu
Skip to content
Home♦
Books etc.♦
Comments and Moderation♦
Vita Brevis

The New Oxonian
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient










Sex, Salvation, and Violence in Radical Islam
Posted on January 8, 2015 by rjosephhoffmann
 

A friend wrote to correct me recently, after I posted my theological reading of the current crisis in Islam, caused by a growing number of groups committed to the use of violence to pursue their religious (and political) goals.
My reading is fairly simple: It is that “mainstream” Muslims delude themselves in trying to make the crisis “Unislamic” when all of its markers–proof-texts, idioms, images and models–are drawn from a selective reading of Islamic history and tradition. Unfortunately, Islam lacks a central authority structure that would permit it to define what is “orthodoxy” and what isn’t. Its إمامة‎ (imāmah) is a barnyard of bleating goats each claiming some splinter of tradition to lend authority to a religious opinion. It (if it deserves to be called a coherent it) possesses neither wisdom nor theological acuity nor imagination.
Usually the discussion of religious experts is no more than text-quoting without context–a theological slanging match between factions–as if the whole prior tradition of Islam, which once rivaled the Hellenistic rabbinical schools for philosophic depth, came to an end around the same time Europe was waking from its long medieval slumber. Islam at the teaching and preaching level is now virtually illiterate. Its imams are at the service of popular opinion, of all stripes, from the Yemen to Santa Barbara, and service opinion like mechanics service cars. If all politics is local, then Islam is all politics.
It is one of the deficiencies of Islam that there is no tradition of outing stupidity and charlatanism amongst the clergy–no Elmer Gantry, no Chaucerian Pardoner, no Rabbi Copperfield–or Tuckman. To be honest, this is rather surprising. Fictional clergy in Western literature have traditionally been used to mark the gap between the virtues and values enshrined in a religion at its best, and the shortcomings of human nature as they represent it.
Islam thus lacks the “teaching authority” (magisterium) of an ancient hierarchy like the Catholic church, which can point to a longstanding tradition of development and accommodation of its religious views. Islam lacks as well the theological and hermeneutical sophistication of the liberal Protestant and Jewish traditions, which do for those faiths what hierarchy does for Catholicism. Simply put, Islam is a horticultural mess and it is within such untended gardens that confusion and violence grow like weeds.
But to keep track of my main point: Islamic violence must be called Islamic. To say that Islam owns it, produced it, and has to solve it is not saying that all Muslims agree with the tactics of ISIL, contract killers in Paris, or child killers in Pakistan. Most people–Muslim and non-Muslim alike–are torn between horror at the grotesque images they see of severed heads being held aloft “in the name of God, the compassionate,” and total confusion at what long-term goal Muslim-on-Muslim violence is supposed to achieve. We are looking at real blood, real guns, real heads. But we are also looking at men and groups who, once they have exhausted their video clip seem to have all the strategic savvy of Gaston and Pierre or the Keystone Cops.
To say that Islamic violence is specifically Islamic is to say that there is no convincing social analysis possible without first acknowledging that these things are not imported from the West, are not responses to deliberate strikes against Islam, and are not really analogous to modern outbreaks of violence in Judaism or Christianity. The proof of that (as I said in a previous post) is that Christians don’t kill Christian children and Jews do not blow up Jewish schools. No one is denying a general pattern of religious violence since the beginning of religion, which is tantamount to saying, from the beginning of our species or its predecessors.
Religion begins in violence. Its archetypes and myths are saturated in blood–the predations of Ishtar, the cannibalism of the Greek Titans, the binding of Isaac, the crucifixion of Jesus. Its holy books are full of violence.
Islam is no exception. It is the rule. It’s important to say however that no religion but Islam seems suicidally bent on making violence a permanent part of its contemporary world-view and operations manual. There seems to be no doubt that, at least as represented by its most visible adepts, Islam is the religion which brings us into closest contact with the religion of our vicious tribal past. Religions may begin in violence. But they usually do not survive through violence.
Tracking it Down?
But I started by talking about my friend’s contention that we can pinpoint within Islam the source of the trouble, and for that reason we should be careful not to tar Islam in general with the sins of the few. I agree with most of what she says, but I feel that the risk in pinpointing is to trivialize the scale of the problem, to ignore the peripheral sympathy for extremism within the Muslim community, and to force the finger to point elsewhere for the ultimate causes of what we see happening around us today.
The pinpointing argument is that terrorism is chiefly (she says 90%) from the Salafi school of thought, which originates in the West-friendly (or dollar friendly) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but spreads out along a vast Sunni-Islam network. Salafism is complex: the simplest thing one can say about it is that it grew up as a sectarian movement in the nineteenth century to oppose certain core European ideas, such as democracy, secularism, and other political and religious trends that were seen as dangerous to the ideals and beliefs of Muslims.


There are Salafist “Purists” who focus on non-violent da’wah, education, others who define education as being, essentially fiq and Quranic instruction, others who support authoritarian regimes (Madkhalists), and others who believe that in order to defend core doctrines such as God’s oneness (tawhid) and reject shirk, taqlid, ijtihad, and bid’ah (the vices sins, and errors), endless jihad is the only way to serve Allah on earth. Others within this loose confederation (which becomes looser) simply want to exterminate the Shīʿah.
The difficulty with pinpointing is that even if it were possible to trace all extremist Muslim ideology to the sands of Arabia and one anti-colonial movement that has grown with cancerous ferocity in our day, we still would not have described the present situation.
The fact is, there are literally thousands of young Muslims in Central Asia, in Turkey, and living as second generation citizens in Britain and France and Germany who are simply attracted by the rigidity, simplicity and purity of the Salafa tradition or its kindred ideologies. It speaks to the young and satisfies the old–which is always the case with war and battle. It requires energy and action. It creates a Manichean division of the world into good and evil spheres, the things God wants and the things (and people) God hates.
It is too simple to assume that Salafism by itself explains the pathology of violence in Islam today.
Jannah (Paradise) and its Discontents

Violence is a seductive and effective solution to both personal and social stress. It has been since the time of Cain.
Cain (קַיִן), you’ll recall, is a violent man. His murder of his brother is a simple solution to a problem that Freud would later describe as a particular kind of stress, sibling rivalry. For Judaism, Christianity and Islam the story of Cain is the story of the first murder. But even at this basic level, it is intended to show that virtue does not long endure in the world: Adam failed. His first-born son failed. Almost everyone after him fails as well. What is truly remarkable about the Hebrew Bible is how few heroes, in the classical mode, there are in it. That is why it’s easy to remember their names. And even those who are put forward as patriarchs are not spotless exemplars of human conduct. Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, David, Solomon–whatever else we know about them–are morally ambiguous in Hebrew. But not in Islam. Islam possesses the names, but seldom the story, the rounded character, or the critique. We can agree on Cain because history makes him not only the first killer but also the first penitent and a symbol of a long line of men who would reject the commandments of god and his prophets “slaying prophets, messengers as well as the righteous people.” (Q5.31-32)
For Sigmund Freud, the tale of Cain and Abel is half a story, the unwritten part of which involves the killing of Adam himself (or an equivalent primeval father) out of sheer sexual frustration and the desire to become emancipated males with rights over the daughters of the moon. Sex and violence are hence joined in our earliest history. There ensues, in the tale Freud analyzes, thousands of years of rivalry, bitterness, jealousy and “mayhem” “until the whole world runs with blood,” and God, in order to save humankind, destroys most of it. Freud saw more clearly than almost anyone in his day that religion is the sublimation of violence through myth, ritual, and morality. But at heart, it is still fundamentally a perduring neurosis, a delusion.
By reducing action and history to story and ritual we substitute what is most primal and hence most violent and passionately real in us: our desire for pleasure and our suppression of both physical and existential pain. Christianity, for example, teaches that the violent death of Jesus was brought about by the sins of the world, and that in some sense God required the death of his own son as a substitute for the death of every sinner. The Christian teaching about the body and blood of Christ is based on that story, and Christians, in many denominations, reenact it once a week in their Eucharist–an unbloody celebration of a bodily passion and death using symbols of life in place of death.
But for Freud and many psychologists since his time, what is essential is the substitution of the unbloody for the bloody. And even this substitution has a prototype in God’s demanding a ram rather than Isaac as a sacrifice. For almost anyone with an ounce of psychology, it is impossible to read Genesis without some awareness that it is the primitive story of how humankind learned to sublimate violence out of fear of its consequences, symbolized most poignantly as the wrath of God. God could do more damage than we ever could. Fear him, fear the terror of what he might do if he wanted to.
It has been a long time since scholars thought that books like Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism could be applied uncritically to religious phenomena. No doubt Freud privately worried about it himself, because when it comes to religion Freud is at his most speculative, sometimes his most unsteady. When Freud’s explanations were invoked, (all too often in the years after the Second World War) they were used as nostrums to explain everything from Hitler to the death camps.
But it would be useful to know what Freud would say about a religion that he scarcely mentions in his major writings.”The founding of the Mohammedan religion seems to me to be an abbreviated repetition of the Jewish one,” he wrote, “but Islam lacks the profundity which in the Jewish religion resulted from the murder of its founder.” This willful arrogance toward Islam, which is repaid in Islam’s ignorance of Freud, is a shame because I think Freud, had he bothered, would have pointed to Islam as partial corroboration of one of his key points about the role of violence, death and sexual desire in religion.

 Among other things, Islam requires the sublimation of sexual desire in exchange for future happiness and fulfillment. In a minor way, it is repeated in every traditional Muslim marriage process: the bride and groom meet (or their marriage is arranged), then stay apart, in blissful anticipation of a touch of paradise on their wedding night. For unmarried males not even this glimpse of eternal happiness is possible.
The idea of Paradise (جنّة‎ Jannah) itself is predicated not on mere images of virgins and young male ocupantes, but on the belief that the Arab luxury of the sultan’s tent will be extended to all alike, and for all eternity, but particularly to the men, if they manage to pass the tests of Judgment. There will be no shame in sexuality. Every desire will be fulfilled. Everyone will be 33 years old, except for the bespoke virgins, who will be younger and the “immortal youths” who will serve the guests at a perpetual banquet table, bejeweled, drinking out of golden goblets and sweating perfume.
It is nothing new to say that the Islamic Jannah is essentially an erotic fantasy, a pleasure feast for males. What is not so obvious is that violence in the real world of sexual frustration and disappointment is a natural response to pleasure deferred.
“Islam” David Yeagley wrote just over a year ago “is Freudian libido unleashed.” He may be right.
In radical Islam, undirected sexual energy is being expressed in gruesome ways: in child rape, in the killing of children, the beheading of foreigners, mass conversions and forced marriages. In normal cultural context, libido can be expressed directly (sexually) but often in sublimated ways–in art, music, business, comedy, athletics–what Freud calls (often) “substitutionary satisfaction.”
But in Islam, sublimation is removed. When this happens, what analysts of Freud’s day called “mayhem” occurs: incest, cannibalism, random murder, rape. The taboos that society had erected for its own preservation. These protections are periodically threatened by war, of course, as Freud knew. But society persuades itself that war is not murder and through this mechanism the erotic and libidinous aspects of war are further removed form consciousness.
In the sort of religious extremism we are now seeing, “civilized inhibition” has been removed from the picture. Young, literal-minded paradise-hungry men are desublimating violence: the beheading of an infidel, the killing of unbelievers, Muslims or their surrogates, is a ticket to the gates of the blessed. Bodily dismemberment—-decapitation, the chopping off of body parts, the compulsive delight in blowing a human body to pieces–are not acts of terror but pornographic-religious acts with specific libidinous effect.
In some cases, as with Boko Haraam in Nigeria (but also increasingly in Iraq and Syria) the de-sublimation is directly sexual: the rape of teenage girls, and in the backwater of Pakistan, the beating or disfigurement of women and the torching of girls’ schools–all designed to preserve the male fantasy of an opulent, guilt-free Paradise.
This pathology does more to explain what is going on than lack of education, poverty, political ideology and (even) religious doctrine. The Islamic radicals want now what they can’t wait to have: Dying is a small price to pay for glory as it exists in Jannah. Young (on average about the age of all the citizens of Paradise), sexually starved, and true believers in the promise of a hereafter in which all their desires will be satisfied, the jihadists (wherever they come from, whatever the source of their belief) do not see violence and death as we do. For them it is a sacrament. For others, perhaps, it is the reinstatement of real blood and flesh for the tokens of bread and wine.


About these ads


 
 


Share this:
Facebook45
Twitter5
Email
Reddit
Print







Related


Giving Up on Spirituality
In "atheism"

Killing History: The ISIS War on Civilization
With 9 comments

Of Love and Chairs
In "historical jesus"

Bookmark the permalink.
 
Post navigation
← Theology and Falsification: The Hijacking of Antony Flew
Sex, Salvation, and Violence in Radical Islam →

5 thoughts on “Sex, Salvation, and Violence in Radical Islam”


 dwightjones

 January 8, 2015 at 11:25 am 

The master reaches into the font of wine and wisdom – a most impressive display of intellectual fireworks.
Nonetheless, the violence of the Mideast peoples is recent and short compared to the centuries of mayhem dispensed through the Christian portals, each European country more brutal than the next. Further, the intrusion of the West during our own time in support of Israel and the Saudis, ever-escalating until now there is ambient civil war throughout their lands – what would the US landscape look like in similar circumstances? Correct – the American civil war, which was not pretty – and with today’s gun culture it would be off the charts. Violence and sex are hardly the reserve of Islam.
If we would only stop prodding the wound, perhaps it might heal, But our agenda is to build F-35’s and sell them to the Saudis, not harmonize the species, so we have 20 year olds, allegedly horny too, bearing Kalashnikovs, as tar babies.
And Goebbels cackling in his grave as another Kristallnacht is “documented” by a perverted press.
Reply
 


 William

 January 8, 2015 at 1:50 pm 

I welcome this series of essays because, like many, I’m struggling to come to terms with events and place them in a context I can make sense of. Of late I have found myself in the company elsewhere of less-savory authors who rant from the right. I attempt to argue there is no need to lose our way like that, but must also admit I add my own criticisms of what I feel is not acceptable about Islam. I have no wish to slide down my own slippery slope and see a sorry ape in a reflecting pool at the bottom. I certainly abhore 99% of what the extreme right chooses as its causes and complaints.
What I need to decide is if it is justified to make the assertion that Islam, via sharia law, claims the right to order the civil lives of all, believers and unbelievers alike. More importantly, that it clearly mandates the death of apostates, as well as either submission or conversion on the part of others. These seem obvious, as these items are mentioned often, but at issue for me is to ensure this is not a poor characterture. That is, that these items of faith are no product of strange interpretation, or later addition, but are a core teaching: a tenet of Islam.
If these are indeed the tenets of Islam, subscribed to and shared by most any major school of thought within it, to me this means there can be no distinction between “extremist” and mainstream Islam, for I find these teachings quite extreme. And if this is “Islamic” in the same sense you mentioned, then how can we expect Islam to “own” and ever solve anything, unless the door is finally opened to questioning freely if Mohammed dreamt, imagined, made up, or actually heard anything at all.
Too, the striking oneupmanship of Islam in terms of “absolutist packaging” (direct angelic dictation of the whole, not “divine inspiration” of a succession of authors) as compared to the Judaism and Christianity around it in its day, I find astoundingly worrisome and unfortunate. To my eyes, it appears designed with express purpose to confer truculance in authority, and in mission designed foremost not to win souls, but to conquer land and exert control.
To confess further the tenor of my current thinking, I hold that if there is any group of any inspiration – religious, political, or criminal – who reserve the right to extinguiish my life unilaterally, that constitutes a punishable offense. What I mean to say is, does not a combination of (1) publicly stating adherence to (2) the tenets of Islam (3) constitute a clear death threat, with full intent to act? If so, that is illegal. Were one to make a similar assertion on some other basis, say, political, in most Western countries arrest and prosecution would quickly ensue.
I am aware that I have a greatly simplified view, am probably foaming more than a bit at the mouth, and could be in need of some sound, better informed reasoning. Please continue with this series. You mentioned a golden age? Anything helpful in terms of what Islam could become (and soon)?
Reply
 


 juliaergane

 January 8, 2015 at 4:23 pm 

I’ve always thought that Cain was set-up. YHWH was only interested in blood sacrifices. As temple Judaism was attempting to remove its pantheon an important Goddess would have been the Goddess of agriculture. Now there is no deity to give those sacrifices, so we have to get rid of Cain the farmer and bring back the wandering herders of the past. Now we salt the story with jealousy and voila — murder. (Then there is the tale of Jeptha’s daughter…..) It seems some human sacrifice is permissable.
Reply
 

Pingback: Sex, Salvation, and Violence in Radical Islam | The New Oxonian

Pingback: Killing Heretics: Now and Then | TaborBlog
 
Leave a Reply
 
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...


















Gravatar












WordPress.com Logo





Twitter picture





Facebook photo





Google+ photo

















  


Topics
Uncategorized

Archives
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
  
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.  |  The Book Lite Theme.
       





 
Follow

Follow “The New Oxonian”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

    

Build a website with WordPress.com
     

          







loading




https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/islamic-violence-as-sex-and-salvation/














Menu
Skip to content
Home♦
Books etc.♦
Comments and Moderation♦
Vita Brevis

The New Oxonian
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient










Humiliating God: The Real Cost of Islamic Terror
Posted on January 3, 2015 by rjosephhoffmann
 


“From the time of John until now the kingdom of God has been under siege by violent men, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11.12).
There are Muslims who believe that Allah looked on approvingly in 2001–or however he counts time–when a few of his worshipers steered planes carrying businessmen and teachers, grandmothers and babies, into two high towers in New York City, killing another 2000 workers, secretaries, guards, cleaners, and sandwich vendors.
There are Muslims who believe that Allah condoned, if he did not order, the murder of 136 Muslim infants and a score of others in a primary school in Peshawar in December 2014.
There are Muslims who believe that the kidnapping, rape and forced marriages and conversions of 400 school girls in Nigeria is supported by scripture and reflects the will of God.
On December 30, to mark the new year, militants in Kurram Agency, Pakistan, incinerated two girls’ schools, bringing the total for such attacks to just over 1200 since 2010.
There is mounting evidence to suggest that Malaysian flight 370 and AirAsia 8501 (like the almost forgotten case of Egypt Air 990 in 1999) were downed by devout Muslim pilots who had become infected with a radical Muslim ideology and used their positions to kill foreigners.
The facts are the facts, and this barely skims the surface of the facts: the number of Muslims killed outside the Muslim world by non-Muslims is almost negligible. The number of Westerners killed by Muslims is growing, but still opportunistic and relatively small. The number of Muslims killing other Muslims is staggering: Eight times more Muslims are killed by co-religionists than non Muslims– with “Sunni”-based extremism counting for a little over 70% of the murders.
I am not concerned in this essay to lament the ignorance of people who believe that God created a six- day work week or made man from mud in order to be seduced into misconduct by a talking serpent. I don’t deny that it may be a short path between taking such stories literally and believing that you hear voices in the clouds or in the cave. Those beliefs may or may not have didactic value.
But Islam’s holy book the Qur’an is primarily didactic, different from the other books chiefly in the sheer number of exhortations—a long sermon divided into parts–rather than a string of stories, poems, prophecies and letters. Much of what is believed about God in the Bible comes through stories about people who believed in God, and not (may I add) with utter consistency or fidelity. Most of what the Qur’an has to say about God is simple exhortation, supported by stories, or allusions to stories, taken from prior tradition, but essentially contrived to distinguish between believers and non-believers.
I am pretty certain that beliefs that are interpreted as commands, or calls to action, do real damage: they affect lives, marriages, sexual freedom and corrupt and trivialize moral responsibility. They infect politics and hamper education. Given the extent to which religion (can) poison everything, to nick a phrase from the greatly missed Christopher Hitchens, it is no wonder that atheists believe that they have the moral high ground when it comes to knowing how to behave. I don’t grant this presumption, by the way. But given the choice between the number of innocent people killed by unbelievers in the last twenty years and the number killed through religious violence, give me the atheist track record any day.
But that is not the point of this essay. This essay is directed to religious murderers, arsonists, rapists and supporters of their violence. I have to mention (not because of some equal time requirement) that there are Jews who believe that somewhere in the remote past, according to a book they created for themselves, and fictions they now employ to establish their hegemony over a swath of Mediterranean coastal desert, they can bomb the ancestral inhabitants of the land into submission, build housing estates where they want, and raid houses and destroy property willy-nilly. And I have also to mention that there are Christians who believe that a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant should be required to deliver a baby; that abortion is murder because God said so, in one of his commandments (unattested) and that contraception interferes with God’s plan for creation. These ideas cannot be condemned as unbiblical because they are simply non-biblical: they are merely absurd. They are the toxic residue of a dogmatic past.
I do consider such beliefs to be dangerous. But the number of people holding them outside the most arid religious backwaters—Israel and Bible Belt, USA—is diminishing. To be accurate, there are many more Jews in the diaspora who do not agree with what Likud and Kadima Jews in Israel are doing. And there are many more Christians globally who are liberal about contraception, abortion and a range of other social and sexual matters than there are Christians who (largely in America) can’t get out from under the dogma pile. Within Israel, Jews do not slaughter other Jews, attack synagogues or schools, and there are few modern examples of Christians attacking and killing each other in the name of Christian orthodoxy. Catholics and Protestants have long since put their swords away. In Northern Ireland—the most recent example of infra-faith hostility–few people see the root causes of the “troubles” as primarily religious. It is political hostility left over from the colonial settlement and anti-Catholic policies of the British government in the seventeenth century. It is simply irrelevant to a discussion of religious violence in Islam.
Direct violence in religion, violence of the most egregious and murderous kind, is almost entirely confined to the Islamic world and is growing rather than contracting every month. As of the moment I am writing this article, the following events are taking place or have taken place within the last fortnight:
 014.12.30 (Tobruk, Libya) – Eleven are wounded when a suicide bomber detonates his device outside parliament.
 2014.12.29 (Taji, Iraq) – A Shahid suicide bomber decimates seventeen Shiite mourners at a funeral tent.
 2014.12.28 (Aleppo, Syria) – Two children are among six victims of am IS caliphate car bomb.
 2014.12.27 (Wardak, Afghanistan) – Fundamentalists send a rocket into a volleyball match, killing three participants.
 2014.12.27 (Mozogo, Cameroon) – Boko Haram burn down a village and slaughter at least thirty residents.
 2014.12.27 (Bhiri Sha Rehman, Pakistan) – An Ahmadi is shot in the head shortly after a TV preacher rails against the religious minority
 2015.1.03 At least 11 people were killed and six others were injured in Cameroon when Boko Haram militants opened fire on a bus.
As an important article by Ben Doherty in the Guardian recently explained, Muslim extremism mainly kills poor Muslims, not rich westerners. And as an equally significant summary of the now almost 25,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11, the early taxonomy of extremism as coming mainly from poor, dead-end, uneducated youth is part of a general mythology of the movement: While regional violence –e.g., Boko Haram in Nigeria or Al-Shabaab in Somalia– and indigenous tribal groups like the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan do tend to be populated by badly educated men from the poorer echelons of their societies, those who target the “far enemy” in the United States or parts of Europe, are in many respects the best and brightest in their country: “Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing –the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in [America], some believe they’re just plain evil… . Taking these perceived root causes in turn, three quarters of [those cases examined] came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority—90 percent—came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that’s usual for the developing world.”
Putting these incommensurables together, we can say that Islamic violence comes from both rich and poor quadrants of the Islamic world, from educated and uneducated sectors, and from mainly young, radicalized men who operate under the auspices of older sponsors and strategists. Attempts to find a “global” social explanation for this violence have proved fruitless.
The phenomenon is specifically rooted in a particular ideology based on an interpretation of a cherry-picked compact of verses gleaned from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Indeed, subscribers to this ideology would say that the word “interpretation” is inappropriate–that their program is actually mandated explicitly in scripture. We can point for example to these as indicative of a long litany of ayah (verses) that command the killing of unbelievers:
Qur’an (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Qur’an (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
Qur’an (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made a great slaughter in the land….”
Violence in Islam is a religious position, not a condition forced on perpetrators by social exigency. Islam is unexcelled in the world as a sponsor of violence: Virtually no secular or competing religious power since 1945– with the partial exception of Stalinism, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and the Azuka massacre of the Tutsi in Rwanda– has done more to implement violence as an instrument of social change.
The primary victims of this program, which now include a vast spawn of copycats and informal alliances, are Muslims, with the Shia minority (thanks to imbecilic United States foreign adventurism in Iraq) forming a growing victim class. There is no effective legal or religious control mechanism available in Islam to cope with the spread of murder, rape, kidnapping and assault as religious acts. Sporadic denunciations of individual cases as “Unislamic” are not only ineffective but semantically inept; it is a ludicrous term which has no useful application outside the lexicon of beliefs and practices which are clearly forbidden by religious law and custom. To call the wanton murder of co-religionists “Unislamic” is as insipid as calling the Holocaust an aberration of true Nazism or the Inquisition a misinterpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Worse, it is uniquely vulnerable to the claim that the majority of Muslims, soft in their ways, westernized or secularized beyond redemption, are themselves Unislamic. Isn’t that the whole point?
A social phenomenon is defined by its most explicit external characteristics, even if those characteristics are supplied by a zealous and lawless minority and not by a majority that merely observes, remains quiet, and rarely capitulates in acts of violence. The extent to which murder, as a matter of religious polity, has been quietly accepted by large numbers of Muslims, in the belief that a condemnation of the zealots is a form of capitulation to a threatening, uncomprehending, and mostly evil secular world, is one of the most tragic and predictable tropes in this saga. Everyone accepts that most Muslims are not murderers. That is hardly the point. The nagging question is why so many are, and why “good Muslims” are made to feel deficient in their faith by the zealots.
God the Problem: Who Defines Allāh?
But even if it is acknowledged that the primary victims of Islamic violence are Muslims, that the problem is not being solved by religious leaders or believers, and will not be solved by occasional denunciations which are offset by quiescent but real support for militancy and violence by a segment of the أمة‎–the Islamic community–we have still not come close to the core of the problem.
That core is stubbornly theological and has to be confronted. Its unexamined part is deceptively simple: it is not who defines Islam, but who defines God? And is the definition propagated by the actions of the religious infantries consonant with any worthy understanding of God?
The problem is aggravated by the fact that it is usually not Muslims who actively fight—or have to fight—“terrorists” in a systematic way. It is the armies and technology of foreigners, the traditional enemy, the Satan. In a mistaken sense of solidarity, many ordinary Muslims around the world simply regard the violence as a Western-induced problem that needs to be addressed forcibly and resolutely and are left confused about what their responsibility to the ummah actually is, since they find it impossible to cheer for the defenders of “democracy” and “freedom”—two words that numbers of people in the Islamic world look on with suspicion.
The confusion is amplified by the sermons of their intellectually malnourished and poorly read religious teachers and imams, especially in those countries where Friday sermons are not regulated by state censors. Muslims are often encouraged—or tempted—to think that a period of violence may be necessary before the reign of peace—the establishment of Islam as the universal religion—is completed. The beliefs are actually not Islamic but pasted onto belief in the ashratu’s-sa’ah (last days) from various sources including Christian eschatology. On a few occasions in Jewish and Christian history these apocalyptic ideas have dominated. They led in 70CE under the emperor Vespasian and again under Hadrian in 135 CE to the destruction of Jerusalem, a city whose messianic spasms had reached such a level that the Romans felt the only way to control the Jews was to burn their temple to the ground and erect one of their own in its place. Learning a quick lesson from what they witnessed, and whatever they might have taught originally, the nascent Christian movement quickly became a religion of peace and forgiveness, loving not just neighbors but enemies and strangers as well. Especially Romans.
However tempting the analogues, analogies are always partly true and completely false. Islam is specifically unlike Christianity and Judaism in two important respects: the core texts of the Islamic tradition have not gone through the hermeneutical processes that have affected the Old and New Testament since the sixteenth century. Beginning then, the Bible was subjected to rigorous historical, textual and archaeological assessment, the results of which are still being felt today. And secondly, calls for the restoration of Islam (as opposed to the reformation of Islam) usually are framed in romanticized and historically false ways that harken back to the bloodiest days of Islamic expansion between the seventh and ninth centuries of the common era, and just prior to a period of rapid intellectual development that came to a halt with the fall of Baghdad in 1258. While many well-educated Muslims appeal with real nostalgia to the so-called Golden Era of the Islamic renaissance, the truth is that renaissance soon gave way to regressive political forces and forms of religious puritanism that sealed Islam’s fate as a conservative, unprogressive, and largely introspective civilization.
Judaism was never an expansionist faith; its historical books show an embattled semi-theocracy fighting for its life and identity, without much success, against far stronger powers: its miracle is not “expansion” but survival. Christianity, on the other hand, while expansionist from the fifth century onward throughout Europe, succeeded by becoming an esoteric religion with a clearly defined religious hierarchy that promoted intellectualism in its higher ranks and ignorance among the laity. The belief in an all-encompassing “ummah” of believers, defined strictly by numbers and territory seized, was alien to the teaching of doctrine and the promotion of the Church and its sacraments as the exclusive way to salvation.
Islam did not go through the same phases of self-definition: Its holy book was never a serious matter for investigation. To believe in its unassailable sacred authority made one a Muslim; all other beliefs flowed from that status. Islam did not experience a Reformation, and the humanistic forces that created the Renaissance and the development of secular learning were largely foreign to its nature. In the West, learning triumphed over religion through the auspices of religious change. In Islam, resistance to change after the thirteenth century saw the deterioration of learning and the triumph of piety. For that reason, Christians and Jews in the twentieth and twenty-first century have not felt compelled to equate Judaism or “true Christianity” with the biblical world or the time of Jesus, as the reformers of the sixteenth century tried (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to do. The authority of the Bible has become negotiable occasional, and debatable. This situation contrasts sharply with the average Muslim’s belief that the Qur’an has indubitable authority, that the Prophet’s words and actions are worthy of imitation, and that there is no element of modern life that cannot be assessed and judged by reference to Islamic law or tradition.
For at least two millennia the soi disant “people of the book”—a curious Quranic construct thought (from time to time) to confer a kind of second-class family status on Christians and Jews (Q2.62; 22;17)– have strained to understand a God who is both righteous (just) and merciful. That balance has shifted between religions. In ancient Hebrew culture because of its tribal roots, the emphasis was on justice—often retributive or “pay-back” justice. But the Judaism of the time of Jesus had forsaken much of that under the strong influence of Hellenistic thought. Stoning was rare. Beheading and amputation were unheard of, and by the time of Jesus even judicial murder (e.g., crucifixion) was forbidden. Prophecy was dead, it was taught, after Malachi, but the tradition of the later prophets was that the God of judgment was a merciful and compassionate God who rewarded those who practiced humility and forgiveness.
The probable if indirect source for the Islamic profession of faith is the Hebrew Psalm 145.8 : חַנּ֣וּן וְרַח֣וּם יְהוָ֑ה אֶ֥רֶךְ אַ֝פַּ֗יִם וּגְדָל־חָֽסֶד׃ (The Lord God is merciful and compassionate; cf. بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ, the “bismalah”). There is nothing original or revolutionary in the Islamic profession of faith: Jesus’ invocation of the Shema Yisrael, already ancient (Deuteronomy 6.4-9) marks one of the few occasions where the New Testament asserts its unequivocal monotheism. “Jesus answered, “The foremost [law] is, ‘Hear O Israel, The Lord our God is one God, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with your entire mind, and with all your strength” (Matthew 22.36ff.).
The evolution of the idea of God as deal-maker, lawgiver and punisher to a God who operates more proportionately and lovingly towards his creation affected Judaism from the fourth century BCE until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Christianity was one effect of this evolution—by no means the only effect. There was nothing new about the teaching of Jesus except that he seemed to be closely tied to the teachings of Amos and Hosea and the idea of a God who was almost inexhaustibly patient, if still unarguably the judge of good and evil. Increasingly, however, as at the beginning of Islam, good and evil are given a social reading. Evil is in “men’s hearts.” It is what causes greed among merchants, oppression of the poor, the ostracism of the weak, the defenseless—widows, children, orphans, the ill—language which is almost lifted from one book to the other to create a tradition of fully conscientised texts completely unlike anything that had existed in religious literature before the time of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament writings.
The radical extension of this intellectual strain comes in the New Testament declaration (in the Johannine tradition) that God is love. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God.” (1 John 4.8). It has been suggested that in this one verse the vengeance of the Old Testament has been laid to rest: the grave has been dug. It is a paradigm shift from which religion would never recover, yet somewhat surprisingly it does not resurface in this radical form in Islam half a millennium later. Instead—for perfectly understandable reasons rooted in the nature of Muhammad’s time and culture –the God of vengeance and judgment reappears, along with the idea of a chosen people and the auxiliary idea of a deaf and blind people who do not do what God commands.
The message of Christianity is not totally obliterated in the Qur’an, though it is not prominent. God hates sin, but forgives it. He requires people to show mercy and generosity, but not with equanimity. The God of the Qur’an exercises restraint rather than expresses love. Like the god of Abraham, he is a god largely shaped in the desert places and not in the city—among the tribes rather than among the teachers. Although the early Muslim community was a tumultuous one, its aggressiveness has to be understood in terms of the social conditions and pressures that created it—in the same way that a newly empowered Christianity behaved badly in relation to pagans, Jews and dissenters (heretics) for the for the first thousand years of its legitimate existence. The issue here is not what violence (birth pangs, as the Bible describes such things) may have brought a religious community into existence but whether a return to that violence is ever conscionable.
The God of Then and Now
But that is history. This is now.
And my question now is, What image of God –regardless of the historical and largely man-made permutations of that image–explains killing children? Where in Qur’an or hadith do I find this?
Quote me no imams and rhyme me no rhymes or interpretations: Show me.
What concept of God entitles me to flog women on a whim, shoot schoolgirls in the head, disfigure my bride or fiancée; lop off her legs with a dull blade because she has been flirtatious? Kill my wife because she has “dishonored” me?
What God tells me to strap myself with explosives to kill infidels, blow up hotels, chop the heads off my fellow Muslims because they cannot recite Shehadah a certain way?
Tell me what God this is and I will say to you, without advanced philosophical argument:
Smash that god.
That god is an idol.
That god deserves to be torn from the altar of your vile imagination and trampled and pissed on. The god that commands these things is worse than any god worshiped by Muhammad’s pagan ancestors, more noxious that any god of any nation that threatened Abraham and his sons and descendants. The Egyptian gods were paragons of kindness by comparison. The human lives lost to the Babylonian and Hittite gods are a paltry statistic compared to the life that you sacrifice daily on the altar of this celestial jackal. The Canaanite bulls and the Dionysian man-whores were morally superior to the god you are calling the true God, the one you name Allah, but who has been entirely molded from an erotico-spiritual fantasy, a paradise of male pleasure-seekers being sexually satisfied in the gardens of the houri. There has been no god in the history of humanity whose orders are more contemptible, more undeserving of obedience, whose savants and teachers and leaders are more ignorant or more cowardly. Anyone who worships the god you worship is an enemy of truth, kindness, mercy and compassion. Anyone you kill in the name of this god dies a martyr, a saint. Anyone who agrees to your interpretation of a once noble faith contributes to its accelerating decline and spiritual death.
Side with this god and you are, to be blunt, siding with the power of evil. Become his devotee and hold up for the world to see the ugliest, time-deadened verses of a book that spoke to men of the eighth century, but not to our own. It is your choice to fashion this god out of this clay: there is better clay. There are better images.
Let the Qur’an grow out of its immaturity and become with the other sacred books a force for change in which the warrior cut-throat god of the ancient imagination becomes a god of peace, and not a remnant of a violent and bloody past. Let that god die, as Yahweh died. Let Allah, who is proclaimed to be merciful, relinquish the role you have assigned him–the role of an angry and abusive father-to become the god who loves and seeks love in return.
You—the men of violence—the beheaders, the burners, the warriors against love–are the true infidels, the real unbelievers.
For the real infidels believe–and have always believed–that the highest tribute they can pay to a being who reflects their passions and leaves them free to do harm is to call him god. The apostate is one who teaches that the god of the tribe, of unbridled revenge and hatred, is the true god. This god permits murder, stealing, rape and revenge. He hates learning, despises women and regards all those who do not share his hatreds as sinners. This is the beast the book religions before Muhammad knew as Mammon, as Asmodeus, as Belphegor— and a hundred other hideous names.
You-–the murderers, the killers of children–have stripped the true God of his names—the All-Merciful, the Pure, the Source of Peace, the Bountiful, the Shaper of Beauty. You have humiliated him in front of his own people and made him a laughing-stock to others. There is no sin greater than this and you are damned by it.
It is time for the courageous, the lovers of wisdom and justice and mercy to be honest about what has happened and what is happening: The God of the book is being stoned in the holy places while the faithful look on. And in his place, Satan sits enthroned and laughing.


About these ads

 
 


Share this:
Facebook6
Twitter2
Email
Reddit
Print







Related


Charlie and Ahmed
With 5 comments

The Theology of Regret: Making the Pope Say 'Sorry'
In "apology"

Deja Vu: How Tone Deaf Atheists and Blockheaded Muslim Haters Cost Lives
With 13 comments

Bookmark the permalink.
 
Post navigation
← Pedantic Multiculturalism
Humiliating God: The Real Cost of Islamic Terror →

10 thoughts on “Humiliating God: The Real Cost of Islamic Terror”


 threekidsandi

 January 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm 

Flogging women: Surah an Nisa, 4: 24.
 Killing those who commit zina: Suran an Nur, ayah 4, 5, 24. (eighty to a hundred lashes)
 Moharebeh is the act of committing crimes against Allah or His people. You left out all the executions carried out by Shariah governments (see Iran) against their and foreign citizens citing this as the reason. Again, Quran 5:33. This excuse is also utilized against non believers and the Ahmadiyya, as justification for murdering them. So Quran 5:33 is the justification for murdering children.
 As far as the honor issues you have mentioned, there are no justifications found in Quran for them. You might find some Hadith, but quoting Hadith at people just causes them to tell you such Hadith is not sahih (proven) in their madhab (sect)/opinion. Which means: ¨I am not that kind of Muslim.¨ Honor violence is found across the globe, and is not limited to Muslim countries. But Surah an Nisa ensures that it survives and is perpetuated in Islamic countries, since women are required to be subservient to, and maintained by, men. Surah an Nisa also gives men the right to own slaves and to rape them. Ultra misogyny.
 What is the consequence for Muslims who speak against the violent verses in the Quran? It is death. What is the consequence for Muslims who leave the faith? Death. Why? Because they had been believers, and now betray their community, prophet, and god. It is made quite clear in Quran 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66. Ever wonder why the dissenting voices are so few? This is why.
 So Muslims who believe and follow these verses do not have Shaitan in their hearts, but faith. Because they believe Quran to be Divine.
 I disagree completely that Early Muslims Had No Choice But To Slaughter Everyone Because Of The Times They Lived In. I am sick of hearing that. Surely those personally guided by the Angel Gabriel could have come up with better options, with their direct channel to God? This is the same reason ISIL gives today for their atrocities, that the times they live in leave them no choice. You are parroting them. They are not ¨returning to violence¨. It never stopped. When did it stop? Did you forget Africa?
 The problem is in the canonical text and this issue of Divinity, in my opinion. Apostasy is the answer, since there is no room for reinterpretation. If you do find Muslims reinterpreting, back them up. Their voices hold no weight in the rest of the Ummah.
 Thank you for your article, I appreciate the analysis and the depth.
Reply
 


 William

 January 3, 2015 at 5:28 pm 

There is a certain amount of indignation that wells up any time I’ve attempted to write about such things (albeit much less knowledgeably re religious studies). It frustrates me because I either fall short in expressing my position, or go too far and wax a tad rabid, spoiling any merit the comments may have had.
So, thanks for showing me how it’s properly done. Great piece, thundrous yet measured ending. Pretty awesome, actually.
Reply
 


 scotteus

 January 3, 2015 at 11:50 pm 

Reminds me of an old conversation with some Muslim friends on the difference between Jihad and Irjaf. This essay is of course a better explanation.
Reply
 

Pingback: Humiliating God: The Real Cost of Islamic Terror | The New Oxonian


 Graham Dunstan Martin

 January 5, 2015 at 11:22 am 

A wonderfully eloquent essay, with its heart and its moral compass exactly where they should be.
Let us look at the Islamic sect called the Wahhabis (dominant in Saudi Arabia). Unlike Rumi they detest wine and poetry. They are opposed to democracy, because it was invented by the pagan Greeks. They are antisemitic. They object to the use of reason in determining the rules of life. (Of course, if your region is irrational, then you’ll object to reason, won’t you?} They believe that it is a matter of concern to His Divine Majesty whether one enters or leaves the toilet by one’s left foot. They forbid music, dancing, TV (except religious), chess, picture of animals or humans, plays, fiction (which they define as “lying”). applause, the giving of flowers, eating or writing with the left hand, celebrating anyone’s birthday, a woman “drawing attention to herself” by laughing, a woman speaking to her fiancé on the telephone, etc. And of course in Saudi Arabia, women are hidden behind the deathlike darkness of the hijab. In short, Wahhabis forbid every normal human activity.
These dogmas are absurd, antihuman, and antidivine. For it is evident that the Deity Himself took care to richly populate the world with all those things which these Muslims reject! These attitudes are a throttling of the very impulses of life. This form of Islam is Satanic. And it breeds into the murderous cruelty at present rife in the Islamic world.
I wish I knew what we could do about it!
Reply
 

 Graham Dunstan Martin

 January 5, 2015 at 11:26 am 

I meant to write “If your religion is irrational …”
Reply
 
 


 aplinthjr

 January 5, 2015 at 11:42 am 

I’m a bit startled that after you yourself give a Qur’anic citation justifying violence (5:33) you challenge your readers “Where in Qur’an or hadith do I find this?” Also, those who use a handful of verses to justify their intolerance and violence cannot be accused of “cherry-picking.” One cannot challenge “quote me chapter & verse” and then when a specific chapter & verse is quoted levy the accusation of “cherry-picking.” That is equivalent to saying “Not every verse espouses violence, therefore no part of the Qur’an can be quoted to justify violence.” Even if only a tiny percentage of the Qur’an espouses violence, a reader is justified in quoting that percentage. That is one of the most serious problems with “infallible,” Literally-the-word-of-God sacred books: They can – justifiably – be used as the basis for almost any behavior, so long as a smidgen of support can be found in the text. Since all reading is interpretative, a smidgen of support can be found for just about anything.
As you said, Jews and Christians have to a large degree circumvented this problem by analyzing the offensive passages in the Bible into irrelevance. The passages are still there, but later ethical analysis has induced most Jews and Christians to ignore them – and accuse people who don’t ignore them of “cherry-picking.” The problem will not recede until Muslims do the same with the Qur’an. The sooner they do that, the less pain and suffering the world will have to endure.
Reply
 


 vxxc2014

 January 7, 2015 at 8:24 am 

What was the Problem the Merchant turned Prophet had to solve?
 The encroaching of The Dark Ages into Arabia on every side.
 He succeeded, Islam reversed the process and not only established a Civilization however imperfect, the Islamic world whatever else may be said escaped the Dark Ages, as did it’s conquered lands.
The Ignorant Mohamed speaks of were pagan Arabs, given to human sacrifice by burning, and client allies of the Persians. The followers of The Prophet were Christian Arabs allied with the Romans [Constantinople].
The Dark Ages are encroaching from every direction upon Arabia: within mass human sacrificing pagan Arabs aka the Ignorant [Jahil], to the north, east and West the consequences of the Western Empire’s collapse and the enormous World War and Civil Wars within the eastern Roman [aka Rum] Empire and Persia and the World War between Constantinople and Persia. To the South the Jewish Kingdom of Yemen has just been exterminated at time of his birth by Ethiopian Coptic Christians.
Mohamed’s singular achievement was reversing the Dark Ages in Arabia with Islam, and now in his name the Dark Ages are being bought to the Islamic World and all it borders. Right down to the Human Sacrifice by burning.
You might try pointing that out.
Reply
 

 rjosephhoffmann

 January 7, 2015 at 8:31 am 

You seem to know history up to 1to 1258. Islam’s dark ages followed its short but important golden era most of whose leading figures found a new audience in the west after they had been forgotten by Islam.
Reply
 
 

Pingback: [JH] Ο εξευτελισμός του Θεού: Το πραγματικό κόστος της ισλαμικής τρομοκρατίας | On the way to Ithaca
 
Leave a Reply
 
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...


















Gravatar












WordPress.com Logo





Twitter picture





Facebook photo





Google+ photo

















  


Topics
Uncategorized

Archives
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
  
Blog at WordPress.com.  |  The Book Lite Theme.
       













 
Follow

Follow “The New Oxonian”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

    

Build a website with WordPress.com
     

          







loading






















https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/humiliating-god-the-real-cost-of-islamic-terror/#comments

















Menu
Skip to content
Home♦
Books etc.♦
Comments and Moderation♦
Vita Brevis

The New Oxonian
Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient










Humiliating God: The Real Cost of Islamic Terror
Posted on January 3, 2015 by rjosephhoffmann
 


“From the time of John until now the kingdom of God has been under siege by violent men, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11.12).
There are Muslims who believe that Allah looked on approvingly in 2001–or however he counts time–when a few of his worshipers steered planes carrying businessmen and teachers, grandmothers and babies, into two high towers in New York City, killing another 2000 workers, secretaries, guards, cleaners, and sandwich vendors.
There are Muslims who believe that Allah condoned, if he did not order, the murder of 136 Muslim infants and a score of others in a primary school in Peshawar in December 2014.
There are Muslims who believe that the kidnapping, rape and forced marriages and conversions of 400 school girls in Nigeria is supported by scripture and reflects the will of God.
On December 30, to mark the new year, militants in Kurram Agency, Pakistan, incinerated two girls’ schools, bringing the total for such attacks to just over 1200 since 2010.
There is mounting evidence to suggest that Malaysian flight 370 and AirAsia 8501 (like the almost forgotten case of Egypt Air 990 in 1999) were downed by devout Muslim pilots who had become infected with a radical Muslim ideology and used their positions to kill foreigners.
The facts are the facts, and this barely skims the surface of the facts: the number of Muslims killed outside the Muslim world by non-Muslims is almost negligible. The number of Westerners killed by Muslims is growing, but still opportunistic and relatively small. The number of Muslims killing other Muslims is staggering: Eight times more Muslims are killed by co-religionists than non Muslims– with “Sunni”-based extremism counting for a little over 70% of the murders.
I am not concerned in this essay to lament the ignorance of people who believe that God created a six- day work week or made man from mud in order to be seduced into misconduct by a talking serpent. I don’t deny that it may be a short path between taking such stories literally and believing that you hear voices in the clouds or in the cave. Those beliefs may or may not have didactic value.
But Islam’s holy book the Qur’an is primarily didactic, different from the other books chiefly in the sheer number of exhortations—a long sermon divided into parts–rather than a string of stories, poems, prophecies and letters. Much of what is believed about God in the Bible comes through stories about people who believed in God, and not (may I add) with utter consistency or fidelity. Most of what the Qur’an has to say about God is simple exhortation, supported by stories, or allusions to stories, taken from prior tradition, but essentially contrived to distinguish between believers and non-believers.
I am pretty certain that beliefs that are interpreted as commands, or calls to action, do real damage: they affect lives, marriages, sexual freedom and corrupt and trivialize moral responsibility. They infect politics and hamper education. Given the extent to which religion (can) poison everything, to nick a phrase from the greatly missed Christopher Hitchens, it is no wonder that atheists believe that they have the moral high ground when it comes to knowing how to behave. I don’t grant this presumption, by the way. But given the choice between the number of innocent people killed by unbelievers in the last twenty years and the number killed through religious violence, give me the atheist track record any day.
But that is not the point of this essay. This essay is directed to religious murderers, arsonists, rapists and supporters of their violence. I have to mention (not because of some equal time requirement) that there are Jews who believe that somewhere in the remote past, according to a book they created for themselves, and fictions they now employ to establish their hegemony over a swath of Mediterranean coastal desert, they can bomb the ancestral inhabitants of the land into submission, build housing estates where they want, and raid houses and destroy property willy-nilly. And I have also to mention that there are Christians who believe that a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant should be required to deliver a baby; that abortion is murder because God said so, in one of his commandments (unattested) and that contraception interferes with God’s plan for creation. These ideas cannot be condemned as unbiblical because they are simply non-biblical: they are merely absurd. They are the toxic residue of a dogmatic past.
I do consider such beliefs to be dangerous. But the number of people holding them outside the most arid religious backwaters—Israel and Bible Belt, USA—is diminishing. To be accurate, there are many more Jews in the diaspora who do not agree with what Likud and Kadima Jews in Israel are doing. And there are many more Christians globally who are liberal about contraception, abortion and a range of other social and sexual matters than there are Christians who (largely in America) can’t get out from under the dogma pile. Within Israel, Jews do not slaughter other Jews, attack synagogues or schools, and there are few modern examples of Christians attacking and killing each other in the name of Christian orthodoxy. Catholics and Protestants have long since put their swords away. In Northern Ireland—the most recent example of infra-faith hostility–few people see the root causes of the “troubles” as primarily religious. It is political hostility left over from the colonial settlement and anti-Catholic policies of the British government in the seventeenth century. It is simply irrelevant to a discussion of religious violence in Islam.
Direct violence in religion, violence of the most egregious and murderous kind, is almost entirely confined to the Islamic world and is growing rather than contracting every month. As of the moment I am writing this article, the following events are taking place or have taken place within the last fortnight:
 014.12.30 (Tobruk, Libya) – Eleven are wounded when a suicide bomber detonates his device outside parliament.
 2014.12.29 (Taji, Iraq) – A Shahid suicide bomber decimates seventeen Shiite mourners at a funeral tent.
 2014.12.28 (Aleppo, Syria) – Two children are among six victims of am IS caliphate car bomb.
 2014.12.27 (Wardak, Afghanistan) – Fundamentalists send a rocket into a volleyball match, killing three participants.
 2014.12.27 (Mozogo, Cameroon) – Boko Haram burn down a village and slaughter at least thirty residents.
 2014.12.27 (Bhiri Sha Rehman, Pakistan) – An Ahmadi is shot in the head shortly after a TV preacher rails against the religious minority
 2015.1.03 At least 11 people were killed and six others were injured in Cameroon when Boko Haram militants opened fire on a bus.
As an important article by Ben Doherty in the Guardian recently explained, Muslim extremism mainly kills poor Muslims, not rich westerners. And as an equally significant summary of the now almost 25,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11, the early taxonomy of extremism as coming mainly from poor, dead-end, uneducated youth is part of a general mythology of the movement: While regional violence –e.g., Boko Haram in Nigeria or Al-Shabaab in Somalia– and indigenous tribal groups like the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan do tend to be populated by badly educated men from the poorer echelons of their societies, those who target the “far enemy” in the United States or parts of Europe, are in many respects the best and brightest in their country: “Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing –the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in [America], some believe they’re just plain evil… . Taking these perceived root causes in turn, three quarters of [those cases examined] came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority—90 percent—came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that’s usual for the developing world.”
Putting these incommensurables together, we can say that Islamic violence comes from both rich and poor quadrants of the Islamic world, from educated and uneducated sectors, and from mainly young, radicalized men who operate under the auspices of older sponsors and strategists. Attempts to find a “global” social explanation for this violence have proved fruitless.
The phenomenon is specifically rooted in a particular ideology based on an interpretation of a cherry-picked compact of verses gleaned from the Qur’an and Sunnah. Indeed, subscribers to this ideology would say that the word “interpretation” is inappropriate–that their program is actually mandated explicitly in scripture. We can point for example to these as indicative of a long litany of ayah (verses) that command the killing of unbelievers:
Qur’an (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
Qur’an (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
Qur’an (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made a great slaughter in the land….”
Violence in Islam is a religious position, not a condition forced on perpetrators by social exigency. Islam is unexcelled in the world as a sponsor of violence: Virtually no secular or competing religious power since 1945– with the partial exception of Stalinism, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and the Azuka massacre of the Tutsi in Rwanda– has done more to implement violence as an instrument of social change.
The primary victims of this program, which now include a vast spawn of copycats and informal alliances, are Muslims, with the Shia minority (thanks to imbecilic United States foreign adventurism in Iraq) forming a growing victim class. There is no effective legal or religious control mechanism available in Islam to cope with the spread of murder, rape, kidnapping and assault as religious acts. Sporadic denunciations of individual cases as “Unislamic” are not only ineffective but semantically inept; it is a ludicrous term which has no useful application outside the lexicon of beliefs and practices which are clearly forbidden by religious law and custom. To call the wanton murder of co-religionists “Unislamic” is as insipid as calling the Holocaust an aberration of true Nazism or the Inquisition a misinterpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. Worse, it is uniquely vulnerable to the claim that the majority of Muslims, soft in their ways, westernized or secularized beyond redemption, are themselves Unislamic. Isn’t that the whole point?
A social phenomenon is defined by its most explicit external characteristics, even if those characteristics are supplied by a zealous and lawless minority and not by a majority that merely observes, remains quiet, and rarely capitulates in acts of violence. The extent to which murder, as a matter of religious polity, has been quietly accepted by large numbers of Muslims, in the belief that a condemnation of the zealots is a form of capitulation to a threatening, uncomprehending, and mostly evil secular world, is one of the most tragic and predictable tropes in this saga. Everyone accepts that most Muslims are not murderers. That is hardly the point. The nagging question is why so many are, and why “good Muslims” are made to feel deficient in their faith by the zealots.
God the Problem: Who Defines Allāh?
But even if it is acknowledged that the primary victims of Islamic violence are Muslims, that the problem is not being solved by religious leaders or believers, and will not be solved by occasional denunciations which are offset by quiescent but real support for militancy and violence by a segment of the أمة‎–the Islamic community–we have still not come close to the core of the problem.
That core is stubbornly theological and has to be confronted. Its unexamined part is deceptively simple: it is not who defines Islam, but who defines God? And is the definition propagated by the actions of the religious infantries consonant with any worthy understanding of God?
The problem is aggravated by the fact that it is usually not Muslims who actively fight—or have to fight—“terrorists” in a systematic way. It is the armies and technology of foreigners, the traditional enemy, the Satan. In a mistaken sense of solidarity, many ordinary Muslims around the world simply regard the violence as a Western-induced problem that needs to be addressed forcibly and resolutely and are left confused about what their responsibility to the ummah actually is, since they find it impossible to cheer for the defenders of “democracy” and “freedom”—two words that numbers of people in the Islamic world look on with suspicion.
The confusion is amplified by the sermons of their intellectually malnourished and poorly read religious teachers and imams, especially in those countries where Friday sermons are not regulated by state censors. Muslims are often encouraged—or tempted—to think that a period of violence may be necessary before the reign of peace—the establishment of Islam as the universal religion—is completed. The beliefs are actually not Islamic but pasted onto belief in the ashratu’s-sa’ah (last days) from various sources including Christian eschatology. On a few occasions in Jewish and Christian history these apocalyptic ideas have dominated. They led in 70CE under the emperor Vespasian and again under Hadrian in 135 CE to the destruction of Jerusalem, a city whose messianic spasms had reached such a level that the Romans felt the only way to control the Jews was to burn their temple to the ground and erect one of their own in its place. Learning a quick lesson from what they witnessed, and whatever they might have taught originally, the nascent Christian movement quickly became a religion of peace and forgiveness, loving not just neighbors but enemies and strangers as well. Especially Romans.
However tempting the analogues, analogies are always partly true and completely false. Islam is specifically unlike Christianity and Judaism in two important respects: the core texts of the Islamic tradition have not gone through the hermeneutical processes that have affected the Old and New Testament since the sixteenth century. Beginning then, the Bible was subjected to rigorous historical, textual and archaeological assessment, the results of which are still being felt today. And secondly, calls for the restoration of Islam (as opposed to the reformation of Islam) usually are framed in romanticized and historically false ways that harken back to the bloodiest days of Islamic expansion between the seventh and ninth centuries of the common era, and just prior to a period of rapid intellectual development that came to a halt with the fall of Baghdad in 1258. While many well-educated Muslims appeal with real nostalgia to the so-called Golden Era of the Islamic renaissance, the truth is that renaissance soon gave way to regressive political forces and forms of religious puritanism that sealed Islam’s fate as a conservative, unprogressive, and largely introspective civilization.
Judaism was never an expansionist faith; its historical books show an embattled semi-theocracy fighting for its life and identity, without much success, against far stronger powers: its miracle is not “expansion” but survival. Christianity, on the other hand, while expansionist from the fifth century onward throughout Europe, succeeded by becoming an esoteric religion with a clearly defined religious hierarchy that promoted intellectualism in its higher ranks and ignorance among the laity. The belief in an all-encompassing “ummah” of believers, defined strictly by numbers and territory seized, was alien to the teaching of doctrine and the promotion of the Church and its sacraments as the exclusive way to salvation.
Islam did not go through the same phases of self-definition: Its holy book was never a serious matter for investigation. To believe in its unassailable sacred authority made one a Muslim; all other beliefs flowed from that status. Islam did not experience a Reformation, and the humanistic forces that created the Renaissance and the development of secular learning were largely foreign to its nature. In the West, learning triumphed over religion through the auspices of religious change. In Islam, resistance to change after the thirteenth century saw the deterioration of learning and the triumph of piety. For that reason, Christians and Jews in the twentieth and twenty-first century have not felt compelled to equate Judaism or “true Christianity” with the biblical world or the time of Jesus, as the reformers of the sixteenth century tried (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to do. The authority of the Bible has become negotiable occasional, and debatable. This situation contrasts sharply with the average Muslim’s belief that the Qur’an has indubitable authority, that the Prophet’s words and actions are worthy of imitation, and that there is no element of modern life that cannot be assessed and judged by reference to Islamic law or tradition.
For at least two millennia the soi disant “people of the book”—a curious Quranic construct thought (from time to time) to confer a kind of second-class family status on Christians and Jews (Q2.62; 22;17)– have strained to understand a God who is both righteous (just) and merciful. That balance has shifted between religions. In ancient Hebrew culture because of its tribal roots, the emphasis was on justice—often retributive or “pay-back” justice. But the Judaism of the time of Jesus had forsaken much of that under the strong influence of Hellenistic thought. Stoning was rare. Beheading and amputation were unheard of, and by the time of Jesus even judicial murder (e.g., crucifixion) was forbidden. Prophecy was dead, it was taught, after Malachi, but the tradition of the later prophets was that the God of judgment was a merciful and compassionate God who rewarded those who practiced humility and forgiveness.
The probable if indirect source for the Islamic profession of faith is the Hebrew Psalm 145.8 : חַנּ֣וּן וְרַח֣וּם יְהוָ֑ה אֶ֥רֶךְ אַ֝פַּ֗יִם וּגְדָל־חָֽסֶד׃ (The Lord God is merciful and compassionate; cf. بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ, the “bismalah”). There is nothing original or revolutionary in the Islamic profession of faith: Jesus’ invocation of the Shema Yisrael, already ancient (Deuteronomy 6.4-9) marks one of the few occasions where the New Testament asserts its unequivocal monotheism. “Jesus answered, “The foremost [law] is, ‘Hear O Israel, The Lord our God is one God, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with your entire mind, and with all your strength” (Matthew 22.36ff.).
The evolution of the idea of God as deal-maker, lawgiver and punisher to a God who operates more proportionately and lovingly towards his creation affected Judaism from the fourth century BCE until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Christianity was one effect of this evolution—by no means the only effect. There was nothing new about the teaching of Jesus except that he seemed to be closely tied to the teachings of Amos and Hosea and the idea of a God who was almost inexhaustibly patient, if still unarguably the judge of good and evil. Increasingly, however, as at the beginning of Islam, good and evil are given a social reading. Evil is in “men’s hearts.” It is what causes greed among merchants, oppression of the poor, the ostracism of the weak, the defenseless—widows, children, orphans, the ill—language which is almost lifted from one book to the other to create a tradition of fully conscientised texts completely unlike anything that had existed in religious literature before the time of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament writings.
The radical extension of this intellectual strain comes in the New Testament declaration (in the Johannine tradition) that God is love. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God.” (1 John 4.8). It has been suggested that in this one verse the vengeance of the Old Testament has been laid to rest: the grave has been dug. It is a paradigm shift from which religion would never recover, yet somewhat surprisingly it does not resurface in this radical form in Islam half a millennium later. Instead—for perfectly understandable reasons rooted in the nature of Muhammad’s time and culture –the God of vengeance and judgment reappears, along with the idea of a chosen people and the auxiliary idea of a deaf and blind people who do not do what God commands.
The message of Christianity is not totally obliterated in the Qur’an, though it is not prominent. God hates sin, but forgives it. He requires people to show mercy and generosity, but not with equanimity. The God of the Qur’an exercises restraint rather than expresses love. Like the god of Abraham, he is a god largely shaped in the desert places and not in the city—among the tribes rather than among the teachers. Although the early Muslim community was a tumultuous one, its aggressiveness has to be understood in terms of the social conditions and pressures that created it—in the same way that a newly empowered Christianity behaved badly in relation to pagans, Jews and dissenters (heretics) for the for the first thousand years of its legitimate existence. The issue here is not what violence (birth pangs, as the Bible describes such things) may have brought a religious community into existence but whether a return to that violence is ever conscionable.
The God of Then and Now
But that is history. This is now.
And my question now is, What image of God –regardless of the historical and largely man-made permutations of that image–explains killing children? Where in Qur’an or hadith do I find this?
Quote me no imams and rhyme me no rhymes or interpretations: Show me.
What concept of God entitles me to flog women on a whim, shoot schoolgirls in the head, disfigure my bride or fiancée; lop off her legs with a dull blade because she has been flirtatious? Kill my wife because she has “dishonored” me?
What God tells me to strap myself with explosives to kill infidels, blow up hotels, chop the heads off my fellow Muslims because they cannot recite Shehadah a certain way?
Tell me what God this is and I will say to you, without advanced philosophical argument:
Smash that god.
That god is an idol.
That god deserves to be torn from the altar of your vile imagination and trampled and pissed on. The god that commands these things is worse than any god worshiped by Muhammad’s pagan ancestors, more noxious that any god of any nation that threatened Abraham and his sons and descendants. The Egyptian gods were paragons of kindness by comparison. The human lives lost to the Babylonian and Hittite gods are a paltry statistic compared to the life that you sacrifice daily on the altar of this celestial jackal. The Canaanite bulls and the Dionysian man-whores were morally superior to the god you are calling the true God, the one you name Allah, but who has been entirely molded from an erotico-spiritual fantasy, a paradise of male pleasure-seekers being sexually satisfied in the gardens of the houri. There has been no god in the history of humanity whose orders are more contemptible, more undeserving of obedience, whose savants and teachers and leaders are more ignorant or more cowardly. Anyone who worships the god you worship is an enemy of truth, kindness, mercy and compassion. Anyone you kill in the name of this god dies a martyr, a saint. Anyone who agrees to your interpretation of a once noble faith contributes to its accelerating decline and spiritual death.
Side with this god and you are, to be blunt, siding with the power of evil. Become his devotee and hold up for the world to see the ugliest, time-deadened verses of a book that spoke to men of the eighth century, but not to our own. It is your choice to fashion this god out of this clay: there is better clay. There are better images.
Let the Qur’an grow out of its immaturity and become with the other sacred books a force for change in which the warrior cut-throat god of the ancient imagination becomes a god of peace, and not a remnant of a violent and bloody past. Let that god die, as Yahweh died. Let Allah, who is proclaimed to be merciful, relinquish the role you have assigned him–the role of an angry and abusive father-to become the god who loves and seeks love in return.
You—the men of violence—the beheaders, the burners, the warriors against love–are the true infidels, the real unbelievers.
For the real infidels believe–and have always believed–that the highest tribute they can pay to a being who reflects their passions and leaves them free to do harm is to call him god. The apostate is one who teaches that the god of the tribe, of unbridled revenge and hatred, is the true god. This god permits murder, stealing, rape and revenge. He hates learning, despises women and regards all those who do not share his hatreds as sinners. This is the beast the book religions before Muhammad knew as Mammon, as Asmodeus, as Belphegor— and a hundred other hideous names.
You-–the murderers, the killers of children–have stripped the true God of his names—the All-Merciful, the Pure, the Source of Peace, the Bountiful, the Shaper of Beauty. You have humiliated him in front of his own people and made him a laughing-stock to others. There is no sin greater than this and you are damned by it.
It is time for the courageous, the lovers of wisdom and justice and mercy to be honest about what has happened and what is happening: The God of the book is being stoned in the holy places while the faithful look on. And in his place, Satan sits enthroned and laughing.


About these ads

 
 


Share this:
Facebook6
Twitter2
Email
Reddit
Print







Related


Charlie and Ahmed
With 5 comments

The Theology of Regret: Making the Pope Say 'Sorry'
In "apology"

Deja Vu: How Tone Deaf Atheists and Blockheaded Muslim Haters Cost Lives
With 13 comments

Bookmark the permalink.
 
Post navigation
← Pedantic Multiculturalism
Humiliating God: The Real Cost of Islamic Terror →

10 thoughts on “Humiliating God: The Real Cost of Islamic Terror”


 threekidsandi

 January 3, 2015 at 4:08 pm 

Flogging women: Surah an Nisa, 4: 24.
 Killing those who commit zina: Suran an Nur, ayah 4, 5, 24. (eighty to a hundred lashes)
 Moharebeh is the act of committing crimes against Allah or His people. You left out all the executions carried out by Shariah governments (see Iran) against their and foreign citizens citing this as the reason. Again, Quran 5:33. This excuse is also utilized against non believers and the Ahmadiyya, as justification for murdering them. So Quran 5:33 is the justification for murdering children.
 As far as the honor issues you have mentioned, there are no justifications found in Quran for them. You might find some Hadith, but quoting Hadith at people just causes them to tell you such Hadith is not sahih (proven) in their madhab (sect)/opinion. Which means: ¨I am not that kind of Muslim.¨ Honor violence is found across the globe, and is not limited to Muslim countries. But Surah an Nisa ensures that it survives and is perpetuated in Islamic countries, since women are required to be subservient to, and maintained by, men. Surah an Nisa also gives men the right to own slaves and to rape them. Ultra misogyny.
 What is the consequence for Muslims who speak against the violent verses in the Quran? It is death. What is the consequence for Muslims who leave the faith? Death. Why? Because they had been believers, and now betray their community, prophet, and god. It is made quite clear in Quran 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66. Ever wonder why the dissenting voices are so few? This is why.
 So Muslims who believe and follow these verses do not have Shaitan in their hearts, but faith. Because they believe Quran to be Divine.
 I disagree completely that Early Muslims Had No Choice But To Slaughter Everyone Because Of The Times They Lived In. I am sick of hearing that. Surely those personally guided by the Angel Gabriel could have come up with better options, with their direct channel to God? This is the same reason ISIL gives today for their atrocities, that the times they live in leave them no choice. You are parroting them. They are not ¨returning to violence¨. It never stopped. When did it stop? Did you forget Africa?
 The problem is in the canonical text and this issue of Divinity, in my opinion. Apostasy is the answer, since there is no room for reinterpretation. If you do find Muslims reinterpreting, back them up. Their voices hold no weight in the rest of the Ummah.
 Thank you for your article, I appreciate the analysis and the depth.
Reply
 


 William

 January 3, 2015 at 5:28 pm 

There is a certain amount of indignation that wells up any time I’ve attempted to write about such things (albeit much less knowledgeably re religious studies). It frustrates me because I either fall short in expressing my position, or go too far and wax a tad rabid, spoiling any merit the comments may have had.
So, thanks for showing me how it’s properly done. Great piece, thundrous yet measured ending. Pretty awesome, actually.
Reply
 


 scotteus

 January 3, 2015 at 11:50 pm 

Reminds me of an old conversation with some Muslim friends on the difference between Jihad and Irjaf. This essay is of course a better explanation.
Reply
 

Pingback: Humiliating God: The Real Cost of Islamic Terror | The New Oxonian


 Graham Dunstan Martin

 January 5, 2015 at 11:22 am 

A wonderfully eloquent essay, with its heart and its moral compass exactly where they should be.
Let us look at the Islamic sect called the Wahhabis (dominant in Saudi Arabia). Unlike Rumi they detest wine and poetry. They are opposed to democracy, because it was invented by the pagan Greeks. They are antisemitic. They object to the use of reason in determining the rules of life. (Of course, if your region is irrational, then you’ll object to reason, won’t you?} They believe that it is a matter of concern to His Divine Majesty whether one enters or leaves the toilet by one’s left foot. They forbid music, dancing, TV (except religious), chess, picture of animals or humans, plays, fiction (which they define as “lying”). applause, the giving of flowers, eating or writing with the left hand, celebrating anyone’s birthday, a woman “drawing attention to herself” by laughing, a woman speaking to her fiancé on the telephone, etc. And of course in Saudi Arabia, women are hidden behind the deathlike darkness of the hijab. In short, Wahhabis forbid every normal human activity.
These dogmas are absurd, antihuman, and antidivine. For it is evident that the Deity Himself took care to richly populate the world with all those things which these Muslims reject! These attitudes are a throttling of the very impulses of life. This form of Islam is Satanic. And it breeds into the murderous cruelty at present rife in the Islamic world.
I wish I knew what we could do about it!
Reply
 

 Graham Dunstan Martin

 January 5, 2015 at 11:26 am 

I meant to write “If your religion is irrational …”
Reply
 
 


 aplinthjr

 January 5, 2015 at 11:42 am 

I’m a bit startled that after you yourself give a Qur’anic citation justifying violence (5:33) you challenge your readers “Where in Qur’an or hadith do I find this?” Also, those who use a handful of verses to justify their intolerance and violence cannot be accused of “cherry-picking.” One cannot challenge “quote me chapter & verse” and then when a specific chapter & verse is quoted levy the accusation of “cherry-picking.” That is equivalent to saying “Not every verse espouses violence, therefore no part of the Qur’an can be quoted to justify violence.” Even if only a tiny percentage of the Qur’an espouses violence, a reader is justified in quoting that percentage. That is one of the most serious problems with “infallible,” Literally-the-word-of-God sacred books: They can – justifiably – be used as the basis for almost any behavior, so long as a smidgen of support can be found in the text. Since all reading is interpretative, a smidgen of support can be found for just about anything.
As you said, Jews and Christians have to a large degree circumvented this problem by analyzing the offensive passages in the Bible into irrelevance. The passages are still there, but later ethical analysis has induced most Jews and Christians to ignore them – and accuse people who don’t ignore them of “cherry-picking.” The problem will not recede until Muslims do the same with the Qur’an. The sooner they do that, the less pain and suffering the world will have to endure.
Reply
 


 vxxc2014

 January 7, 2015 at 8:24 am 

What was the Problem the Merchant turned Prophet had to solve?
 The encroaching of The Dark Ages into Arabia on every side.
 He succeeded, Islam reversed the process and not only established a Civilization however imperfect, the Islamic world whatever else may be said escaped the Dark Ages, as did it’s conquered lands.
The Ignorant Mohamed speaks of were pagan Arabs, given to human sacrifice by burning, and client allies of the Persians. The followers of The Prophet were Christian Arabs allied with the Romans [Constantinople].
The Dark Ages are encroaching from every direction upon Arabia: within mass human sacrificing pagan Arabs aka the Ignorant [Jahil], to the north, east and West the consequences of the Western Empire’s collapse and the enormous World War and Civil Wars within the eastern Roman [aka Rum] Empire and Persia and the World War between Constantinople and Persia. To the South the Jewish Kingdom of Yemen has just been exterminated at time of his birth by Ethiopian Coptic Christians.
Mohamed’s singular achievement was reversing the Dark Ages in Arabia with Islam, and now in his name the Dark Ages are being bought to the Islamic World and all it borders. Right down to the Human Sacrifice by burning.
You might try pointing that out.
Reply
 

 rjosephhoffmann

 January 7, 2015 at 8:31 am 

You seem to know history up to 1to 1258. Islam’s dark ages followed its short but important golden era most of whose leading figures found a new audience in the west after they had been forgotten by Islam.
Reply
 
 

Pingback: [JH] Ο εξευτελισμός του Θεού: Το πραγματικό κόστος της ισλαμικής τρομοκρατίας | On the way to Ithaca
 
Leave a Reply
 
Enter your comment here...Enter your comment here...


















Gravatar












WordPress.com Logo





Twitter picture





Facebook photo





Google+ photo

















  


Topics
Uncategorized

Archives
April 2015
March 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
  
Blog at WordPress.com.  |  The Book Lite Theme.
       













 
Follow

Follow “The New Oxonian”

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 230 other followers

    

Build a website with WordPress.com
     

          







loading






















https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2015/01/03/humiliating-god-the-real-cost-of-islamic-terror/#comments


















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogPaul’s “Exceptional” Letter to the Romans 
  
5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 55 votes, average: 5.00 out of 55 votes, average: 5.00 out of 55 votes, average: 5.00 out of 55 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Paul’s “Exceptional” Letter to the Romans

I wanted to follow up on  a comment that I made in my last post about all of Paul’s letters being “occasional” (i.e., written to deal with certain situations that had arisen in his churches), with one partial exception: his letter to the Romans.  Now would be a good time to explain why Romans is the exception.   Here is what I say about the occasion and purpose of Romans in my  discussion of the book in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
********************************************************
In one important respect the letter to the Romans is unlike all of Paul’s other letters: it is written to a congregation that Paul did not establish, in a city that he had never visited (see 1:10-15).  Given what we have already seen about Paul’s sense of his apostolic mission, this should immediately give us pause.  Paul’s other letters were written to deal with problems that had arisen among those whom he had converted to faith in Christ.  That clearly is not the case here.  Why, though, would he be writing to someone else’s congregation (See Box 1)?
At least on the surface, Paul does not appear to be writing to resolve problems that he has heard about within the Roman church.  The issues that he discusses appear to relate instead to his own understanding of the Christian gospel.  This is clearly the case in chaps. 1-11; but even his exhortations in chaps. 12-15 are general in nature, not explicitly directed to problems specific to the Christians in Rome.  Nowhere, for example, does he indicate that he has learned of their struggles and that he is writing to convey his apostolic advice (contrast all of his other letters).  Is it possible then that he simply wants to expound some of his views and explain why he holds them?  This is possible, of course; but why would he want to do so for a church that he has never seen?
There may be some clues…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.  If you don’t belong yet, COME TO THE LIGHT!!!


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Lost Letters of Paul’s Opponents«
Why I Wish We Had More of Paul’s Letters»


13

MAR

2015

22
  
Comments
22  Comments
0  Trackbacks


gmatthews

gmatthews  March 13, 2015
I bought your text book as a Xmas gift to myself. I’ve read the sections on 1 + 2 Corinthians (among others that I cherry picked) and now reading this part on Romans it makes me wonder just how heavily edited Paul’s letters might be. You wrote that 2 Corinthians might be as many as 5 or 6 letters combined into one. Obviously if this is exactly true then there are probably large parts of some of those letters missing because I can’t see Paul writing a letter that only comes down to us as a few verses. In 2 Cor we get a letter that is basically “you and the itinerant preachers say X about me, but I say Y and I taught you Z”, but in Romans we only get one side of a discussion. Are we to assume that, if you are correct in that Paul is defending himself against their suspicions, that he writes a one-sided defense of that? By that I mean he doesn’t write something like “you may have heard X, but what I believe is Y”. In my reading Romans has always sounded like one long sermon that covers just about everything imaginable. Seems like if he was defending his views he might have said what the accusations were somewhere.
Would Paul have relied on subtlety to assume the Romans could read between the lines that he was justifying himself or do you think part of his original rhetoric was redacted?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 14, 2015
Yes, Paul is using an ancient form of rhetoric known as the “diatribe,” where he posits objections to his views and then responds. There is nothing in the book that makes it look like someone else has edited it.
Log in to Reply  
 



Scott  March 13, 2015
Correct me if I am wrong but in some of your writings you point to the advantages of the Roman congregation – wealth, bureaucratic skill and proximity to Imperial apparatus – as factors that led to Roman religious doctrine coming to dominate the church. Do we see here an indication that the Roman church was already exerting its influence? Or should Paul’s frequent dealings with the “Pillars” in Jerusalem tell us that Rome may have only regional influence at this point?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 14, 2015
I don’t think we see evidence of Roman christianity asserting its influence until a few decades later, in the letter of 1 Clement.
Log in to Reply  
 



MikeyS  March 13, 2015
Hi Bart.
We can take it then the Roman Church was essentially Jewish ie a Synagogue and as in other places, Paul was eager to bring in new Christian Converts, rather than convert the Jews to Christianity. The Roman Authorities allowed the Jews to worship and wonder how long it was before the ‘Christians’ began to be persecuted in Rome itself and whether they made any distinction between the existing Jews and the new converts? Indeed was there ever a stand alone Gentile Church at that time? Sounds pretty unlikely? So when Christians use Paul’s letters to the Romans as they did and do, I wonder how many realize he was actually writing to Jews mainly? All goes to prove that there is no ‘new’ Christian faith only the old Judaism that Jesus, his disciples and other Jews followed. I guess it broke apart with Paul’s teaching about circumcision and other Mosaic Laws. Jesus wouldn’t be best pleased in any NEW faith or indeed, the Trinity.
I wonder why Paul wanted to go back to Rome, knowing the danger by then, when he could easily have gone on to Spain and died in his bed? Oh wait a minute! He said, “to live is Christ and to die is gain”. So he really wanted to die a martyers death. I guess he really did get fed up with waiting for Jesus who failed to turn up?
As usual, thanks for that Bart which always leaves me with so many questions…I would have loved to be one of your students at UNC Chapel Hill.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 14, 2015
The Roman church appears to be predominantly gentile. What is making you think it was Jewish?
Log in to Reply  


MikeyS  March 15, 2015
I thought I read that most of the seven chuches were basically Jewish and Paul went to preach in them and at the same time encouraging gentiles to come and listen to his preaching etc. Indeed wasn’t Paul’s intention to save the Jews first and gentiles second? We also know the Romans allowed the Jews to continue to practice their faith and so why wouldn’t they have a pretty large Synagogue at the centre of the known civilized world of Rome?
Bart, are you saying there was TWO churches in these places? A jewish one and a founding Christian one? So who actually started the Christian Church in Rome being that most appeared not to embrace Paul’s teachings?
When the Christians started to be persecuted in Rome by Nero, did he make any distinction between the Jews and Christians because as we know, most Jews didn’t believe in Jesus’s doctrine or that he was God or the Messiah? Some people even think the Christians being fed to the Lions was a myth?
Hitchens told the story about a little Christian boy that saw a film about this and he started to cry his eyes out and his Mother comforted him asking him if he was OK and he said all the lions got a Christian to eat, except one!
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 16, 2015
There were probably multiple churches in Rome, since they all met in private homes. But the vast majority of those in Rome would have been gentile, as with the other churches Paul wrote (see 1:13 “the *rest* of the gentiles!)
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



dragonfly  March 14, 2015
Do we know what order Paul’s letters were written?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 14, 2015
Well, most people think 1 Thessalonians was first and Romans was last, and that 1 Corinthians preceded 2 Corinthians. But apart from that there is less certainty.
Log in to Reply  
 



gavm  March 14, 2015
This letter really must have had an effect on the Romans if they kept it and made copies. wouldn’t t be grt if we had more letters from Paul, and from other “Paul’s” going around founding churches. There is so much we will never know till that time machine boots up
Log in to Reply  



bobnaumann  March 14, 2015
Chapter 7 has always struck me as the writings of a deeply troubled man. Do you believe Paul was sexually repressed, possibly gay? And why on earth would he include this deeply personal confession in a letter of introduction?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 16, 2015
It’s a highly convoluted chapter. Many interpreters do not think it’s actually about Paul’s personal guilt and anxiety at all (though it at first reads the way), but about what life is like for the person who is still “under sin.”
Log in to Reply  


bobnaumann  March 17, 2015
I think they just don’t want to admit that Paul had some personal problems.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



David  March 15, 2015
Do the authentic Pauline letters have a certain writing style that would be recognized by a seasoned New Testament scholar? How does it compare to the styles of some of the pseudepigraphal letters?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 16, 2015
Yes indeed — that is part of what’s involved in deciding which ones were not written by Paul. See my book Forged — or even better, the longer version, Forgery and Counterforgery.
Log in to Reply  
 



dhiggs  March 15, 2015
Bart: do you really think that the “greetings” Paul sends in Chapter 16 are to Christians in Rome as alluded to in “The Bible?” Have Prisca and Aquila emigrated from Ephesus and formed a church back in Rome from which they earlier had fled? And Epaenetus, the first convert in Asia has now moved to Rome? Mary who has worked very hard among you? And I really have to add vs 13, “Greet Rufus…and his mother, a mother to me also. With all of these compatriots (27 by name and others by reference) now moved from Asia (maybe) Ephesus (probably) to Rome surely the Roman church should know quite a lot about the Apostle Paul. I believe 16:1-16 is “Paul’s Letter to Ephesus.” Perhaps it got attached to the copy of Romans which the collector(s) of Paul’s letters had when they made their compilation. PS: I really have enjoyed both “How Jesus Became God” and “The Bible” since my return from the Seminar at Sea in January.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 16, 2015
Yes, Harry Gamble wrote a book that pretty convincingly showed that Romans 16 was original to the letter, not part of a letter to Ephesus.
Log in to Reply  
 

talitakum

talitakum  March 16, 2015
Besides all your books on Jesus, I always had the impression that you have an high opinion of Paul. Actually, the last section of this post is one of the best (short) exegesis of Rom. that I ever read. In my opinion it could even be well used for sermons. Educated and informed sermons would lead to a more mature and solid faith, I really don’t know why apparently Christian churches can’t understand it: they just complain and keep losing believers.
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  March 20, 2015
Thanks for the explanation of “diatribe”?
Log in to Reply  



gabilaranjeira  March 23, 2015
Is it known who established the church in Rome?
Thanks!
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 23, 2015
No, I”m afraid it’s not — other than that it was not Paul and almost certainly was not Peter! My guess is that since so many people traveled from and to Rome, some converts arrived there and started converting others, etc.
Log in to Reply  
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-exceptional-letter-to-the-romans/

















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogPaul’s “Exceptional” Letter to the Romans 
  
5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 55 votes, average: 5.00 out of 55 votes, average: 5.00 out of 55 votes, average: 5.00 out of 55 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Paul’s “Exceptional” Letter to the Romans

I wanted to follow up on  a comment that I made in my last post about all of Paul’s letters being “occasional” (i.e., written to deal with certain situations that had arisen in his churches), with one partial exception: his letter to the Romans.  Now would be a good time to explain why Romans is the exception.   Here is what I say about the occasion and purpose of Romans in my  discussion of the book in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.
********************************************************
In one important respect the letter to the Romans is unlike all of Paul’s other letters: it is written to a congregation that Paul did not establish, in a city that he had never visited (see 1:10-15).  Given what we have already seen about Paul’s sense of his apostolic mission, this should immediately give us pause.  Paul’s other letters were written to deal with problems that had arisen among those whom he had converted to faith in Christ.  That clearly is not the case here.  Why, though, would he be writing to someone else’s congregation (See Box 1)?
At least on the surface, Paul does not appear to be writing to resolve problems that he has heard about within the Roman church.  The issues that he discusses appear to relate instead to his own understanding of the Christian gospel.  This is clearly the case in chaps. 1-11; but even his exhortations in chaps. 12-15 are general in nature, not explicitly directed to problems specific to the Christians in Rome.  Nowhere, for example, does he indicate that he has learned of their struggles and that he is writing to convey his apostolic advice (contrast all of his other letters).  Is it possible then that he simply wants to expound some of his views and explain why he holds them?  This is possible, of course; but why would he want to do so for a church that he has never seen?
There may be some clues…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.  If you don’t belong yet, COME TO THE LIGHT!!!


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Lost Letters of Paul’s Opponents«
Why I Wish We Had More of Paul’s Letters»


13

MAR

2015

22
  
Comments
22  Comments
0  Trackbacks


gmatthews

gmatthews  March 13, 2015
I bought your text book as a Xmas gift to myself. I’ve read the sections on 1 + 2 Corinthians (among others that I cherry picked) and now reading this part on Romans it makes me wonder just how heavily edited Paul’s letters might be. You wrote that 2 Corinthians might be as many as 5 or 6 letters combined into one. Obviously if this is exactly true then there are probably large parts of some of those letters missing because I can’t see Paul writing a letter that only comes down to us as a few verses. In 2 Cor we get a letter that is basically “you and the itinerant preachers say X about me, but I say Y and I taught you Z”, but in Romans we only get one side of a discussion. Are we to assume that, if you are correct in that Paul is defending himself against their suspicions, that he writes a one-sided defense of that? By that I mean he doesn’t write something like “you may have heard X, but what I believe is Y”. In my reading Romans has always sounded like one long sermon that covers just about everything imaginable. Seems like if he was defending his views he might have said what the accusations were somewhere.
Would Paul have relied on subtlety to assume the Romans could read between the lines that he was justifying himself or do you think part of his original rhetoric was redacted?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 14, 2015
Yes, Paul is using an ancient form of rhetoric known as the “diatribe,” where he posits objections to his views and then responds. There is nothing in the book that makes it look like someone else has edited it.
Log in to Reply  
 



Scott  March 13, 2015
Correct me if I am wrong but in some of your writings you point to the advantages of the Roman congregation – wealth, bureaucratic skill and proximity to Imperial apparatus – as factors that led to Roman religious doctrine coming to dominate the church. Do we see here an indication that the Roman church was already exerting its influence? Or should Paul’s frequent dealings with the “Pillars” in Jerusalem tell us that Rome may have only regional influence at this point?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 14, 2015
I don’t think we see evidence of Roman christianity asserting its influence until a few decades later, in the letter of 1 Clement.
Log in to Reply  
 



MikeyS  March 13, 2015
Hi Bart.
We can take it then the Roman Church was essentially Jewish ie a Synagogue and as in other places, Paul was eager to bring in new Christian Converts, rather than convert the Jews to Christianity. The Roman Authorities allowed the Jews to worship and wonder how long it was before the ‘Christians’ began to be persecuted in Rome itself and whether they made any distinction between the existing Jews and the new converts? Indeed was there ever a stand alone Gentile Church at that time? Sounds pretty unlikely? So when Christians use Paul’s letters to the Romans as they did and do, I wonder how many realize he was actually writing to Jews mainly? All goes to prove that there is no ‘new’ Christian faith only the old Judaism that Jesus, his disciples and other Jews followed. I guess it broke apart with Paul’s teaching about circumcision and other Mosaic Laws. Jesus wouldn’t be best pleased in any NEW faith or indeed, the Trinity.
I wonder why Paul wanted to go back to Rome, knowing the danger by then, when he could easily have gone on to Spain and died in his bed? Oh wait a minute! He said, “to live is Christ and to die is gain”. So he really wanted to die a martyers death. I guess he really did get fed up with waiting for Jesus who failed to turn up?
As usual, thanks for that Bart which always leaves me with so many questions…I would have loved to be one of your students at UNC Chapel Hill.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 14, 2015
The Roman church appears to be predominantly gentile. What is making you think it was Jewish?
Log in to Reply  


MikeyS  March 15, 2015
I thought I read that most of the seven chuches were basically Jewish and Paul went to preach in them and at the same time encouraging gentiles to come and listen to his preaching etc. Indeed wasn’t Paul’s intention to save the Jews first and gentiles second? We also know the Romans allowed the Jews to continue to practice their faith and so why wouldn’t they have a pretty large Synagogue at the centre of the known civilized world of Rome?
Bart, are you saying there was TWO churches in these places? A jewish one and a founding Christian one? So who actually started the Christian Church in Rome being that most appeared not to embrace Paul’s teachings?
When the Christians started to be persecuted in Rome by Nero, did he make any distinction between the Jews and Christians because as we know, most Jews didn’t believe in Jesus’s doctrine or that he was God or the Messiah? Some people even think the Christians being fed to the Lions was a myth?
Hitchens told the story about a little Christian boy that saw a film about this and he started to cry his eyes out and his Mother comforted him asking him if he was OK and he said all the lions got a Christian to eat, except one!
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 16, 2015
There were probably multiple churches in Rome, since they all met in private homes. But the vast majority of those in Rome would have been gentile, as with the other churches Paul wrote (see 1:13 “the *rest* of the gentiles!)
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



dragonfly  March 14, 2015
Do we know what order Paul’s letters were written?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 14, 2015
Well, most people think 1 Thessalonians was first and Romans was last, and that 1 Corinthians preceded 2 Corinthians. But apart from that there is less certainty.
Log in to Reply  
 



gavm  March 14, 2015
This letter really must have had an effect on the Romans if they kept it and made copies. wouldn’t t be grt if we had more letters from Paul, and from other “Paul’s” going around founding churches. There is so much we will never know till that time machine boots up
Log in to Reply  



bobnaumann  March 14, 2015
Chapter 7 has always struck me as the writings of a deeply troubled man. Do you believe Paul was sexually repressed, possibly gay? And why on earth would he include this deeply personal confession in a letter of introduction?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 16, 2015
It’s a highly convoluted chapter. Many interpreters do not think it’s actually about Paul’s personal guilt and anxiety at all (though it at first reads the way), but about what life is like for the person who is still “under sin.”
Log in to Reply  


bobnaumann  March 17, 2015
I think they just don’t want to admit that Paul had some personal problems.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



David  March 15, 2015
Do the authentic Pauline letters have a certain writing style that would be recognized by a seasoned New Testament scholar? How does it compare to the styles of some of the pseudepigraphal letters?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 16, 2015
Yes indeed — that is part of what’s involved in deciding which ones were not written by Paul. See my book Forged — or even better, the longer version, Forgery and Counterforgery.
Log in to Reply  
 



dhiggs  March 15, 2015
Bart: do you really think that the “greetings” Paul sends in Chapter 16 are to Christians in Rome as alluded to in “The Bible?” Have Prisca and Aquila emigrated from Ephesus and formed a church back in Rome from which they earlier had fled? And Epaenetus, the first convert in Asia has now moved to Rome? Mary who has worked very hard among you? And I really have to add vs 13, “Greet Rufus…and his mother, a mother to me also. With all of these compatriots (27 by name and others by reference) now moved from Asia (maybe) Ephesus (probably) to Rome surely the Roman church should know quite a lot about the Apostle Paul. I believe 16:1-16 is “Paul’s Letter to Ephesus.” Perhaps it got attached to the copy of Romans which the collector(s) of Paul’s letters had when they made their compilation. PS: I really have enjoyed both “How Jesus Became God” and “The Bible” since my return from the Seminar at Sea in January.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 16, 2015
Yes, Harry Gamble wrote a book that pretty convincingly showed that Romans 16 was original to the letter, not part of a letter to Ephesus.
Log in to Reply  
 

talitakum

talitakum  March 16, 2015
Besides all your books on Jesus, I always had the impression that you have an high opinion of Paul. Actually, the last section of this post is one of the best (short) exegesis of Rom. that I ever read. In my opinion it could even be well used for sermons. Educated and informed sermons would lead to a more mature and solid faith, I really don’t know why apparently Christian churches can’t understand it: they just complain and keep losing believers.
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  March 20, 2015
Thanks for the explanation of “diatribe”?
Log in to Reply  



gabilaranjeira  March 23, 2015
Is it known who established the church in Rome?
Thanks!
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 23, 2015
No, I”m afraid it’s not — other than that it was not Paul and almost certainly was not Peter! My guess is that since so many people traveled from and to Rome, some converts arrived there and started converting others, etc.
Log in to Reply  
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-exceptional-letter-to-the-romans/












Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogNew Boxes on Problematic Social Values in the New Testament 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



New Boxes on Problematic Social Values in the New Testament

I have been posting some of the new “boxes” that will appear in the sixth edition of my textbook.  These boxes are meant either to raise interesting historical issues that are somewhat tangential to the main discussion or to broach complex issues without easy solution that are meant to force students to think for themselves.     I include two such boxes here in this post – the first is a new one for the sixth edition, but I thought it would be interesting to pair it with a somewhat related topic drawn from a post already in the fifth edtiion.  Both boxes have to do with the New Testament and social realities of its day – the early Christian approbation of the institution of slavery and Jesus’ teachings that run precisely contrary to what today we might think of as solid family values.
****************************************************************
 Box 22.12  What Do You Think?
The New Testament and Slavery
 Many people who read the book of Philemon simply assume that Paul writes the letter in order to urge Philemon to set his slave Onesimus free.  After all, slavery is, and was, a horrible institution, and surely the apostle would have done everything in his power in order to try to abolish it.  Right?
Unfortunately, when you look closely at Paul’s letter, you will not find a word against slavery as an institution or any instruction for Philemon to set his slave – or any of his slaves – free.  How could that be?
As it turns out, slavery is…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.  If you don’t belong yet, ARE YOU WAITING FOR CHRISTMAS???


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







New Boxes Related to Literary Forgery and the NT«
New Boxes on Jesus as God in the NT»


30

OCT

2014

45
  
Comments
45  Comments
0  Trackbacks




rivercrowman  October 30, 2014
Bart, thanks for sharing these “boxes.” … Both of them are new to me, as I’m just a proud owner of your Third Edition.
Log in to Reply  



seamus  October 30, 2014
One thing that has always bothered me was when Jesus told a brand-new disciple that he (the disciple) must leave immediately to follow Jesus, without making arrangements (or even saying goodbye?) to his wife and children. Presuming that the disciple was the breadwinner for his family, such abandonment put his family in almost certain poverty.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
Serious poverty indeed. Starvation, I should think.
Log in to Reply  
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  October 30, 2014
Over the years I’ve recognized the same comments about Jesus concerning “family values”. Could these statements be viewed as a dismissive attitude towards marriage in general (in light of the coming kingdom, ie., his disciples and followers should be focused on the imminent arrival of the kingdom) and therefore a point in favor of Jesus not being married himself? He seems a tad hypocritical otherwise.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
Yup, possibly so. That’s my take on it, any way. (Though he also opposes divorce for those who *are* married)
Log in to Reply  
 

Matilda

Matilda  October 30, 2014
Well, I think Jesus was/is part myth, part fable, part zealot, part nutcase. As for family values, the entire Bible is so anti family, anti woman, anti compassion, anti humanity, that issues like slavery and family values don’t even register on its ethical scale. God is too busy smiting and being angry that he has no time for family values. Jesus as his right hand man/son is too busy trying to enforce God’s will (i.e. Jewish law) that he just ends up angry, frustrated, and ultimately stifled.
 The part about Jesus and God being loving, and compassionate is just spin to satisfy the needs of the devoted.
 Any God or God Son combination who can watch people suffer and starve and then castigate them with eternal damnation- well I can’t believe in that kind of God.
 Jesus was a man of his day and in his day stoning was okay, slavery was okay, and devotion to an angry God was okay. There you have it- the gospel according to Matilda!
Log in to Reply  



fishician  October 31, 2014
When you ask Christians about the Bible’s stance on slavery you invariably hear a song-and-dance about how Biblical slavery was really “slavery-lite” or more of an indentured servitude as if that was a good thing. I wish I would simply hear from believers “Slavery is a terrible thing and should never be condoned!” But because the Bible is so accepting of slavery as an institution believers can’t oppose it without opposing what their “inspired” Scriptures say. How sad. Glad I finally woke up to this hypocrisy.
Log in to Reply  



Jason  October 31, 2014
So is all the tension in the “Family Values” box really set up between generations? Was Jesus just a mouthy punk in these instances-albeit the one that certain authority figures today would have us recognize as the first and last we should listen to?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
A mouthy punk??? No, I don’t think so. His apocalyptic message would bring rifts to families. I don’t think this saying goes back to Jesus, but was formulated in the community that emerged in his wake, among people who had left their natural families to make the Christian family their own family.
Log in to Reply  


Jason  November 1, 2014
I guess the Lk10/Mt12/Mk2 examples make it seem as though this is a very generational conflict-look how it’s father vs. son, mother vs. daughter and daughter in law, old vs. new. It does kind of seem like the kind of internal story modern cults tell themselves to ease the transition from one dependency to another.
Log in to Reply  



spiker  February 13, 2015
This is intriguing. How would an apocalyptic “hate your family” fit with Honor thy Father and Mother or the sentiment of Man is lord of the Sabbath? I don’t think we can dismiss that He may simply have been inconsistent or conflicted: under normal circumstances sentiments reflected in Love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind and honoring your parents may have been compatible to the extent that you could do both but an increasing belief in the “immanence of the kingdom” eventually forces a conflict. This is first you have a complimentary set of sentiments that come into conflict later and MAYBE we have to look instead at different points in his life for consistencies.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  February 13, 2015
Yes, that’s entirely possible!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Kevin Nelson  October 31, 2014
Philemon 21: “Confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say.” I’ve always understood that as a diplomatic way of saying Philemon should free Onesimus–do you not think so? It sounds very consistent with Paul’s style of sometimes making demanding requests in a rather indirect fashion. For example, I’d compare it to II Corinthians 9:1–10, where instead of saying anything like “you MUST give” he says things like “Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” And in the ancient world, asking someone to free their slave would have been a hugely demanding request. I think it would have been quite bold to make such a request at all, even indirectly.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
No, I think if he wanted Philemon to free him, he would have said so. I think he’s asking him to give Onesimus to himself (Paul) as a gift, to serve him in his mission. He never expresses any opinion opposed to slavery.
Log in to Reply  


Kevin Nelson  November 1, 2014
Well, you’re certainly right that Paul nowhere expresses any opposition to slavery in general. But I’m not convinced by your interpretation of the letter to Philemon. So you think Paul would have been willing to say “you should free Onesimus” directly, but he wouldn’t have been willing to say “give me Onesimus” directly? Why the difference? The only thing Paul really asks Philemon to do directly is to welcome back Onesimus without punishing him, but it’s clear Paul is hoping for something more. One hint as to what that something else might be is in 15–16: “Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother.” Note the wording is not “no longer as JUST a slave” or anything like that.
I think the flow of the letter also supports my interpretation. In 17–20, Paul urges Philemon to welcome Onesimus back without punishing him. Then, in 21, he makes his oblique request for “even more” (hyper ha lego). Freeing Onesimus would certainly go beyond merely refraining from punishing him. Giving Onesimus to Paul, on the other hand, would be a favor of a different sort–it would not be an extrapolation of “welcome Onesimus back.”
Finally, it strikes me as strange for Paul to send Onesimus out on a possibly lengthy and difficult journey to Philemon, only to want him sent right back. If Paul wanted to keep Onesimus as his own slave, it seems more likely that he would have written to Philemon without sending Onesimus in person.
My feeling is that Paul preferred for Christians not to keep other Christians as slaves, but he chose to press the point very softly. From our perspective today, of course we wish he’d made a stronger statement. On the other hand, if Christianity had become known as an anti-slavery movement, the imperial authorities would have become ten times more determined to crush it. Paul’s soft-pedalling of the issue may be understandable for that reason alone.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 1, 2014
My sense is that readers today who find slavery abhorrent have difficulty understanding how an ancient writer of such high moral standing as Paul *also* would not have seen it as abhorrent, and so they read their abhorrence into the text. Ancient people simply didn’t think like us. Slavery was an accepted institution. Remember that in the later Pauline letters slaves are told to be fully obedient to their masters and masters are told, not to free their slaves, but to treat them well. No one urged them to be set free.
Log in to Reply  


Kevin Nelson  November 2, 2014
I agree, of course, that ancient people didn’t think like us. On the other hand, we know that Paul himself thought about a lot of things very differently than his own contemporaries did. Few people in the first-century Mediterranean would have expressed a sentiment like “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” It’s only one small step beyond that to say there should be no slavery in the church, though taking that step in practice would have been hugely difficult.
It seems pretty clear that in Paul’s day, most Christians were people of modest means. I think only a few of them could have had slaves. If Paul had urged those few to free their slaves, the general answer would have been “no,” and Paul himself would have to have known that. He may have feared driving off key converts and causing dissension in the church. At the same time, he could have dropped careful hints with slaveholders he judged to be favorably inclined, which is exactly what I think he did with Philemon.
I’m not sure which “later Pauline letters” you have in mind…are you thinking about Colossians and Ephesians? If you regard those as forgeries, I don’t think you can hold Paul himself responsible for them! Maybe you’re thinking of I Corinthians 7:21, “Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.” But that’s hardly an endorsement of slavery–an exhortation for slaves to make the best of their situation is consistent with a preference for Christians not to have slaves at all. And I think he would only have mentioned the possibility of slaves being freed if he had taken that possibility seriously. It sounds like he didn’t want to tantalize slaves with the prospect of being freed, but at the same time he didn’t want to deny it very well might happen. So we have to ask: If there was a real possibility of Christian slaves being freed, why was that? If hints were circulating in the early church that it was best for Christians not to hold fellow Christians in slavery, then we have an explanation.
It’s clear that Paul was prepared to tolerate quite a bit of behavior he regarded as less than ideal (“better to marry than to burn,” and so on). I think his attitude towards Christian slaveholding was just another example. I agree with you that it would be a vast overstatement to say he found slavery abhorrent. He probably regarded pagan slaveholding as not his concern at all (“What have I to do with judging those outside?”). More generally, he wasn’t terribly interested in any sort of overall social reform. After all, he believed the appointed time had grown short. But with regard to slavery specifically, I think he was at least moving in the right direction.
 

Bart

Bart  November 2, 2014
Yes, my point about Ephesians and Colossians is simply that within the Pauline tradition slavery was affirmed, not condemend.
 
 
 



simonelli  November 4, 2014
In a way even Jesus has slaves in Ephesians 4:7-8 and verses 11,12. (NASB)
 I believe that these four verses should be read together omitting verses 9,10 because these two verses are a diversion inserted in a later date by the enemy of Christianity. You be the judge as you read them now: “But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, when He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men. (11-12) And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers. For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” Just consider this: the apostles Peter, Paul, James, etc., all identified themselves in the epistles as bondservants of God, or prisoners of Christ Jesus, in other words “captives or slaves.”
Log in to Reply  
 
 



yes_hua  October 31, 2014
As for slavery, there are two major apologetic (Christian and Jewish) dodges that I hear. The first is that Jewish slavery was not that bad, more of an employer/employee relationship. Then why does there need to be laws concerning what do if you have beaten your slave to death or only nearly so? We don’t make laws about acts that aren’t occurring (for the most part). The second, and my favorite, is that slavery was a major part of the culture so God wouldn’t have made a law to so upset their way of life. What??? That’s PRECISELY what God does. Rules concerning ritual and dietary purity, the abolition of child sacrifice, not visiting temple prostitutes, heck, not worshipping other gods–but Yahweh thinks that owning another human being as property is a fight he cannot win? Isn’t this what the “thou shalt not”s are supposed to do, change the culture? Am I wrong here or are the apologists admitting that God’s laws come from society and not the other way around? Good addition to the textbook, which I appreciate in a prior edition. Thanks for including the new boxes here.
Log in to Reply  



Richard  October 31, 2014
It’s common knowledge that in the antebellum south, many slave owners had sexual relations their female “property”. No doubt, this happened in the first century to slaves who converted to Christianity, even by some Christian slave owners. The NT is silent on this subject though we know aspects of perceived sexual immorality were condemned. Was this subject ever address by post-NT writers? Or did the mind-set of the time assume this was the norm and part and parcel of obeying their masters “in everything”?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
No, it’s not discussed in any ealry Christian source that I’m aware of.
Log in to Reply  
 



joks  October 31, 2014
Dr. Ehrman
 Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-12, and Luke 16:18 all record Jesus’ adamant rejection of divorce.
 If we accept the fact that a two parent family is good for society, then wouldn’t this stand somewhat in opposition to
 the statement that Jesus was not that concerned with familial or societal institutions? Since divorce and remarriage are such a controversial topic in the Catholic Church, I would be interested in your answer to my questions above and also in why you think Jesus made such a strong statement on divorce.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
He certainly was opposed to divorce. At the same time, he required his male followers to leave their spouses — and therefore not to provide any financial support for them; in other words, the families of his disciples, necessarily, would have been forced to live in abject poverty. How these two views can be reconciled, I don’t know.
Log in to Reply  


simonelli  November 4, 2014
Dr. Ehrman, There is not need to leave family to follow Jesus, But there is a devotional sacrifice of worship to God which is an exceptional way of self-denial to get closer to our Lord, for we read in 1Corinthians 7:32-38: “But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.
 34 And the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
 35 And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly, and to secure SOME BELIEVERS FOR AN undivided devotion to the Lord.
 36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly towards his CELIBACY, if he should be of full age, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let HIM marry.
 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own BODY, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own BODY CHASTE, he will do well.
 38 So then both he who gives his own BODY in marriage does well, BUT he who does not give HIMSELF in marriage will do better.”
As you can see, the last four verses 35-38, with the inserted Italics are the obvious restorations needed, which enable us to understand the connection and the true intended meaning of the previous verses of 32-34. Thus if any person, male or female, is willingly prepared and able to freely undertake the sacrifice of celibacy as their sacrifice of worship, that sacrifice is acceptable to God, this is confirmed in Matthew 19:10-12: “The disciples said to Him, ‘If the relation-ship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.’ But He said to them, ‘Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this let him accept it.’”
Log in to Reply  


jcrowl  November 13, 2014
Why don’t you take your spin elsewhere?
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Michael  November 1, 2014
Recently of course there has been huge focus by the fundamentalist and others attacking homosexuals by quoting the Bible or by arguing it’s a choice of behavior. There are 4 main verses that get thrown around and a few others where the topic may or may not be male/male relations. All that hate and bigotry over a few verses, none of them spoken by Jesus.
Meanwhile you have whole chapters in the OT dealing with slavery. The NT also gives support to it. I understand that there are grey areas in all of this. Racial Slavery was only one small piece of ancient slavery. None the less, the Bible still gives more support to an institution we only out grew in very recent history.
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  November 1, 2014
I’m not an apologist for Jesus. *But*…
As I understand it, the only disciple specifically said to have been married was Peter. Could the others have been young unmarried men, free to traipse off with him precisely because they *didn’t* have any family responsibilities?
Also, isn’t it possible that he really didn’t “call” them, but they attached themselves to him…perhaps, in some cases, when he tried to dissuade them?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 2, 2014
Well, even though not every Jewish man was married, most were; it seems unlikely that Jesus could round up eleven who weren’t! And he does talk about his disciples having to leave their children to follow him (Mark 10:29 for example).
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  November 3, 2014
I didn’t know about that. And when I think about it, I remember that Galileans in that era tended to marry young – the men, at about eighteen.
But might there still be something to this possibility? Jesus – for whatever reason – had trekked down to Judea to hear John the Baptist preach. Might the apocalyptic ideas he brought back with him actually have been *new* – revolutionary! – in rural Galilee? If so, it might have been the *youngest* males who were the most open-minded, lapped up everything he was saying, and became disciples.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 4, 2014
My sense is that apocalyptic ideas were pretty widespread at the time. The other problem is that there’s no evidence to suggest that his followers were all late teenagers or the like….
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



rbrtbaumgardner  November 2, 2014
For the sake discussion let’s say Philemon did free Onesimus. How would have Onesimus fared as a freed slave in his society?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 2, 2014
Depends on what kind of work he could land. Sometimes slaves were much better off than free people.
Log in to Reply  
 



FrankJay71  November 3, 2014
What about 1 Timothy 10? Slave traders seem to be condemned along with the sexually immoral and other sinners. Is there a nuance that distinguished slavery and the practice of slave trading?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 4, 2014
I’m not sure which passage you’re referring to. 1 Timothy has only 6 chapters.
Log in to Reply  


FrankJay71  November 4, 2014
Oops. I meant 1 Timothy 1:10.
 From the NIV:
” for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine”
The verse doesn’t specifically condemn slavery, but it seems to equate slave traders with other sinners.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 5, 2014
Yes, I’m afraid that “slave traders” is not exactly what the text says. The word that is used ANDROPODISTOS is rare. Well, “rare” is a bit generous. So far as I know, it never occurs anywhere else in any Greek text. It is usually thought that a *similar* word refers to someone who is captured in war and made a slave. So ANDROPODISTOS may mean someone who takes a prisoner of war and makes him a slave. Or it may mean a “kidnapper.” Or something else. No one really knows. 1 Timothy would be saying that people like that (whatever “that” is) is unholy. But that would not apply to someone who simply has family slaves.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



simonelli  November 4, 2014
Dr. Ehrman.. You are missing the obvious: one became a slave of another if he owed money to him; the modern day slaves are those who must repay a mortgage to a bank, and if you default they will sale the shirt off your back. Another way to became a slave to another, if the man has saved your life, that is how Russel became a slave in the film “Gladiator”. And then there are the slaves of the state: those were who committed small crimes, today we condemn criminals to hard labour. The prisoners of war also became slaves to make reparation for the damage they caused. In the last WW2. Japan, Germany and Italy had to pay reparation to the allied forces. Nothing has changed, look around in the world, we might have come to use a more humane system but the result is the same . Pay-up or else.
 Now, do I have to hate everyone of my family to be worthy of the kingdom of God: no, of cause not, it would be a contradiction of Christianity. So what is required from a would be Christian? The hate is not directed at the person, but it is directed at the fleshly nature in them, therefore you need to be kind to them in order to change them to the character of Christ. You must hate their character by presenting the other cheek.
 Professor, you look on those things with critical darken fleshly eyes: God is Holy let it be your light. Just saying.
Log in to Reply  


jcrowl  November 13, 2014
We really don’t need your propaganda..take it elsewhere please
Log in to Reply  
 

talitakum

talitakum  November 5, 2014
Regarding “family values”. It seems to me that the role of the father and his love for his sons looks important for Jesus – who calls God “abba”, tells the Parable of the prodigal son and uses father’s love for his sons as an analogy of God’s love for men. Also, he accuses those who don’t help their mothers and fathers with the “excuse” of Korban. In this perspective, could it be that the future kingdom is important without nullifying the positive values and the importance of family relationships?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 5, 2014
Yes, there seems to be contradictory evidence from Jesus. Why does he tell his followres that they have to “hate” their father and mother if they are going to come after him? It is really difficult to reconcile all this.
Log in to Reply  
talitakum

talitakum  November 5, 2014
Thank you, I appreciate the fact that, as an historian, you didn’t try to resolve the contradiction by saying that “hate” sayings are historical while “love” sayings are not… In my opinion, this is also more honest to the sources. Contradictions are apparently there – such as love and hate, peace and violence, good and evil. Do you think that such contradictions (which also the Gospel authors didn’t manage to easily reconcile) may possibly go back to Jesus, or are they due to our partial/limited reconstruction of the historical Jesus?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 6, 2014
They *may* go back to Jesus. But my sense is that we simply don’t know enough to be able to decide which of these sayings are authentically his.
Log in to Reply  
talitakum

talitakum  November 7, 2014
Chapeau! Thank you for your balanced and honest answer, as usual. My impression, beside the actual historicity of this or that saying, is that the overall “portrait” of Jesus that we can paint from our sources presents contradictions: I think that’s why we also have different “historical Jesus” reconstructions (cynic philosopher, millenarian/apocaliptyc prophet, rabbi, shamanic, zealot, etc.). While some of these reconstructions are definitely more plausible than others, in my opinion all of them have some good points and none of them can really resolve all contradictions. I think that historians should really resist temptation of trashing what doesn’t fit well with their reconstruction, acknowledging the fact that (a) our sources might be incomplete therefore we can’t resolve apparent contradictions, (b) any historical reconstruction of people of the past will always and necessarily be partial/incomplete, (c) some contradictions may actually exists as a product of our western rational mindset, while a 1st century Palestinian prophet may have had a different mindset :)
Sorry for this lengthy comment – and many, many thanks again for spending some of your time to answer me.
 
 
 
 
 



vinnyrac  December 6, 2014
Just to add another dose of contradiction to the man Jesus, let’s recall that it was Jesus the compassionate who took pit on the Centurion’s servant/slave. We modern readers hope that the Centurion wanted his servant healed out of some sort of empathy/friendship bond and not because the stables needed cleaning. As for family values there’s the story of Jarius’s daughter who died and who JC raised from the dead. (Mark) What could be more family value than to want your children to be healthy and alive? That Jesus took pity on Jarius, the father, should hope to assuage the family values crowd. But then there’s still the sticky matter of that unresolvable issue of the Father sending his Son to die. I mean, what father in the world would NOT die in place of his son or daughter? A parent dies for the child, not the child for the parent. Name a parent who wouldn’t? A crack head/junkie perhaps? The list is short to be certain. Sorry family values peeps. It kinda starts an stops at the top, no?
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/new-boxes-on-problematic-social-values-in-the-new-testament/
















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogNew Boxes on Problematic Social Values in the New Testament 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



New Boxes on Problematic Social Values in the New Testament

I have been posting some of the new “boxes” that will appear in the sixth edition of my textbook.  These boxes are meant either to raise interesting historical issues that are somewhat tangential to the main discussion or to broach complex issues without easy solution that are meant to force students to think for themselves.     I include two such boxes here in this post – the first is a new one for the sixth edition, but I thought it would be interesting to pair it with a somewhat related topic drawn from a post already in the fifth edtiion.  Both boxes have to do with the New Testament and social realities of its day – the early Christian approbation of the institution of slavery and Jesus’ teachings that run precisely contrary to what today we might think of as solid family values.
****************************************************************
 Box 22.12  What Do You Think?
The New Testament and Slavery
 Many people who read the book of Philemon simply assume that Paul writes the letter in order to urge Philemon to set his slave Onesimus free.  After all, slavery is, and was, a horrible institution, and surely the apostle would have done everything in his power in order to try to abolish it.  Right?
Unfortunately, when you look closely at Paul’s letter, you will not find a word against slavery as an institution or any instruction for Philemon to set his slave – or any of his slaves – free.  How could that be?
As it turns out, slavery is…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.  If you don’t belong yet, ARE YOU WAITING FOR CHRISTMAS???


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







New Boxes Related to Literary Forgery and the NT«
New Boxes on Jesus as God in the NT»


30

OCT

2014

45
  
Comments
45  Comments
0  Trackbacks




rivercrowman  October 30, 2014
Bart, thanks for sharing these “boxes.” … Both of them are new to me, as I’m just a proud owner of your Third Edition.
Log in to Reply  



seamus  October 30, 2014
One thing that has always bothered me was when Jesus told a brand-new disciple that he (the disciple) must leave immediately to follow Jesus, without making arrangements (or even saying goodbye?) to his wife and children. Presuming that the disciple was the breadwinner for his family, such abandonment put his family in almost certain poverty.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
Serious poverty indeed. Starvation, I should think.
Log in to Reply  
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  October 30, 2014
Over the years I’ve recognized the same comments about Jesus concerning “family values”. Could these statements be viewed as a dismissive attitude towards marriage in general (in light of the coming kingdom, ie., his disciples and followers should be focused on the imminent arrival of the kingdom) and therefore a point in favor of Jesus not being married himself? He seems a tad hypocritical otherwise.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
Yup, possibly so. That’s my take on it, any way. (Though he also opposes divorce for those who *are* married)
Log in to Reply  
 

Matilda

Matilda  October 30, 2014
Well, I think Jesus was/is part myth, part fable, part zealot, part nutcase. As for family values, the entire Bible is so anti family, anti woman, anti compassion, anti humanity, that issues like slavery and family values don’t even register on its ethical scale. God is too busy smiting and being angry that he has no time for family values. Jesus as his right hand man/son is too busy trying to enforce God’s will (i.e. Jewish law) that he just ends up angry, frustrated, and ultimately stifled.
 The part about Jesus and God being loving, and compassionate is just spin to satisfy the needs of the devoted.
 Any God or God Son combination who can watch people suffer and starve and then castigate them with eternal damnation- well I can’t believe in that kind of God.
 Jesus was a man of his day and in his day stoning was okay, slavery was okay, and devotion to an angry God was okay. There you have it- the gospel according to Matilda!
Log in to Reply  



fishician  October 31, 2014
When you ask Christians about the Bible’s stance on slavery you invariably hear a song-and-dance about how Biblical slavery was really “slavery-lite” or more of an indentured servitude as if that was a good thing. I wish I would simply hear from believers “Slavery is a terrible thing and should never be condoned!” But because the Bible is so accepting of slavery as an institution believers can’t oppose it without opposing what their “inspired” Scriptures say. How sad. Glad I finally woke up to this hypocrisy.
Log in to Reply  



Jason  October 31, 2014
So is all the tension in the “Family Values” box really set up between generations? Was Jesus just a mouthy punk in these instances-albeit the one that certain authority figures today would have us recognize as the first and last we should listen to?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
A mouthy punk??? No, I don’t think so. His apocalyptic message would bring rifts to families. I don’t think this saying goes back to Jesus, but was formulated in the community that emerged in his wake, among people who had left their natural families to make the Christian family their own family.
Log in to Reply  


Jason  November 1, 2014
I guess the Lk10/Mt12/Mk2 examples make it seem as though this is a very generational conflict-look how it’s father vs. son, mother vs. daughter and daughter in law, old vs. new. It does kind of seem like the kind of internal story modern cults tell themselves to ease the transition from one dependency to another.
Log in to Reply  



spiker  February 13, 2015
This is intriguing. How would an apocalyptic “hate your family” fit with Honor thy Father and Mother or the sentiment of Man is lord of the Sabbath? I don’t think we can dismiss that He may simply have been inconsistent or conflicted: under normal circumstances sentiments reflected in Love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind and honoring your parents may have been compatible to the extent that you could do both but an increasing belief in the “immanence of the kingdom” eventually forces a conflict. This is first you have a complimentary set of sentiments that come into conflict later and MAYBE we have to look instead at different points in his life for consistencies.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  February 13, 2015
Yes, that’s entirely possible!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Kevin Nelson  October 31, 2014
Philemon 21: “Confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say.” I’ve always understood that as a diplomatic way of saying Philemon should free Onesimus–do you not think so? It sounds very consistent with Paul’s style of sometimes making demanding requests in a rather indirect fashion. For example, I’d compare it to II Corinthians 9:1–10, where instead of saying anything like “you MUST give” he says things like “Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” And in the ancient world, asking someone to free their slave would have been a hugely demanding request. I think it would have been quite bold to make such a request at all, even indirectly.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
No, I think if he wanted Philemon to free him, he would have said so. I think he’s asking him to give Onesimus to himself (Paul) as a gift, to serve him in his mission. He never expresses any opinion opposed to slavery.
Log in to Reply  


Kevin Nelson  November 1, 2014
Well, you’re certainly right that Paul nowhere expresses any opposition to slavery in general. But I’m not convinced by your interpretation of the letter to Philemon. So you think Paul would have been willing to say “you should free Onesimus” directly, but he wouldn’t have been willing to say “give me Onesimus” directly? Why the difference? The only thing Paul really asks Philemon to do directly is to welcome back Onesimus without punishing him, but it’s clear Paul is hoping for something more. One hint as to what that something else might be is in 15–16: “Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother.” Note the wording is not “no longer as JUST a slave” or anything like that.
I think the flow of the letter also supports my interpretation. In 17–20, Paul urges Philemon to welcome Onesimus back without punishing him. Then, in 21, he makes his oblique request for “even more” (hyper ha lego). Freeing Onesimus would certainly go beyond merely refraining from punishing him. Giving Onesimus to Paul, on the other hand, would be a favor of a different sort–it would not be an extrapolation of “welcome Onesimus back.”
Finally, it strikes me as strange for Paul to send Onesimus out on a possibly lengthy and difficult journey to Philemon, only to want him sent right back. If Paul wanted to keep Onesimus as his own slave, it seems more likely that he would have written to Philemon without sending Onesimus in person.
My feeling is that Paul preferred for Christians not to keep other Christians as slaves, but he chose to press the point very softly. From our perspective today, of course we wish he’d made a stronger statement. On the other hand, if Christianity had become known as an anti-slavery movement, the imperial authorities would have become ten times more determined to crush it. Paul’s soft-pedalling of the issue may be understandable for that reason alone.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 1, 2014
My sense is that readers today who find slavery abhorrent have difficulty understanding how an ancient writer of such high moral standing as Paul *also* would not have seen it as abhorrent, and so they read their abhorrence into the text. Ancient people simply didn’t think like us. Slavery was an accepted institution. Remember that in the later Pauline letters slaves are told to be fully obedient to their masters and masters are told, not to free their slaves, but to treat them well. No one urged them to be set free.
Log in to Reply  


Kevin Nelson  November 2, 2014
I agree, of course, that ancient people didn’t think like us. On the other hand, we know that Paul himself thought about a lot of things very differently than his own contemporaries did. Few people in the first-century Mediterranean would have expressed a sentiment like “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” It’s only one small step beyond that to say there should be no slavery in the church, though taking that step in practice would have been hugely difficult.
It seems pretty clear that in Paul’s day, most Christians were people of modest means. I think only a few of them could have had slaves. If Paul had urged those few to free their slaves, the general answer would have been “no,” and Paul himself would have to have known that. He may have feared driving off key converts and causing dissension in the church. At the same time, he could have dropped careful hints with slaveholders he judged to be favorably inclined, which is exactly what I think he did with Philemon.
I’m not sure which “later Pauline letters” you have in mind…are you thinking about Colossians and Ephesians? If you regard those as forgeries, I don’t think you can hold Paul himself responsible for them! Maybe you’re thinking of I Corinthians 7:21, “Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.” But that’s hardly an endorsement of slavery–an exhortation for slaves to make the best of their situation is consistent with a preference for Christians not to have slaves at all. And I think he would only have mentioned the possibility of slaves being freed if he had taken that possibility seriously. It sounds like he didn’t want to tantalize slaves with the prospect of being freed, but at the same time he didn’t want to deny it very well might happen. So we have to ask: If there was a real possibility of Christian slaves being freed, why was that? If hints were circulating in the early church that it was best for Christians not to hold fellow Christians in slavery, then we have an explanation.
It’s clear that Paul was prepared to tolerate quite a bit of behavior he regarded as less than ideal (“better to marry than to burn,” and so on). I think his attitude towards Christian slaveholding was just another example. I agree with you that it would be a vast overstatement to say he found slavery abhorrent. He probably regarded pagan slaveholding as not his concern at all (“What have I to do with judging those outside?”). More generally, he wasn’t terribly interested in any sort of overall social reform. After all, he believed the appointed time had grown short. But with regard to slavery specifically, I think he was at least moving in the right direction.
 

Bart

Bart  November 2, 2014
Yes, my point about Ephesians and Colossians is simply that within the Pauline tradition slavery was affirmed, not condemend.
 
 
 



simonelli  November 4, 2014
In a way even Jesus has slaves in Ephesians 4:7-8 and verses 11,12. (NASB)
 I believe that these four verses should be read together omitting verses 9,10 because these two verses are a diversion inserted in a later date by the enemy of Christianity. You be the judge as you read them now: “But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, when He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men. (11-12) And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers. For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” Just consider this: the apostles Peter, Paul, James, etc., all identified themselves in the epistles as bondservants of God, or prisoners of Christ Jesus, in other words “captives or slaves.”
Log in to Reply  
 
 



yes_hua  October 31, 2014
As for slavery, there are two major apologetic (Christian and Jewish) dodges that I hear. The first is that Jewish slavery was not that bad, more of an employer/employee relationship. Then why does there need to be laws concerning what do if you have beaten your slave to death or only nearly so? We don’t make laws about acts that aren’t occurring (for the most part). The second, and my favorite, is that slavery was a major part of the culture so God wouldn’t have made a law to so upset their way of life. What??? That’s PRECISELY what God does. Rules concerning ritual and dietary purity, the abolition of child sacrifice, not visiting temple prostitutes, heck, not worshipping other gods–but Yahweh thinks that owning another human being as property is a fight he cannot win? Isn’t this what the “thou shalt not”s are supposed to do, change the culture? Am I wrong here or are the apologists admitting that God’s laws come from society and not the other way around? Good addition to the textbook, which I appreciate in a prior edition. Thanks for including the new boxes here.
Log in to Reply  



Richard  October 31, 2014
It’s common knowledge that in the antebellum south, many slave owners had sexual relations their female “property”. No doubt, this happened in the first century to slaves who converted to Christianity, even by some Christian slave owners. The NT is silent on this subject though we know aspects of perceived sexual immorality were condemned. Was this subject ever address by post-NT writers? Or did the mind-set of the time assume this was the norm and part and parcel of obeying their masters “in everything”?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
No, it’s not discussed in any ealry Christian source that I’m aware of.
Log in to Reply  
 



joks  October 31, 2014
Dr. Ehrman
 Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-12, and Luke 16:18 all record Jesus’ adamant rejection of divorce.
 If we accept the fact that a two parent family is good for society, then wouldn’t this stand somewhat in opposition to
 the statement that Jesus was not that concerned with familial or societal institutions? Since divorce and remarriage are such a controversial topic in the Catholic Church, I would be interested in your answer to my questions above and also in why you think Jesus made such a strong statement on divorce.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  October 31, 2014
He certainly was opposed to divorce. At the same time, he required his male followers to leave their spouses — and therefore not to provide any financial support for them; in other words, the families of his disciples, necessarily, would have been forced to live in abject poverty. How these two views can be reconciled, I don’t know.
Log in to Reply  


simonelli  November 4, 2014
Dr. Ehrman, There is not need to leave family to follow Jesus, But there is a devotional sacrifice of worship to God which is an exceptional way of self-denial to get closer to our Lord, for we read in 1Corinthians 7:32-38: “But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord;
 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.
 34 And the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
 35 And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly, and to secure SOME BELIEVERS FOR AN undivided devotion to the Lord.
 36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly towards his CELIBACY, if he should be of full age, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let HIM marry.
 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own BODY, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own BODY CHASTE, he will do well.
 38 So then both he who gives his own BODY in marriage does well, BUT he who does not give HIMSELF in marriage will do better.”
As you can see, the last four verses 35-38, with the inserted Italics are the obvious restorations needed, which enable us to understand the connection and the true intended meaning of the previous verses of 32-34. Thus if any person, male or female, is willingly prepared and able to freely undertake the sacrifice of celibacy as their sacrifice of worship, that sacrifice is acceptable to God, this is confirmed in Matthew 19:10-12: “The disciples said to Him, ‘If the relation-ship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.’ But He said to them, ‘Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this let him accept it.’”
Log in to Reply  


jcrowl  November 13, 2014
Why don’t you take your spin elsewhere?
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Michael  November 1, 2014
Recently of course there has been huge focus by the fundamentalist and others attacking homosexuals by quoting the Bible or by arguing it’s a choice of behavior. There are 4 main verses that get thrown around and a few others where the topic may or may not be male/male relations. All that hate and bigotry over a few verses, none of them spoken by Jesus.
Meanwhile you have whole chapters in the OT dealing with slavery. The NT also gives support to it. I understand that there are grey areas in all of this. Racial Slavery was only one small piece of ancient slavery. None the less, the Bible still gives more support to an institution we only out grew in very recent history.
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  November 1, 2014
I’m not an apologist for Jesus. *But*…
As I understand it, the only disciple specifically said to have been married was Peter. Could the others have been young unmarried men, free to traipse off with him precisely because they *didn’t* have any family responsibilities?
Also, isn’t it possible that he really didn’t “call” them, but they attached themselves to him…perhaps, in some cases, when he tried to dissuade them?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 2, 2014
Well, even though not every Jewish man was married, most were; it seems unlikely that Jesus could round up eleven who weren’t! And he does talk about his disciples having to leave their children to follow him (Mark 10:29 for example).
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  November 3, 2014
I didn’t know about that. And when I think about it, I remember that Galileans in that era tended to marry young – the men, at about eighteen.
But might there still be something to this possibility? Jesus – for whatever reason – had trekked down to Judea to hear John the Baptist preach. Might the apocalyptic ideas he brought back with him actually have been *new* – revolutionary! – in rural Galilee? If so, it might have been the *youngest* males who were the most open-minded, lapped up everything he was saying, and became disciples.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 4, 2014
My sense is that apocalyptic ideas were pretty widespread at the time. The other problem is that there’s no evidence to suggest that his followers were all late teenagers or the like….
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



rbrtbaumgardner  November 2, 2014
For the sake discussion let’s say Philemon did free Onesimus. How would have Onesimus fared as a freed slave in his society?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 2, 2014
Depends on what kind of work he could land. Sometimes slaves were much better off than free people.
Log in to Reply  
 



FrankJay71  November 3, 2014
What about 1 Timothy 10? Slave traders seem to be condemned along with the sexually immoral and other sinners. Is there a nuance that distinguished slavery and the practice of slave trading?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 4, 2014
I’m not sure which passage you’re referring to. 1 Timothy has only 6 chapters.
Log in to Reply  


FrankJay71  November 4, 2014
Oops. I meant 1 Timothy 1:10.
 From the NIV:
” for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine”
The verse doesn’t specifically condemn slavery, but it seems to equate slave traders with other sinners.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 5, 2014
Yes, I’m afraid that “slave traders” is not exactly what the text says. The word that is used ANDROPODISTOS is rare. Well, “rare” is a bit generous. So far as I know, it never occurs anywhere else in any Greek text. It is usually thought that a *similar* word refers to someone who is captured in war and made a slave. So ANDROPODISTOS may mean someone who takes a prisoner of war and makes him a slave. Or it may mean a “kidnapper.” Or something else. No one really knows. 1 Timothy would be saying that people like that (whatever “that” is) is unholy. But that would not apply to someone who simply has family slaves.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



simonelli  November 4, 2014
Dr. Ehrman.. You are missing the obvious: one became a slave of another if he owed money to him; the modern day slaves are those who must repay a mortgage to a bank, and if you default they will sale the shirt off your back. Another way to became a slave to another, if the man has saved your life, that is how Russel became a slave in the film “Gladiator”. And then there are the slaves of the state: those were who committed small crimes, today we condemn criminals to hard labour. The prisoners of war also became slaves to make reparation for the damage they caused. In the last WW2. Japan, Germany and Italy had to pay reparation to the allied forces. Nothing has changed, look around in the world, we might have come to use a more humane system but the result is the same . Pay-up or else.
 Now, do I have to hate everyone of my family to be worthy of the kingdom of God: no, of cause not, it would be a contradiction of Christianity. So what is required from a would be Christian? The hate is not directed at the person, but it is directed at the fleshly nature in them, therefore you need to be kind to them in order to change them to the character of Christ. You must hate their character by presenting the other cheek.
 Professor, you look on those things with critical darken fleshly eyes: God is Holy let it be your light. Just saying.
Log in to Reply  


jcrowl  November 13, 2014
We really don’t need your propaganda..take it elsewhere please
Log in to Reply  
 

talitakum

talitakum  November 5, 2014
Regarding “family values”. It seems to me that the role of the father and his love for his sons looks important for Jesus – who calls God “abba”, tells the Parable of the prodigal son and uses father’s love for his sons as an analogy of God’s love for men. Also, he accuses those who don’t help their mothers and fathers with the “excuse” of Korban. In this perspective, could it be that the future kingdom is important without nullifying the positive values and the importance of family relationships?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 5, 2014
Yes, there seems to be contradictory evidence from Jesus. Why does he tell his followres that they have to “hate” their father and mother if they are going to come after him? It is really difficult to reconcile all this.
Log in to Reply  
talitakum

talitakum  November 5, 2014
Thank you, I appreciate the fact that, as an historian, you didn’t try to resolve the contradiction by saying that “hate” sayings are historical while “love” sayings are not… In my opinion, this is also more honest to the sources. Contradictions are apparently there – such as love and hate, peace and violence, good and evil. Do you think that such contradictions (which also the Gospel authors didn’t manage to easily reconcile) may possibly go back to Jesus, or are they due to our partial/limited reconstruction of the historical Jesus?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  November 6, 2014
They *may* go back to Jesus. But my sense is that we simply don’t know enough to be able to decide which of these sayings are authentically his.
Log in to Reply  
talitakum

talitakum  November 7, 2014
Chapeau! Thank you for your balanced and honest answer, as usual. My impression, beside the actual historicity of this or that saying, is that the overall “portrait” of Jesus that we can paint from our sources presents contradictions: I think that’s why we also have different “historical Jesus” reconstructions (cynic philosopher, millenarian/apocaliptyc prophet, rabbi, shamanic, zealot, etc.). While some of these reconstructions are definitely more plausible than others, in my opinion all of them have some good points and none of them can really resolve all contradictions. I think that historians should really resist temptation of trashing what doesn’t fit well with their reconstruction, acknowledging the fact that (a) our sources might be incomplete therefore we can’t resolve apparent contradictions, (b) any historical reconstruction of people of the past will always and necessarily be partial/incomplete, (c) some contradictions may actually exists as a product of our western rational mindset, while a 1st century Palestinian prophet may have had a different mindset :)
Sorry for this lengthy comment – and many, many thanks again for spending some of your time to answer me.
 
 
 
 
 



vinnyrac  December 6, 2014
Just to add another dose of contradiction to the man Jesus, let’s recall that it was Jesus the compassionate who took pit on the Centurion’s servant/slave. We modern readers hope that the Centurion wanted his servant healed out of some sort of empathy/friendship bond and not because the stables needed cleaning. As for family values there’s the story of Jarius’s daughter who died and who JC raised from the dead. (Mark) What could be more family value than to want your children to be healthy and alive? That Jesus took pity on Jarius, the father, should hope to assuage the family values crowd. But then there’s still the sticky matter of that unresolvable issue of the Father sending his Son to die. I mean, what father in the world would NOT die in place of his son or daughter? A parent dies for the child, not the child for the parent. Name a parent who wouldn’t? A crack head/junkie perhaps? The list is short to be certain. Sorry family values peeps. It kinda starts an stops at the top, no?
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/new-boxes-on-problematic-social-values-in-the-new-testament/













Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogWhat Did Paul Know About the Historical Jesus? (For Members) 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



What Did Paul Know About the Historical Jesus? (For Members)



You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







More on Paul’s Knowledge of Jesus’ Life (For Members)«
Jesus and Paul Compared and Contrasted (For Members)»


8

MAY

2014

31
  
Comments
31  Comments
0  Trackbacks




fwhiting  May 8, 2014
Dr. Ehrman: Apparently Paul didn’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, because if he did, he surely would have said so. Moreover, since he insisted that Jesus was a descendent of David, he must have believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father. So apparently Paul didn’t think that Jesus’ birth was in any way a miracle. How did the circumstances of his birth become such an important part of his story?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 9, 2014
Other Christians thought it really mattered!
Log in to Reply  



prairieian  May 12, 2014
It seems to me that if Jesus was descended from David, that must be through his father by definition. I don’t believe descending through the mother mattered that much. If he descended through Joseph, then it rather gives rise to the question of his divinity at this stage of the game. If he was not descended through Joseph, that is via the Holy Spirit, then he cannot have been descended through David. Unless, I suppose, he was adopted as a son by Joseph in the Roman fashion – this seems improbable for a Jewish family.
Another small conundrum.
Log in to Reply  
 



RonaldTaska  May 8, 2014
How about “Resolved: Paul Knew Significant Historical Information about Jesus ” This gets it in the affirmative.
Log in to Reply  



JudithW.Coyle  May 9, 2014
That is good!
Log in to Reply  



Scott F  May 9, 2014
With regards to Judas and The Twelve, I sometimes wonder if the betrayal was attached to Jesus’ inner circle in order to justify the betrayal itself. How could the Son of God possibly be betrayed? It must have been one of his closest associates!
Log in to Reply  



willow  May 9, 2014
A 3×5 card?!?!?! I couldn’t have imagined that! I’d have thought, had I given it any thought, at least three whole pages (8×11) of single-spaced text! o_O
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  May 9, 2014
At what point in all this was Matthias supposedly added to make the number of disciples once again twelve?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 9, 2014
In the book of Acts, it was a couple of months after Jesus’ death.
Log in to Reply  
 



EricBrown  May 9, 2014
“he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve”
Does this say anything about whether Cephas was part of this body known as “the twelve”?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 9, 2014
Not necessarily, although I wrote an article once arguing that Cephas was not one of the 12 because he was a different person from Peter!
Log in to Reply  
Rosekeister

Rosekeister  May 10, 2014
Did you believe that or were you just trying out the argument? Have you thought about whether the disciples were actually Jesus’ personally chosen 12 or whether they were placed in the narrative gospels because they were the most widely known preachers after Jesus’ death?
Log in to Reply  
Rosekeister

Rosekeister  May 10, 2014
Can you post the article or maybe a summary of it?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 10, 2014
Yup,it’s on my (very long) list!
 
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 10, 2014
I *used* to believe it!
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  May 13, 2014
I still think it can’t be totally dismissed though …
 
 
 



yes_hua  May 14, 2014
I’ve always wondered that. Do you know where I could find that article?
Log in to Reply  


yes_hua  May 14, 2014
Oops. Didn’t read to see the reply. I’ll look for it.
Log in to Reply  

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 14, 2014
Sorry, I don’t know which article you’re referring to.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



toddfrederick  May 9, 2014
Slightly off topic (but not too much off) is when Paul talks of his vision(s) of the Risen Christ he also does so emphatically, that he is not “lying.”
This issue of his visions still disturbs me. Paul obviously believed he had actual historical visions. Whether or not he did have them and if they were authentic, he says he is not lying, and bases “his gospel” on those visions.
None of the scholars (and even non scholars) I have asked will comment much on these vision(s) of Paul. I don’t know why. I guess it is because we can’t prove that a vision actually happened, historically. But Paul says it did happen…either what he said happened or he was psychotic. I don’t know which !! Do you ? :D
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 9, 2014
I don’t think people who have hallucinations are psychotic. If they are, then one out of every eight of us is psychotic!!
Log in to Reply  


toddfrederick  May 10, 2014
Ok…I was thinking of a “vision” that Paul describes, not a hallucination, but they may be the same. Paul indicates he communicated with the Risen Christ…in some way…and was given a “gospel” message apart from Jesus’ earthly followers. Did that happen or did it not happen? If it did that radically changes and expands what Jesus said and did. If the encounter (vision) of the risen Christ did not happen, then what Paul preached was wrong. That is what I am trying to determine if such is even possible to determine.
Ps…I am at the point that I look at a word in the Bible and I realize I don’t have a clue what that word means now or 2000 years ago…example…1John, “Test the spirits that they are from God.” I don’t have a clue what John means by spirits or even the context of that statement.
Paul is emphatic that he somehow spoke with the risen Christ. Either he did or did not…I don’t know.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 10, 2014
Yes, believers would say he did. Non-believers would say it was a hallucination. Historians can’t show it one way or the other.
Log in to Reply  


toddfrederick  May 10, 2014
Yes…I do understand, especially regarding historians … yet I think that question is the key to understanding Paul. Just my opinion.
I don’t have an answer…I don’t think we can ever know.
Thank you for taking time to patiently and sincerely commenting on my question
 .
 
 
 
 
 



gabilaranjeira  May 11, 2014
It also intrigues me the fact that Paul did not write more about Jesus’s life. I wonder what we can infer from that… Does that simply mean that Christianity was not yet a literary religion at that point? Or just the opposite, that there were already some written accounts in circulation and, therefore, he didn’t think it was necessary to write his own account?
Thank you, Bart!
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 12, 2014
I don’t think there were any written Gospels that Paul knew of — although there may have been some floating around that he had never seen.
Log in to Reply  
 



adamsmark  May 12, 2014
Another consideration would be what Paul knew before he had become a Christian. Not long after Jesus’ crucifixion, Paul opposed Christianity so violently that he tried to destroy it (Gal. 1:14). Evidently he believed the movement threatened Judaism and “the tradition of my fathers,” and that Christianity contained numerous objectionable beliefs, so objectionable as to merit destruction.
Discerning what Paul might have known about Christianity, prior to his conversion, might help us to understand what he believed (or understood) about Jesus subsequently.
Has there been much discussion, in academic circles, regarding what Paul knew about Christianity prior to his conversion? This seems an especially important subject, as it would place Paul’s knowledge closer to the original events.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 12, 2014
A lot of people have wondered — but there’s not much evidence to go on. I talk about the issue in several places — including on the blog when I talk about Paul’s understanding of the saying of Torah, “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree.”
Log in to Reply  


adamsmark  May 13, 2014
It seems reasonable that Paul would have known considerably about the historical Jesus based on his interactions with Christians while he was persecuting the movement, and later from his interactions with James, Peter and John. Not only would he have heard narratives about Jesus, but he would have heard them from the earliest Christians. Granted, Paul says little in his letters, but that he could have significant contact with Christians associated with the faith’s origins and NOT have known about the historical Jesus seems highly improbable.
Why doesn’t he say more? This question would be more relevant if we knew more about the extent of his writings. I can only imagine that we have only the barest sampling of his letters, not enough to make any firm statements about what he knew.
But more to my original point, it seems possible that the pre-Christian Paul objected to more than the crucifixion of the messiah. He expresses in Galatians that he felt Christianity threatened the “traditions of this fathers” — did he see Jesus as one who undermined the law? It also seems possible that he objected to the message of salvation by faith, as Paul impresses to his readers that the very things that repelled him had become the core of his message. Also, his conflict with Peter pertained more to the law (i.e. the observance of the law) than the crucifixion.
Log in to Reply  


SBrudney091941  May 23, 2014
In the first few years after Jesus’ death, it is most probable that most Jews who believed in Jesus believed he was the messiah who would restore Israel and usher in the Kingdom of God. The man they thought was the messiah was executed and, apparently, some thought he would return to finish the job. If these are what they believed, then they were still Jews, not Christians. It is very unlikely that they believed the messiah had anything to do with forgiving personal sin. For them, only God, in response to prayers, plus our repentance, could redeem a Jew from sin. So, 1. it is a mystery what it could have been that Paul objected to so strenuously and 2. there might have been believers in Jesus before Paul but they were not Christians. Unless you take the Gospels to be historical and think that Jesus actually taught that belief in him could save one from the wages of sin. It is a mystery how Paul could have made Jesus out to be the messiah he thought he was–that is, how Paul re-defined “messiah” or “christ” into the Christian meaning of Christ. All I can attribute it to would have been that he was so much more Hellenized than other Jews and was familiar with Greek Mystery Cults.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Blackie  October 31, 2014
For Jesus, thought that matrilineality matters most in determining who is Jewish and Mary’s lineage was Davidic as well as Joseph his adopted “earthly” father. So you can’t negate Mary’s importance in his Jewish lineage. Paul seems to know quite a bit about the family background of Jesus as you clearly point out. Paul is our earliest extant source or what is left of early sources(seeing not much). But we have to start the narrative somewhere and it begins for us with Paul and his writings(and how much was doctored) – although Paul personally didn’t know Jesus except by ” vision”. There is quite a bit unearthed here by your research and analysis. This link between Paul and Jesus are vital for the first steps towards definitive gentile Christianity.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/what-did-paul-know-about-the-historical-jesus-for-members/
















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogWhat Did Paul Know About the Historical Jesus? (For Members) 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



What Did Paul Know About the Historical Jesus? (For Members)



You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







More on Paul’s Knowledge of Jesus’ Life (For Members)«
Jesus and Paul Compared and Contrasted (For Members)»


8

MAY

2014

31
  
Comments
31  Comments
0  Trackbacks




fwhiting  May 8, 2014
Dr. Ehrman: Apparently Paul didn’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, because if he did, he surely would have said so. Moreover, since he insisted that Jesus was a descendent of David, he must have believed that Joseph was Jesus’ father. So apparently Paul didn’t think that Jesus’ birth was in any way a miracle. How did the circumstances of his birth become such an important part of his story?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 9, 2014
Other Christians thought it really mattered!
Log in to Reply  



prairieian  May 12, 2014
It seems to me that if Jesus was descended from David, that must be through his father by definition. I don’t believe descending through the mother mattered that much. If he descended through Joseph, then it rather gives rise to the question of his divinity at this stage of the game. If he was not descended through Joseph, that is via the Holy Spirit, then he cannot have been descended through David. Unless, I suppose, he was adopted as a son by Joseph in the Roman fashion – this seems improbable for a Jewish family.
Another small conundrum.
Log in to Reply  
 



RonaldTaska  May 8, 2014
How about “Resolved: Paul Knew Significant Historical Information about Jesus ” This gets it in the affirmative.
Log in to Reply  



JudithW.Coyle  May 9, 2014
That is good!
Log in to Reply  



Scott F  May 9, 2014
With regards to Judas and The Twelve, I sometimes wonder if the betrayal was attached to Jesus’ inner circle in order to justify the betrayal itself. How could the Son of God possibly be betrayed? It must have been one of his closest associates!
Log in to Reply  



willow  May 9, 2014
A 3×5 card?!?!?! I couldn’t have imagined that! I’d have thought, had I given it any thought, at least three whole pages (8×11) of single-spaced text! o_O
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  May 9, 2014
At what point in all this was Matthias supposedly added to make the number of disciples once again twelve?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 9, 2014
In the book of Acts, it was a couple of months after Jesus’ death.
Log in to Reply  
 



EricBrown  May 9, 2014
“he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve”
Does this say anything about whether Cephas was part of this body known as “the twelve”?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 9, 2014
Not necessarily, although I wrote an article once arguing that Cephas was not one of the 12 because he was a different person from Peter!
Log in to Reply  
Rosekeister

Rosekeister  May 10, 2014
Did you believe that or were you just trying out the argument? Have you thought about whether the disciples were actually Jesus’ personally chosen 12 or whether they were placed in the narrative gospels because they were the most widely known preachers after Jesus’ death?
Log in to Reply  
Rosekeister

Rosekeister  May 10, 2014
Can you post the article or maybe a summary of it?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 10, 2014
Yup,it’s on my (very long) list!
 
 

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 10, 2014
I *used* to believe it!
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  May 13, 2014
I still think it can’t be totally dismissed though …
 
 
 



yes_hua  May 14, 2014
I’ve always wondered that. Do you know where I could find that article?
Log in to Reply  


yes_hua  May 14, 2014
Oops. Didn’t read to see the reply. I’ll look for it.
Log in to Reply  

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 14, 2014
Sorry, I don’t know which article you’re referring to.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



toddfrederick  May 9, 2014
Slightly off topic (but not too much off) is when Paul talks of his vision(s) of the Risen Christ he also does so emphatically, that he is not “lying.”
This issue of his visions still disturbs me. Paul obviously believed he had actual historical visions. Whether or not he did have them and if they were authentic, he says he is not lying, and bases “his gospel” on those visions.
None of the scholars (and even non scholars) I have asked will comment much on these vision(s) of Paul. I don’t know why. I guess it is because we can’t prove that a vision actually happened, historically. But Paul says it did happen…either what he said happened or he was psychotic. I don’t know which !! Do you ? :D
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 9, 2014
I don’t think people who have hallucinations are psychotic. If they are, then one out of every eight of us is psychotic!!
Log in to Reply  


toddfrederick  May 10, 2014
Ok…I was thinking of a “vision” that Paul describes, not a hallucination, but they may be the same. Paul indicates he communicated with the Risen Christ…in some way…and was given a “gospel” message apart from Jesus’ earthly followers. Did that happen or did it not happen? If it did that radically changes and expands what Jesus said and did. If the encounter (vision) of the risen Christ did not happen, then what Paul preached was wrong. That is what I am trying to determine if such is even possible to determine.
Ps…I am at the point that I look at a word in the Bible and I realize I don’t have a clue what that word means now or 2000 years ago…example…1John, “Test the spirits that they are from God.” I don’t have a clue what John means by spirits or even the context of that statement.
Paul is emphatic that he somehow spoke with the risen Christ. Either he did or did not…I don’t know.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 10, 2014
Yes, believers would say he did. Non-believers would say it was a hallucination. Historians can’t show it one way or the other.
Log in to Reply  


toddfrederick  May 10, 2014
Yes…I do understand, especially regarding historians … yet I think that question is the key to understanding Paul. Just my opinion.
I don’t have an answer…I don’t think we can ever know.
Thank you for taking time to patiently and sincerely commenting on my question
 .
 
 
 
 
 



gabilaranjeira  May 11, 2014
It also intrigues me the fact that Paul did not write more about Jesus’s life. I wonder what we can infer from that… Does that simply mean that Christianity was not yet a literary religion at that point? Or just the opposite, that there were already some written accounts in circulation and, therefore, he didn’t think it was necessary to write his own account?
Thank you, Bart!
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 12, 2014
I don’t think there were any written Gospels that Paul knew of — although there may have been some floating around that he had never seen.
Log in to Reply  
 



adamsmark  May 12, 2014
Another consideration would be what Paul knew before he had become a Christian. Not long after Jesus’ crucifixion, Paul opposed Christianity so violently that he tried to destroy it (Gal. 1:14). Evidently he believed the movement threatened Judaism and “the tradition of my fathers,” and that Christianity contained numerous objectionable beliefs, so objectionable as to merit destruction.
Discerning what Paul might have known about Christianity, prior to his conversion, might help us to understand what he believed (or understood) about Jesus subsequently.
Has there been much discussion, in academic circles, regarding what Paul knew about Christianity prior to his conversion? This seems an especially important subject, as it would place Paul’s knowledge closer to the original events.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  May 12, 2014
A lot of people have wondered — but there’s not much evidence to go on. I talk about the issue in several places — including on the blog when I talk about Paul’s understanding of the saying of Torah, “Cursed is he who hangs on a tree.”
Log in to Reply  


adamsmark  May 13, 2014
It seems reasonable that Paul would have known considerably about the historical Jesus based on his interactions with Christians while he was persecuting the movement, and later from his interactions with James, Peter and John. Not only would he have heard narratives about Jesus, but he would have heard them from the earliest Christians. Granted, Paul says little in his letters, but that he could have significant contact with Christians associated with the faith’s origins and NOT have known about the historical Jesus seems highly improbable.
Why doesn’t he say more? This question would be more relevant if we knew more about the extent of his writings. I can only imagine that we have only the barest sampling of his letters, not enough to make any firm statements about what he knew.
But more to my original point, it seems possible that the pre-Christian Paul objected to more than the crucifixion of the messiah. He expresses in Galatians that he felt Christianity threatened the “traditions of this fathers” — did he see Jesus as one who undermined the law? It also seems possible that he objected to the message of salvation by faith, as Paul impresses to his readers that the very things that repelled him had become the core of his message. Also, his conflict with Peter pertained more to the law (i.e. the observance of the law) than the crucifixion.
Log in to Reply  


SBrudney091941  May 23, 2014
In the first few years after Jesus’ death, it is most probable that most Jews who believed in Jesus believed he was the messiah who would restore Israel and usher in the Kingdom of God. The man they thought was the messiah was executed and, apparently, some thought he would return to finish the job. If these are what they believed, then they were still Jews, not Christians. It is very unlikely that they believed the messiah had anything to do with forgiving personal sin. For them, only God, in response to prayers, plus our repentance, could redeem a Jew from sin. So, 1. it is a mystery what it could have been that Paul objected to so strenuously and 2. there might have been believers in Jesus before Paul but they were not Christians. Unless you take the Gospels to be historical and think that Jesus actually taught that belief in him could save one from the wages of sin. It is a mystery how Paul could have made Jesus out to be the messiah he thought he was–that is, how Paul re-defined “messiah” or “christ” into the Christian meaning of Christ. All I can attribute it to would have been that he was so much more Hellenized than other Jews and was familiar with Greek Mystery Cults.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Blackie  October 31, 2014
For Jesus, thought that matrilineality matters most in determining who is Jewish and Mary’s lineage was Davidic as well as Joseph his adopted “earthly” father. So you can’t negate Mary’s importance in his Jewish lineage. Paul seems to know quite a bit about the family background of Jesus as you clearly point out. Paul is our earliest extant source or what is left of early sources(seeing not much). But we have to start the narrative somewhere and it begins for us with Paul and his writings(and how much was doctored) – although Paul personally didn’t know Jesus except by ” vision”. There is quite a bit unearthed here by your research and analysis. This link between Paul and Jesus are vital for the first steps towards definitive gentile Christianity.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/what-did-paul-know-about-the-historical-jesus-for-members/













Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogPaul and the Resurrection of a Spiritual Body (For members) 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Paul and the Resurrection of a Spiritual Body (For members)



You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







A Gnostic View of Jesus’ Resurrection (For members)«
Errant Texts and Historians»


29

NOV

2013

50
  
Comments
50  Comments
0  Trackbacks




toejam  November 29, 2013
I was watching Gerd Lüdemann debate William Lane Craig on youtube recently, and one of Gerd’s arguments against the ‘empty tomb’ narrative was how the pre-gospel source Paul uses the ‘seed’ analogy in 1Cor 15:37. When you couple that with his other passage in 1Cor 15:4, where Paul states directly that Jesus was “buried”, I think it’s quite clear that Paul had no knowledge of an empty tomb, and that when he said “buried”, he really meant it! – Paul literally thought Jesus had been buried in the ground like a seed. I’m sure this is old news to you… but it for me it was one of those ‘Ahhaa!’ moments! I’ve always had my doubts about the empty tomb narrative, but this insight has made it seem increasingly unlikely.
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  November 30, 2013
Yes. And just as he believed the shell of the seed to remain in the ground (while the ‘essence’ of the seed was given a NEW body according to its kind by God), it’s reasonable that he assumed the corpse of Jesus to remain buried while Jesus’ soul/spirit was given a NEW, spiritual, perfect, heavenly etc body by God.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
The seed doesn’t stay in the ground as a seed. It *becomes* a plant.
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  December 2, 2013
It ‘becomes’ the plant after it has ‘died’, at which point!, God GIVES it its actual, new body. The former seed, or actually the shell of the seed, remains dead and destroyed. And Paul which for his current body to be destroyed too so he could be given his new body and be with the Lord.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 4, 2013
Yes, I’m afraid we’ve had this disagreement before.
 
 
 
 
 



MichaelBrainerd  November 29, 2013
Bart,
 How do the accounts in John & Matthew fit into this discussion? Referring to Mary (the other women too) when she (they) first saw him at the tomb entrance, as well as when doubting Thomas and Jesus interacted?
Jesus tells Mary,”Touch Me not” (John 20:17); but then later, speaking to Thomas, He says, “Reach hither thy finger and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side” (verse 27).
Matthew 28:9 also talks to the other women falling down and grabbing his feet/ankles to worship him when they saw him there?
If it was/was not a physical resurrection how do these two situations effect/affect this discussion?
Don’t touch me? Why not? She had many times before? They were the closest of all! Shared secret’s!
Put your finger in my hand (physically)? Put your hand in my side (physically)? Could that have happened with a physical resurrection? Why could he touch Jesus when Mary was told she could/should not?
I find all of this very interesting, could/did he manifest himself in a way to been seen but not in a physical body? The belief of the time was that the spirit had some (material?) presence to it, it wasn’t just a spirit that existed within them, it could?? stand on its own so to speak if it were separated from the body?
Other than the cases of “taken up to heaven and never dying” there are no other resurrections in the Bible or other historical accounts. This seems to be as a lot of things in the Bible, a take off/retelling of old Mesopotamian and Sumerian gods who die and are resurrected in similar ways, but really no talk of the physical vs. the spiritual.
I guess this is just one of many Bible subjects that the conversation could go on forever!!!
Thanks,
 Mike
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
I’ll deal with the other NT accounts in another post — hopefully tomorrow or the next day!
Log in to Reply  
 



JimmyLLang  November 29, 2013
Is the separating of the spirit and body into two things an idea from Greek philosophy? You reference that we have difficulty with this concept today, but the ancients did not struggle. So I guess I would assume that many could maybe see they are different entities but mutually connected. Clarify my ignorance.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
Yes, roughly speaking this split between body and spirit can be traced back into Greek philosophy, most notably Plato.
Log in to Reply  
 



willow  November 29, 2013
“It is striking, and frequently overlooked by casual observers of the early Christian tradition, that even though it was a universal belief among the first Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead, there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, that meant.”
That there was no uniformity, regarding such a spectacular event, capitalize and italicize the word “spectacular”, is indication enough for me that the event, most likely, never happened. But then, that’s where the oldest text of Mark ends, isn’t it? With no resurrection.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
Actually Mark has a resurrection (notice what the young man tells the women at the tomb). What he doesn’t have are appearances of Jesus to his disciples (or anyone else) after the resurrection.
Log in to Reply  


willow  December 1, 2013
Thanks, Bart. I humbly admit to having, pretty much, dismissed Mark’s account in 16:6 for the far more spectacular John 20:1-18, that comes to us complete with two angels and Jesus himself. Sigh.
Log in to Reply  
 
 

cheito

cheito  November 29, 2013
His body did indeed come out of the grave. But when it did it was a transformed body, made of spirit, and raised immortal.
I knew you had it in you DR Ehrman. :-))
I’ll agree that the body is a Spiritual Body whose ‘Glory’ is Eternal not mortal. However I don’t think the body is made of Spirit. I think the Spirit is still The Spirit and the Body remains the Body.
Now our Spirit inhabits a mortal body but at the resurrection our spirit will dwell in a immortal body or spiritual body. An incorruptible body not subject to decay.
We are beings composed of Spirit Soul and Body. Paul states this very clearly in the scripture verse below:
1 Thessalonians 5:23-Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Log in to Reply  


Steefen  December 1, 2013
Resurrection to an immortal body has two impossible implications:
1) the Earth is immortal. Look at the scenario for the death of our Sun.
 2) the New Earth does not come until the present Earth is destroyed with the death of our Sun.
Log in to Reply  
cheito

cheito  December 2, 2013
These ideas about the Earth’s destruction and the ‘death of the sun’ is part of the deception of wickedness. God will also deceive the wicked to believe what is not true. You’ll be surprised what God is really going to do. What’s going to end is evil and all who practice it. What’s going to END IS SIN! The earth will survive and thrive. God will destroy the works of satan and ALL wicked people but will renew the earth and recreate it as we look on. In front of our very eyes God will transform deserts into beautiful landscapes filled with springs of water. The topography will be changed in many geographical locations on Earth. God is Love and everything and anything that is good and wholesome will come to pass. No more death! No more wickedness. Etc.
2 Thessalonians 2:8-Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9-that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,10-and with all THE DECEPTION of wickedness for those who perish, BECAUSE they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
 11-For this reason GOD WILL SEND UPON THEM a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12-in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
Log in to Reply  


Steefen  December 4, 2013
2 Thessalonians is not an authentic letter of Paul.
I picked up Craig Evans book, “Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels.”
In it, he says Joseph is the historian’s name before it is Latinized into Josephus.
Joseph takes down from the cross the body of Jesus who survives crucifixion. (New Testament)
 Joseph takes down from the cross the body of a man who survives crucifixion. (Autobiography of Flavius Josephus in which Josephus, with tears in his eyes, asks Titus to take down from the cross, the three bandits, rebel freedom fighters, who were crucified.)
(Saul – Paul – Joseph – Flavius Josephus)
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 5, 2013
Well, it would be a bit difficult for Josephus to be Joseph of Arimathea, since he wasn’t born yet…..
 
 

cheito

cheito  December 5, 2013
I think Thessalonians is a Letter written by Paul. We’ll have to wait and see who is right or wrong.
 The writer of Thessalonians is actually relating the Idea of the antichrist as recorded in Daniel:
Daniel 7:25‘HE WILL SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE MOST HIGH and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. 26‘But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever. 27‘Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.’
Daniel 8:23-“In the latter period of their rule,
 When the transgressors have run their course,
 A king will arise,
 Insolent and skilled in intrigue.
24“His power will be mighty, but NOT BY HIS OWN POWER.
 And he will destroy to an extraordinary degree
 And prosper and perform his will;
 He will destroy mighty men and the holy people.
25“And through his shrewdness
 He will cause deceit to succeed by his influence;
 And he will magnify himself in his heart,
 And he will destroy many while they are at ease.
 He will even oppose the Prince of princes,
 BUT HE WILL BE BROKEN WITHOUT HUMAN AGENCY.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



ben.holman  November 29, 2013
In N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God, he states: “Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of ‘exchange’ (losing one body, getting another one) rather than ‘addition’, as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an ‘exchange’ were to take place the new body would be more than the present one. (p. 367)”
Is it possible 1 Cor. 15 (or Paul in general, or some of the first christians) thought of Jesus’ resurrection Body as being a “newly made super spiritual (yet still physical) body” but that his corpse was still in the tomb? Such that, there were in total two bodies: the old dead discarded corruptible one, and the super new resurrected one… in effect thinking an exchange had taken place?
So, had you asked Peter or Paul, “hey, why is Jesus’s body still in the tomb?” They would’ve said, “well, its because he was resurrected into his new body.”… OR, can we be positive they thought of “resurrection” as the actual transformation of the very corpse that was dead?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
My view is that Paul definitely did not think the corpse was left in the grave; he sees the future resurrection of Christians as a transformation of their present bodies, at Jesus’ return — not a departure from the present body into a different body — and he bases his view on his understanding of Jesus’ own resurrection (thus 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess 4:13-18).
Log in to Reply  
 



laz  November 29, 2013
So your saying Paul’s view is that Jesus corpse stayed in the tomb……and his spirit which is made of stuff (a kind of body) was raised?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
No, in my view the corpse was reanimated and made immortal.
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  November 30, 2013
But where does Paul imply this? Especially since he’s aching for his current body to be destroyed and to be freed from it so he can ‘be with the Lord’?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15.
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  December 2, 2013
I’m sorry but where exactly does he mention a reanimated corpse there? And what about Paul’s desire to be away from his body (to have it destroyed actually) so he can be with the Lord?
 
 
 
 
 



maxhirez  November 30, 2013
Was a “spiritual body” of the sort you describe Paul writing about here one that could just kind of fade away whenever it wanted so that believers didn’t have to explain where this resurrected presence was at the moment?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
Yes, it had “superhuman” powers.
Log in to Reply  
 



SJB  November 30, 2013
Prof Ehrman
Where do you think Paul got his conception of the spiritual body? Was he drawing from widespread Jewish views or is he being innovative?
Thanks
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
I think it was a Jewish apocalyptic idea.
Log in to Reply  
 

Aleph82

Aleph82  November 30, 2013
When I first read about the resurrection story in the Gospel of Peter, the appearance of the gigantic Jesus sent my mind back to the glorious transformation being discussed in 1 Corinthians. Are there any scholars who consider the gigantic Jesus found in the Gospel of Peter an evolution of Paul’s theology? I admit that it still doesn’t explain the walking and talking cross, but I found this possibility intriguing.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
I’ve never heard anyone make this direct link, but it does make some sense.
Log in to Reply  
Aleph82

Aleph82  November 30, 2013
Not outrightly dismissed! Wish I could read Greek and was a graduate student. I’d have a potential dissertation topic to research! Speaking of reading Greek, any book/textbook you can recommend to eager amateur?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
I’m sure there are “teach-yourself” books available — but I’m not up on any of them! (I haven’t taught beginning Greek for nearly thirty years now! I do work with my graduate students, reading Greek every week; but I’m not sure what beginning books are good now….)
Log in to Reply  



JimmyLLang  December 1, 2013
I certainly am not Dr. Ehrman so feel free to dismiss this if you want. However, I have had good success with Mounce’s grammar. There are a lot of self helps for the independent study at home student. You can get lectures on dvd and what not at his website.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



alexius105  November 30, 2013
Sill confused. Does this mean Paul believed the tomb of Jesus was empty on the third day? He probably talked to other disciples and they confirmed this. Does this mean we actually can say there was a tomb and that it was found empty?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
Yes, I think he imagined that the tomb was empty. But I don’t know that there were any traditions of the empty tomb being discovered — there’s no trace of that view until Mark, who was writing about 20 years after Paul.
Log in to Reply  


alexius105  November 30, 2013
Paul only imagined this? He had acces to the disciples and they had access to the women at the tomb (eyewitnesses). So Pauls letters contain verified eyewitness accounts.? This means there was a burrial, a tomb, a known location of the tomb and some event that caused the boddy to dissappear.
And you said you don’t think there ever was a tomb, because Romans did not allow bodies to be buried.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
I don’t think Paul ever had contact with the women who went to the tomb; he never mentions them. And yes, I think Paul thinks Jesus’ body came back to life, raised immortal; by “tomb” I simply mean the place where Jesus’ remains were eventually placed.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Xeronimo74  November 30, 2013
The tomb could have been empty for a couple of different reasons. One of them being that Joseph of Arimathea’s people had transferred the corpse to the final tomb before sunrise (and before the women came to the tomb).
Log in to Reply  
 



wjlabarre  November 30, 2013
Professor Ehrman,
 If this means that Paul was telling his congregation that there indeed was some kind of physical body (a sort of super-human) that could have been touched, would this have made skeptical members seek out verification from the appearance witnesses in your opinion?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
I doubt it. People generally believe what they hear….
Log in to Reply  
 



Steefen  November 30, 2013
Eventually, people will come around to know Paul discredits himself and Paul is discredited by others. Journey of the Souls by Michael Newton, Infinite Mind by Valerie V. Hunt, books on reincarnation and the paranormal give no “peer review” nod to Paul’s notions of almost 2,000 years old. Paul got it wrong. So much of what Paul has added to the New Testament needs a long strikethrough. Paul is not reliable on the afterlife. He may be reliable on his personal hopes about the afterlife. Hopefully waves of Post-Christianity will wash away notions of Paul that have little weight of anchor.
It’s one thing for Mark to use the Homeric Epics in the Gospel of Mark. It’s quite an important thing for Luke, in Acts of the Apostles, to use Pyrhhus: The Fool of Hope by Plutarch (first century common era historian) against Paul.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/The%20Gospel%20of%20Paul.htm
So, in addition to biblical scholars and writers needing to read Josephus to get a broad view of what really went on in the first century, common era, the contribution of Jesus’ legacy to Jewish Revolt, we should be aware of what does not hold up for Paul and Paul’s teachings.
Jesus was more masterful than Paul who “popularized” a corrupt version of Jesus’ movement.
Keeping Paul’s pseudo-spirituality in higher standards of Christianity and Post-Christianity that are constantly being raised is like keeping the worse parts of Biblical Creationism in Human Evolution Studies.
That Saul-Paul persecuted followers of Jesus, then set up a rival Gospel and a rival movement against Jesus’ movement proves his conversion did not stop him from working against Jesus’ aims.
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  November 30, 2013
It is confusing indeed!
Log in to Reply  



z8000783  December 2, 2013
Corinthians 15 seems to imply that what Paul saw of Jesus during his conversion (whatever that was) was similar to what the apostles saw does it not?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 4, 2013
Yes, Paul seems to think so.
Log in to Reply  


z8000783  December 4, 2013
But Paul did not see the resurrected body though did he. Isn’t there an anomaly here?
If Paul believed that the apostles saw a ‘risen’ body Jesus, straight from the grave (before the ascension) how does that tie up with what he saw on the road.
Or are you saying that he thought he saw the ‘real’ body of Jesus as well?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 5, 2013
Yes, he seems to say that he saw the resurrected body of Jesus (presumably coming down from heaven; but that’s what the others thought as well).
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Steefen  December 5, 2013
Bart Ehrman:
Well, it would be a bit difficult for Josephus [Joseph, Latinized to Josephus] to be Joseph of Arimathea, since he wasn’t born yet…..
Steefen:
IF no one is tampering with the timeline of History — AND BOY HAVE WE SEEN THAT GOING ON IN THE BIBLE, for example, the book of Daniel definitely has evidence of being written later.
Some say, Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple is also an example of moving the timeline of History around.
Log in to Reply  



Cliff  December 6, 2013
I believe in Paul’s understanding about the resurrection of Jesus’s body to life. Resurrection in the body is real as the body is actually transformed into an immortal one. The body is the same but immortal, never gets old and never dies. In the part of the world that I grew from, there were stories of people dying and sometimes appearing to their loved ones, and disappear again. Their bodies have been transformed so much so that they could go through walls, roofed ceilings, locked doors and suddenly show themselves to people they knew in this natural world. In most cases, people who die harshly eg. in accidents, murder, and so on usually are reported to have been seen after their tragic deaths. Could it be the same with Jesus’s death after his cruxifiction? It was a harsh death and sudden.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 6, 2013
Yes, I’ll be dealing with this a bit in my new book.
Log in to Reply  
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          

http://ehrmanblog.org/paul-resurrection-spiritual-body/













Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogPaul and the Resurrection of a Spiritual Body (For members) 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Paul and the Resurrection of a Spiritual Body (For members)



You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







A Gnostic View of Jesus’ Resurrection (For members)«
Errant Texts and Historians»


29

NOV

2013

50
  
Comments
50  Comments
0  Trackbacks




toejam  November 29, 2013
I was watching Gerd Lüdemann debate William Lane Craig on youtube recently, and one of Gerd’s arguments against the ‘empty tomb’ narrative was how the pre-gospel source Paul uses the ‘seed’ analogy in 1Cor 15:37. When you couple that with his other passage in 1Cor 15:4, where Paul states directly that Jesus was “buried”, I think it’s quite clear that Paul had no knowledge of an empty tomb, and that when he said “buried”, he really meant it! – Paul literally thought Jesus had been buried in the ground like a seed. I’m sure this is old news to you… but it for me it was one of those ‘Ahhaa!’ moments! I’ve always had my doubts about the empty tomb narrative, but this insight has made it seem increasingly unlikely.
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  November 30, 2013
Yes. And just as he believed the shell of the seed to remain in the ground (while the ‘essence’ of the seed was given a NEW body according to its kind by God), it’s reasonable that he assumed the corpse of Jesus to remain buried while Jesus’ soul/spirit was given a NEW, spiritual, perfect, heavenly etc body by God.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
The seed doesn’t stay in the ground as a seed. It *becomes* a plant.
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  December 2, 2013
It ‘becomes’ the plant after it has ‘died’, at which point!, God GIVES it its actual, new body. The former seed, or actually the shell of the seed, remains dead and destroyed. And Paul which for his current body to be destroyed too so he could be given his new body and be with the Lord.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 4, 2013
Yes, I’m afraid we’ve had this disagreement before.
 
 
 
 
 



MichaelBrainerd  November 29, 2013
Bart,
 How do the accounts in John & Matthew fit into this discussion? Referring to Mary (the other women too) when she (they) first saw him at the tomb entrance, as well as when doubting Thomas and Jesus interacted?
Jesus tells Mary,”Touch Me not” (John 20:17); but then later, speaking to Thomas, He says, “Reach hither thy finger and behold My hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into My side” (verse 27).
Matthew 28:9 also talks to the other women falling down and grabbing his feet/ankles to worship him when they saw him there?
If it was/was not a physical resurrection how do these two situations effect/affect this discussion?
Don’t touch me? Why not? She had many times before? They were the closest of all! Shared secret’s!
Put your finger in my hand (physically)? Put your hand in my side (physically)? Could that have happened with a physical resurrection? Why could he touch Jesus when Mary was told she could/should not?
I find all of this very interesting, could/did he manifest himself in a way to been seen but not in a physical body? The belief of the time was that the spirit had some (material?) presence to it, it wasn’t just a spirit that existed within them, it could?? stand on its own so to speak if it were separated from the body?
Other than the cases of “taken up to heaven and never dying” there are no other resurrections in the Bible or other historical accounts. This seems to be as a lot of things in the Bible, a take off/retelling of old Mesopotamian and Sumerian gods who die and are resurrected in similar ways, but really no talk of the physical vs. the spiritual.
I guess this is just one of many Bible subjects that the conversation could go on forever!!!
Thanks,
 Mike
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
I’ll deal with the other NT accounts in another post — hopefully tomorrow or the next day!
Log in to Reply  
 



JimmyLLang  November 29, 2013
Is the separating of the spirit and body into two things an idea from Greek philosophy? You reference that we have difficulty with this concept today, but the ancients did not struggle. So I guess I would assume that many could maybe see they are different entities but mutually connected. Clarify my ignorance.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
Yes, roughly speaking this split between body and spirit can be traced back into Greek philosophy, most notably Plato.
Log in to Reply  
 



willow  November 29, 2013
“It is striking, and frequently overlooked by casual observers of the early Christian tradition, that even though it was a universal belief among the first Christians that Jesus had been raised from the dead, there was not a uniformity of belief concerning what, exactly, that meant.”
That there was no uniformity, regarding such a spectacular event, capitalize and italicize the word “spectacular”, is indication enough for me that the event, most likely, never happened. But then, that’s where the oldest text of Mark ends, isn’t it? With no resurrection.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
Actually Mark has a resurrection (notice what the young man tells the women at the tomb). What he doesn’t have are appearances of Jesus to his disciples (or anyone else) after the resurrection.
Log in to Reply  


willow  December 1, 2013
Thanks, Bart. I humbly admit to having, pretty much, dismissed Mark’s account in 16:6 for the far more spectacular John 20:1-18, that comes to us complete with two angels and Jesus himself. Sigh.
Log in to Reply  
 
 

cheito

cheito  November 29, 2013
His body did indeed come out of the grave. But when it did it was a transformed body, made of spirit, and raised immortal.
I knew you had it in you DR Ehrman. :-))
I’ll agree that the body is a Spiritual Body whose ‘Glory’ is Eternal not mortal. However I don’t think the body is made of Spirit. I think the Spirit is still The Spirit and the Body remains the Body.
Now our Spirit inhabits a mortal body but at the resurrection our spirit will dwell in a immortal body or spiritual body. An incorruptible body not subject to decay.
We are beings composed of Spirit Soul and Body. Paul states this very clearly in the scripture verse below:
1 Thessalonians 5:23-Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Log in to Reply  


Steefen  December 1, 2013
Resurrection to an immortal body has two impossible implications:
1) the Earth is immortal. Look at the scenario for the death of our Sun.
 2) the New Earth does not come until the present Earth is destroyed with the death of our Sun.
Log in to Reply  
cheito

cheito  December 2, 2013
These ideas about the Earth’s destruction and the ‘death of the sun’ is part of the deception of wickedness. God will also deceive the wicked to believe what is not true. You’ll be surprised what God is really going to do. What’s going to end is evil and all who practice it. What’s going to END IS SIN! The earth will survive and thrive. God will destroy the works of satan and ALL wicked people but will renew the earth and recreate it as we look on. In front of our very eyes God will transform deserts into beautiful landscapes filled with springs of water. The topography will be changed in many geographical locations on Earth. God is Love and everything and anything that is good and wholesome will come to pass. No more death! No more wickedness. Etc.
2 Thessalonians 2:8-Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9-that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,10-and with all THE DECEPTION of wickedness for those who perish, BECAUSE they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
 11-For this reason GOD WILL SEND UPON THEM a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12-in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
Log in to Reply  


Steefen  December 4, 2013
2 Thessalonians is not an authentic letter of Paul.
I picked up Craig Evans book, “Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels.”
In it, he says Joseph is the historian’s name before it is Latinized into Josephus.
Joseph takes down from the cross the body of Jesus who survives crucifixion. (New Testament)
 Joseph takes down from the cross the body of a man who survives crucifixion. (Autobiography of Flavius Josephus in which Josephus, with tears in his eyes, asks Titus to take down from the cross, the three bandits, rebel freedom fighters, who were crucified.)
(Saul – Paul – Joseph – Flavius Josephus)
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 5, 2013
Well, it would be a bit difficult for Josephus to be Joseph of Arimathea, since he wasn’t born yet…..
 
 

cheito

cheito  December 5, 2013
I think Thessalonians is a Letter written by Paul. We’ll have to wait and see who is right or wrong.
 The writer of Thessalonians is actually relating the Idea of the antichrist as recorded in Daniel:
Daniel 7:25‘HE WILL SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE MOST HIGH and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. 26‘But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever. 27‘Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.’
Daniel 8:23-“In the latter period of their rule,
 When the transgressors have run their course,
 A king will arise,
 Insolent and skilled in intrigue.
24“His power will be mighty, but NOT BY HIS OWN POWER.
 And he will destroy to an extraordinary degree
 And prosper and perform his will;
 He will destroy mighty men and the holy people.
25“And through his shrewdness
 He will cause deceit to succeed by his influence;
 And he will magnify himself in his heart,
 And he will destroy many while they are at ease.
 He will even oppose the Prince of princes,
 BUT HE WILL BE BROKEN WITHOUT HUMAN AGENCY.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



ben.holman  November 29, 2013
In N.T. Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God, he states: “Though Moule is no doubt right that Paul can envisage here the possibility of ‘exchange’ (losing one body, getting another one) rather than ‘addition’, as in 1 Corinthians 15, we should not lose sight of the fact that even if such an ‘exchange’ were to take place the new body would be more than the present one. (p. 367)”
Is it possible 1 Cor. 15 (or Paul in general, or some of the first christians) thought of Jesus’ resurrection Body as being a “newly made super spiritual (yet still physical) body” but that his corpse was still in the tomb? Such that, there were in total two bodies: the old dead discarded corruptible one, and the super new resurrected one… in effect thinking an exchange had taken place?
So, had you asked Peter or Paul, “hey, why is Jesus’s body still in the tomb?” They would’ve said, “well, its because he was resurrected into his new body.”… OR, can we be positive they thought of “resurrection” as the actual transformation of the very corpse that was dead?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
My view is that Paul definitely did not think the corpse was left in the grave; he sees the future resurrection of Christians as a transformation of their present bodies, at Jesus’ return — not a departure from the present body into a different body — and he bases his view on his understanding of Jesus’ own resurrection (thus 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess 4:13-18).
Log in to Reply  
 



laz  November 29, 2013
So your saying Paul’s view is that Jesus corpse stayed in the tomb……and his spirit which is made of stuff (a kind of body) was raised?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
No, in my view the corpse was reanimated and made immortal.
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  November 30, 2013
But where does Paul imply this? Especially since he’s aching for his current body to be destroyed and to be freed from it so he can ‘be with the Lord’?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15.
Log in to Reply  


Xeronimo74  December 2, 2013
I’m sorry but where exactly does he mention a reanimated corpse there? And what about Paul’s desire to be away from his body (to have it destroyed actually) so he can be with the Lord?
 
 
 
 
 



maxhirez  November 30, 2013
Was a “spiritual body” of the sort you describe Paul writing about here one that could just kind of fade away whenever it wanted so that believers didn’t have to explain where this resurrected presence was at the moment?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
Yes, it had “superhuman” powers.
Log in to Reply  
 



SJB  November 30, 2013
Prof Ehrman
Where do you think Paul got his conception of the spiritual body? Was he drawing from widespread Jewish views or is he being innovative?
Thanks
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
I think it was a Jewish apocalyptic idea.
Log in to Reply  
 

Aleph82

Aleph82  November 30, 2013
When I first read about the resurrection story in the Gospel of Peter, the appearance of the gigantic Jesus sent my mind back to the glorious transformation being discussed in 1 Corinthians. Are there any scholars who consider the gigantic Jesus found in the Gospel of Peter an evolution of Paul’s theology? I admit that it still doesn’t explain the walking and talking cross, but I found this possibility intriguing.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
I’ve never heard anyone make this direct link, but it does make some sense.
Log in to Reply  
Aleph82

Aleph82  November 30, 2013
Not outrightly dismissed! Wish I could read Greek and was a graduate student. I’d have a potential dissertation topic to research! Speaking of reading Greek, any book/textbook you can recommend to eager amateur?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
I’m sure there are “teach-yourself” books available — but I’m not up on any of them! (I haven’t taught beginning Greek for nearly thirty years now! I do work with my graduate students, reading Greek every week; but I’m not sure what beginning books are good now….)
Log in to Reply  



JimmyLLang  December 1, 2013
I certainly am not Dr. Ehrman so feel free to dismiss this if you want. However, I have had good success with Mounce’s grammar. There are a lot of self helps for the independent study at home student. You can get lectures on dvd and what not at his website.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



alexius105  November 30, 2013
Sill confused. Does this mean Paul believed the tomb of Jesus was empty on the third day? He probably talked to other disciples and they confirmed this. Does this mean we actually can say there was a tomb and that it was found empty?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  November 30, 2013
Yes, I think he imagined that the tomb was empty. But I don’t know that there were any traditions of the empty tomb being discovered — there’s no trace of that view until Mark, who was writing about 20 years after Paul.
Log in to Reply  


alexius105  November 30, 2013
Paul only imagined this? He had acces to the disciples and they had access to the women at the tomb (eyewitnesses). So Pauls letters contain verified eyewitness accounts.? This means there was a burrial, a tomb, a known location of the tomb and some event that caused the boddy to dissappear.
And you said you don’t think there ever was a tomb, because Romans did not allow bodies to be buried.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
I don’t think Paul ever had contact with the women who went to the tomb; he never mentions them. And yes, I think Paul thinks Jesus’ body came back to life, raised immortal; by “tomb” I simply mean the place where Jesus’ remains were eventually placed.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Xeronimo74  November 30, 2013
The tomb could have been empty for a couple of different reasons. One of them being that Joseph of Arimathea’s people had transferred the corpse to the final tomb before sunrise (and before the women came to the tomb).
Log in to Reply  
 



wjlabarre  November 30, 2013
Professor Ehrman,
 If this means that Paul was telling his congregation that there indeed was some kind of physical body (a sort of super-human) that could have been touched, would this have made skeptical members seek out verification from the appearance witnesses in your opinion?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 1, 2013
I doubt it. People generally believe what they hear….
Log in to Reply  
 



Steefen  November 30, 2013
Eventually, people will come around to know Paul discredits himself and Paul is discredited by others. Journey of the Souls by Michael Newton, Infinite Mind by Valerie V. Hunt, books on reincarnation and the paranormal give no “peer review” nod to Paul’s notions of almost 2,000 years old. Paul got it wrong. So much of what Paul has added to the New Testament needs a long strikethrough. Paul is not reliable on the afterlife. He may be reliable on his personal hopes about the afterlife. Hopefully waves of Post-Christianity will wash away notions of Paul that have little weight of anchor.
It’s one thing for Mark to use the Homeric Epics in the Gospel of Mark. It’s quite an important thing for Luke, in Acts of the Apostles, to use Pyrhhus: The Fool of Hope by Plutarch (first century common era historian) against Paul.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/The%20Gospel%20of%20Paul.htm
So, in addition to biblical scholars and writers needing to read Josephus to get a broad view of what really went on in the first century, common era, the contribution of Jesus’ legacy to Jewish Revolt, we should be aware of what does not hold up for Paul and Paul’s teachings.
Jesus was more masterful than Paul who “popularized” a corrupt version of Jesus’ movement.
Keeping Paul’s pseudo-spirituality in higher standards of Christianity and Post-Christianity that are constantly being raised is like keeping the worse parts of Biblical Creationism in Human Evolution Studies.
That Saul-Paul persecuted followers of Jesus, then set up a rival Gospel and a rival movement against Jesus’ movement proves his conversion did not stop him from working against Jesus’ aims.
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  November 30, 2013
It is confusing indeed!
Log in to Reply  



z8000783  December 2, 2013
Corinthians 15 seems to imply that what Paul saw of Jesus during his conversion (whatever that was) was similar to what the apostles saw does it not?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 4, 2013
Yes, Paul seems to think so.
Log in to Reply  


z8000783  December 4, 2013
But Paul did not see the resurrected body though did he. Isn’t there an anomaly here?
If Paul believed that the apostles saw a ‘risen’ body Jesus, straight from the grave (before the ascension) how does that tie up with what he saw on the road.
Or are you saying that he thought he saw the ‘real’ body of Jesus as well?
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 5, 2013
Yes, he seems to say that he saw the resurrected body of Jesus (presumably coming down from heaven; but that’s what the others thought as well).
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Steefen  December 5, 2013
Bart Ehrman:
Well, it would be a bit difficult for Josephus [Joseph, Latinized to Josephus] to be Joseph of Arimathea, since he wasn’t born yet…..
Steefen:
IF no one is tampering with the timeline of History — AND BOY HAVE WE SEEN THAT GOING ON IN THE BIBLE, for example, the book of Daniel definitely has evidence of being written later.
Some say, Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple is also an example of moving the timeline of History around.
Log in to Reply  



Cliff  December 6, 2013
I believe in Paul’s understanding about the resurrection of Jesus’s body to life. Resurrection in the body is real as the body is actually transformed into an immortal one. The body is the same but immortal, never gets old and never dies. In the part of the world that I grew from, there were stories of people dying and sometimes appearing to their loved ones, and disappear again. Their bodies have been transformed so much so that they could go through walls, roofed ceilings, locked doors and suddenly show themselves to people they knew in this natural world. In most cases, people who die harshly eg. in accidents, murder, and so on usually are reported to have been seen after their tragic deaths. Could it be the same with Jesus’s death after his cruxifiction? It was a harsh death and sudden.
Log in to Reply  
Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman  December 6, 2013
Yes, I’ll be dealing with this a bit in my new book.
Log in to Reply  
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/paul-resurrection-spiritual-body/





















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogHow Women Came to Be Silenced 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



How Women Came to Be Silenced

I come now to the climax of this thread: how is it that women came to be silenced in the early Christian tradition?  Of all my posts in this thread on women in early Christianity, I think this is the most important.  Again, I give my reflections on it from my Introduction to the NT:
The first thing to observe is that women may have been disproportionately represented in the earliest Christian communities.  This at least was a constant claim made by the opponents of Christianity in the second century, who saw the inordinate number of women believers as a fault; remarkably enough, the defenders of the faith never denied it.  Second, we should recall that the earliest Christian communities, including those established by Paul, were not set up as public institutions like the Jewish synagogues or the local trade associations, which met in public buildings and had high social visibility.  Paul established *house* churches, gatherings of converts who met in private homes.  The significance of this difference should not be overlooked.  For in the Roman world, matters of the household were principally handled *by women*.  Of course, even in the home the husband was “lord of the house,” with ultimate authority over everything from finances to household religion.  But since the home was “private” space instead of “public,” most men gave their wives relatively free reign within its confines.  If Paul’s churches met in private homes — that is, in the worlds in which women held some degree of jurisdiction — it is small wonder that women often exercised authority in his churches.  And small wonder that men often allowed them to do so.  This was the woman’s domain.
This is perhaps one reason why so many women were drawn to the religion in the first place.  Why then did women’s roles come to be curtailed?  It may be that as the movement grew and individual churches increased in size, more ….

FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the Members’ Site.  If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW!!!


 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







A Plea for My Blog«
How Women Came to Be Silenced (For members)»


2

AUG

2013

0
  
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 

Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          

http://ehrmanblog.org/how-women-came-to-be-silenced/
















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogHow Women Came to Be Silenced 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



How Women Came to Be Silenced

I come now to the climax of this thread: how is it that women came to be silenced in the early Christian tradition?  Of all my posts in this thread on women in early Christianity, I think this is the most important.  Again, I give my reflections on it from my Introduction to the NT:
The first thing to observe is that women may have been disproportionately represented in the earliest Christian communities.  This at least was a constant claim made by the opponents of Christianity in the second century, who saw the inordinate number of women believers as a fault; remarkably enough, the defenders of the faith never denied it.  Second, we should recall that the earliest Christian communities, including those established by Paul, were not set up as public institutions like the Jewish synagogues or the local trade associations, which met in public buildings and had high social visibility.  Paul established *house* churches, gatherings of converts who met in private homes.  The significance of this difference should not be overlooked.  For in the Roman world, matters of the household were principally handled *by women*.  Of course, even in the home the husband was “lord of the house,” with ultimate authority over everything from finances to household religion.  But since the home was “private” space instead of “public,” most men gave their wives relatively free reign within its confines.  If Paul’s churches met in private homes — that is, in the worlds in which women held some degree of jurisdiction — it is small wonder that women often exercised authority in his churches.  And small wonder that men often allowed them to do so.  This was the woman’s domain.
This is perhaps one reason why so many women were drawn to the religion in the first place.  Why then did women’s roles come to be curtailed?  It may be that as the movement grew and individual churches increased in size, more ….

FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the Members’ Site.  If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW!!!


 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







A Plea for My Blog«
How Women Came to Be Silenced (For members)»


2

AUG

2013

0
  
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 


Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/how-women-came-to-be-silenced/















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogOn Being Controversial 
  
13 votes, average: 4.85 out of 513 votes, average: 4.85 out of 513 votes, average: 4.85 out of 513 votes, average: 4.85 out of 513 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5 (13 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



On Being Controversial

In this post I am going to take a bit of time out to do some self-reflection.   An issue I’ve been puzzling over for some time is the fact that people keep referring to my work as “controversial.”    I hear this all the time.  And truth be told, I’ve always found it bit odd and a disconcerting.   This past week I’ve had two people tell me that they know that I “like to be controversial.”   That’s actually not the case at all.   One person told me that she had seen a TV show where someone had said that they didn’t believe that Jesus existed, and she thought that was right up my alley.   I didn’t bother to tell her that I had written an entire book arguing that Jesus certainly did exist.  She simply assumed that this was the sort of view that I myself would have and delight in making public.
The reason I find that the idea I’m controversial is that my views about the historical Jesus, the authorship of the books of the New Testament, the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity, the rise of early Christology, and on and on – these are views that are not particularly strange in the academy.  I *acquired* almost all of these views .  With respect to every one of them, what I talk about in my writings is what I myself have learned.   Very rarely in my popular writings do a I put out a view that is unusual and untested in the academic world.
I have done so on occasion, and when I do the response I get from other scholars is very interesting and a bit amusing.   If I advance a thesis in a popular book that is not widely shared among scholars (e.g., in my How Jesus Became God book, where I advanced the idea – which I did not invent myself, but came to agree with from the writings of two other scholars, but which is not a view widely held in the field – that the apostle Paul understood Christ to have originally been an angelic being who became human) some critics objected that I shouldn’t be saying something in a popular book  that does not represent widely accepted scholarship.  The reason this objection is amusing to me is that these very same critics are the same ones who object to my popular books because they “don’t say anything new.”  So, well, how can they have it both ways exactly?
In any event, I may be on the relatively left side of scholarship, but this, that, or the other view I have is widely held in the guild among everyone who is not a religiously conservative Christian.   So why am I, in particular, under attack for being controversial?
What some scholars criticize me for are not my statements but my “tone.”  I’m not sure how one gauges tone.   But when I say things that other scholars who are not controversial say, I’m charged with having a haughty and cynical tone.   Just as one example, some critics have charged me with being excessive and over the top and sensationalistic when, in my book Misquoting Jesus, I wrote that “there are more variants in the manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.”    Apart from the fact that the statement is true, the line itself is one that I borrowed wholesale from my own teacher, Bruce Metzger!  He was a conservative Christian scholar that almost precisely no one found excessive, over the top, and sensational – let alone controversial!
I have a good reason for thinking that people consider my views controversial when in fact they are not controversial (and when I don’t mean them to be controversial).  That is this:  When I first published my college-level textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings in 1997, no one who reviewed it thought that it was the least bit controversial, off-putting, over the top, cynical, offensive, snarky, insensitive or anything else negative.   It quickly became the bestselling book on the market.  It still is today.  But professors who use it have, over the past seven or eight years, *started* to complain about its “tone” as being over the top and insensitive, even though the parts they complain about (in the current 6th edition) are the parts that I haven’t changed from when I published the first edition eighteen years ago! The words haven’t changed.  But my public persona apparently has changed.  So the words themselves, in my view, are not controversial.  But because *I’m* controversial some scholars charge me with trying to be controversial with words that they used to think were not controversial even though they are the same words!!
It seems to come as a surprise to people that I don’t try to be controversial.  It simply isn’t one of my goals.   I actually don’t enjoy being controversial and would prefer it if I weren’t.  I’d much rather that people read my work and say something like, “Hmmm.   Good point!  I hadn’t seen it that way before.”
I think the reasons I get *interpreted* as being controversial  are (a) I say things publicly that other scholars just say to themselves and one another (these same scholars pull their punches when they are talking to a public audience); and even more important (b) I try to make the way I present things *interesting* to people.   To make things interesting one has to highlight what is intriguing about them.   But what is intriguing and interesting about scholarship almost always is, necessarily, information that people generally don’t know or haven’t thought about.  And so if a compelling or (even just) strong case is made for a position that others have not generally heard (e.g.: there are more variants in the manuscripts than words in the NT), it is thought that you are going out of your way to shock people rather than to do the work of (otherwise dry) scholarship.
Scholarship, in all fields, can be incredibly dry.   I believe in making scholarship interesting.  I don’t do it to be controversial.  I do it to get people interested.  But as many people as get interested, there seem to be more who get upset.   I’m very sorry to see that happen.  But I’m not about to make my public scholarship dull, uninteresting, or inaccessible to public audiences so that no one will get offended!
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.








What Is A Memory?»


18

APR

2015

36
  
Comments
36  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Jason  April 18, 2015
You never seem to me to court controversy. You don’t ever even seem to come off as enjoying your popularity as much as you enjoy the material you teach. I think what’s contrversial is that conservative Christians feel in some sense that they own the corpus of Christian history, writing and teaching and if you aren’t going to tow their party line then by default you’re stirring their pot.
Log in to Reply  



doug  April 18, 2015
I don’t like being called “controversial” either. I figure that’s the price I pay so that I can be me. I’m just trying to be helpful without hurting people. I guess the day I stop being “controversial” will be the day they toss me in the six foot hole.
Log in to Reply  



Adam0685  April 18, 2015
All true. Also for many others (many conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists) it’s easier to write you off as sensational so they can then quickly write off what you say without really listening or engaging with the material. It’s a defense mechanism in this case.
Log in to Reply  



BrianUlrich  April 18, 2015
My sense is that the culture wars have dramatically increased in intensity in the social media age. People who would previously never notice your work now see it in someone’s feed, and so form an opinion on it. What leads to controversy, then, is the fact that people who barely knew secular Biblical scholarship existed find out about it, and of course automatically see it through the culture war lens.
Log in to Reply  



caseyjunior  April 18, 2015
I think the reason you are seen as controversial is because you lay out convincing evidence and draw obvious conclusions from it that a lot of people just don’t want to hear. It’s sort of like the evidence for human influence on global warming; it’s easier to call it controversial than face the facts. Out here in Kansas (remember?) denying the facts in favor of our idea of the way we’d like things to be is a major industry! Keep making things interesting; a lot of us really appreciate it!
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  April 18, 2015
Wow! Thanks for sharing this. My two cents worth, which is probably worth one cent:
 1. That you are introspective enough to be thinking about such things says something good about you.
 2. Although the ideas that you present are not controversial among scholars, the lay public, by and large, unfortunately, has not been taught very much of this material so it upsets a lot of people.
 3. Early Christianity is a very important subject to a lot of people so you write about matters that mean the world to a lot of people. and, hence, people have strong feelings about what you write and that means you are writing about important topics. Unfortunately, many quickly and falsely come to believe that you are debunking Christianity. I don’t agree that you are doing that. I do remember, however, that an entire website was once set up to debunk your work.
 4. People can see in you whatever they want to see. Commonly, people who are upset will use “ad hominem” personal attacks rather than discussing the subject matter.
 5. What you are doing is very important and helpful to many so keep doing it.
 6. You do not have to be perfect, just good enough which you are.
 7. You often debate before hostile crowds so you need to be confident which some can view as your being “haughty” if they want to see you that way. I don’t. It’s part of being a debater. Should you just roll over in a debate and play dead?
 8. My best childhood friend and I met in kindergarten, attended public schools together, attended the same church, played ball on the same teams, attended college together, went to medical school together, and did our medical internships together. He recently died secondary to a brain tumor. Before, he died, he and I started an email group of old friends whom we had met at various stages of our lives. Our first task was for each member of the group to write a summary of his/her religious views and how we developed those views. Many wrote very moving emails. I wrote mostly about what I had learned from your books. One response that I received was quite caustic: “You can either believe Ehrman or you can believe Jesus!” I stopped the group soon after my friend’s death. It was just too nasty. So, the critical examination of crucial questions can be a very lonely and isolating endeavor, but it is still important to do. Several in the group still completely shun me and I am not at all welcome in one particular church. Quite a reaction to a few good theological Bible questions. The reaction actually hurt me a lot as I m sure you have been hurt.
I hope something in this response helps you a little.
Log in to Reply  



living42day  April 19, 2015
I think your analysis of why some folks call you “controversial” is right on target. For some people, I’m sure, calling you (or your books/lectures) controversial is just a way to increase public attention. Indeed, some may view the term as a compliment. A description that would be more accurate might be “controversial in some circles, but fairly mainstream within academia.” The ideas that ought to be considered “controversial” are the ones that most experts in the field have long rejected because they are not supported by solid evidence and/or strong arguments. As you note, the main reason some well-established ideas still seem controversial is that too many scholars have failed to speak/write clearly about them outside the academic guild. Books sales and the attendance at your lectures should make it abundantly clear that there is a great need for what you’re doing. Keep up the good work!
Log in to Reply  



DanHelton  April 19, 2015
I saw this today on my Facebook feed. Posted by a minister I know in northern Michigan.
FROM PERSON POSTING: Good read. Josephus records Jesus.
SHARED LINK: Bart Ehrman on Denying that Jesus Existed: “You Look Foolish”
In one regard, at least, Ehrman is the Christian’s friend.
 PATHEOS.COM
Log in to Reply  



Jana  April 19, 2015
I’ve been listening to another one of your lectures via youtube and I find your delivery refreshingly straight forward, clear, without emotional prejudice, void of arrogance, factual and definitely thought worthy. In short, I feel enlightened from both listening and reading. Me thinks one must dismiss most peer criticism as jealousy (you are a best selling author/they are not) or in the first example, over simplification to the degree of missing the point all together. If being “controversial” (whatever that word means) forces people to discern then that is also a very good thing !!
Log in to Reply  



Judith  April 19, 2015
You have the gift of making your points piercingly clear to those of us who have begun questioning our Christianity. Your excellence at what you do makes it impossible to defend those crumbling beliefs except to accuse you of being controversial. What else is there? You are beyond refuting. And you are controversial for those of us who are joining you in the way you see Jesus. Now our fundamentalist families and friends think we’ve gone over to the dark side. :-)
I’ve mentioned before that great theologian who made it possible for some of us to grow beyond where we were spiritually. He believes what you are doing is a necessary step on the way to truth. I’m hoping we bloggers can help you feel supported in your excellent brave work.
Log in to Reply  


Elisabeth  April 22, 2015
My thoughts exactly, Judith. That whole post is the story of my life with my (very conservative Christian) family – “you just want to argue” – no, I want you guys to actually research the Bible.
Log in to Reply  
 



John  April 19, 2015
I also find it a bit peculiar that you would be called “controversial”. Perhaps the reason is that you educate a large number of people, and some might have been indoctrinated at an early age that knowledge is dangerous – therefore they feel threatened. By default this might make you controversial to those who do not understand what you are trying to accomplish in your writings. Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris are controversial. I do not consider you to be. Thanks for all the hard work you do.
Log in to Reply  



prairieian  April 19, 2015
At least the upset have read your work, which is success for any author one would think! As well, someone, I forget who, observed that the venom in academic disputes, as often as not on the smallest of matters, is a wonder to behold. And, I suspect there is a touch of jealousy and envy for your success beyond the ivory tower.
Perhaps more fundamentally, from the perspective of the conservative Christian academic, your work is literally ‘off message’ and therefore not welcome. That this is an anti-intellectual position is of no matter. Religion, as a glance at the horrorshow in the Middle East reveals, is not a topic on which some (many?) can calmly reflect, let alone consider the evidence for as if it were some conventional subject. When the god in question has helpfully appointed earthly intermediaries who are all too willing to pass on his instructions and point of view, you have the stage set for truly appalling behaviour. We are very luckly to live in societies that are willing to have such debates, even if they’re often bad tempered and ill-considered, rather than having them closed down and off limits.
Long may it be thus.
Log in to Reply  



rbrtbaumgardner  April 19, 2015
Bart, I very much enjoy your conversational and personal tone. You don’t always have the very careful, measured tone usually expected of scholars and when a sentence like that here or there is isolated and taken from its context you might *appear* to be “controversial.” People who treat you like that and don’t read you in context are just looking for reasons to complain. You know what? Who cares what they think.You are incredibly generous with your time and your knowledge and you care deeply for your work and your students. The blog supports the poor and the hungry. You do good work and good works. I hope you know how much you are appreciated and you won’t be troubled by quibbling detractors.
Log in to Reply  



Mafunzalo  April 19, 2015
You are “controversial” because you are presenting information that is different from what the great masses have been taught for years and years. The masses have a large emotional investment and you are telling them (accurately) that everything they have been taught and believed is wrong. That the information taught to the masses has been altered (modified, changed, totally re-written) by the church fathers is considered heresy. Hence, you ARE controversial and will continue to be until the masses realize that you are presenting accurate history. When THAT will be…
Log in to Reply  



dragonfly  April 19, 2015
It feels like scholars are knowledge hogs. “Yes, us scholars know that, but don’t tell the public!” Maybe what people see as controversial is that you’re spilling the beans to the public about what scholars know and the methods they use to work it out?
Log in to Reply  



mary  April 19, 2015
Count me as one of the readers that read your works as “Yes, that is very interesting” and ” I enjoy learning about scholarly things in a way I can understand”.
As far as I can tell critics do not want to look into the words or subject matter, they only criticize. Are they at it again or should I say still and forever at it?
You must have a very special Aura
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 20, 2015
I keep trying to convince my wife of that….
Log in to Reply  
 



mary  April 19, 2015
I added a smiley to the aura…It did not show up.
Log in to Reply  



VEndris  April 19, 2015
1) I think you are correct. As a case in point, whenever I hear about Albert Schweitzer, I inevitably hear the last paragraph of his book and how Jesus comes to each of us personally and, well, his theology. I didn’t realize until I read either you or Allison, I can’t remember which, what his views on the historical Jesus were. I grew up as an evangelical, and I always heard of Schweitzer as a champion of fundamentalism. So, its not only perception of the person, but also which parts you want to highlight.
2) You brought up the fact that most of what you say is just popular scholarship. What ideas have you put forth that are yours? What will people publish and say, “As Ehrman states, . . .” I haven’t found your view that Jesus did not believe himself to be the Son of Man but was looking for another anywhere else.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 20, 2015
Yes, that’s a view (Son of Man) that has been around for a long time, even if it’s not what most scholars have thought.
Log in to Reply  
 



RonaldTaska  April 19, 2015
Using confirmation bias, people are likely to remember or disremember information in a way that supports what they already believe. A good introductory article about “confirmation bias,” that readers of this blog might find interesting, is “Your Brain Lies to You” by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt. It appeared in the “Opinion” section of the New York Times on 6/29/08. I assume that the remembering and disremembering of early Christians also were affected by “confirmation bias.” It had to be such since they were humans. How could it be otherwise?
One interesting form of “cognitive bias” is the “Dunning-Kruger Effect” which essentially states that the less you know, the more confident you are about what you know and the more you know, the less confident you are about what you know.
Log in to Reply  

Rick

Rick  April 19, 2015
Controversy, “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” (Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride)…. Several cases in point:
 1. Nowhere is it said that the term must be applied fairly under the rules of academic debate. Particularly, when you have irritated conservatives.
 2. Usually the term is used by the “losing” side to cast aspersion on their opponent rather than the opposing argument; and, to imply more support for their side than actually exists (E.g. Global Warming “Controversy”).
3. It actually places you in rather good company… With respect to the underlying odium thelogicum, John Stewart Mill said something like – in a sincere bigot, it is one of the most unequivocal cases of using moral feeling rather than reasoned argument to justify beliefs.
 4. With respect to the burden of being controversial: “You wouldn’t worry so much about what others think of you if you realized how seldom they do.” ― Eleanor Roosevelt
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  April 19, 2015
I wonder whether part of that perception stems from your having acknowledged that you yourself are an agnostic/atheist?
Before I came here this morning, I visited the CBS News website. Their top-headlined story was about atheists seeking to organize, to protest discrimination! One teacher believed his atheism had cost him his job (though a connection couldn’t be proved). And it had only come to light because someone reported his having “liked” a site about atheism on his Facebook page.
They mentioned that some people who will acknowledge that they “don’t believe in God” reject the term “atheist.” I myself do, because – possibly because of my upbringing, or simply my age bracket – I take it to mean, really, “anti-theist.” (That term itself seems never to be used, by anyone.) And while I think the world will be better off when theistic religions have died out, I realize that in our day, they do enrich some people’s lives.
So I call myself an agnostic and a non-theist. But, fortunately, no one but me gives a hoot what I believe!
Log in to Reply  



rivercrowman  April 19, 2015
Bart, you’re going to get a lot of comments, so I’ll keep mine as short as I can. … I’ve found that born-again Christians can’t believe we don’t have the originals of the New Testament Gospels! … If I try to discuss the tumultuous history of Christianity, I’m generally pegged as someone who “dislikes” Christians — and who should keep my thoughts to myself. … I’m part way through Elaine Pagels book “Beyond Belief,” as I patiently wait for your next book that will be entitled “Jesus Before the Gospels.” … Thank you for your work.
Log in to Reply  



MikeyS  April 19, 2015
Hi Bart, well, it all depends whom your audience is and who buys your books doesn’t it? I don’t know if you would be a best selling author based on your historical research as there are tons of authors doing much the same. My guess is they sell because you are attacking the whole concept of what most Christians believe in the USA especially and that the bible is the literal word of God. Your books and indeed your own loss of faith was based on errors and contradictions within scripture. So you are hated by the Christian Apologetic class and loved by the Agnostic and Atheist groups where your books reinforce their own lost innocence in God as you did. That is why your works are contraversial my friend and little else. Please don’t be fooled into thinking its literary genius or breaking any new ground. Most Christians will never ever buy or read any books by Athiests.
You have said that most of your new students are Christian believers at the start of the course and you are not there to alter any preconceived theological ideas they have about the bible etc and God and their faith BUT! That is exactly what you are doing. I would be very surprised that on completion of your courses, they hold onto those beliefs 100% and many will indeed become Agnostics and Atheists and especially IF you then explain to them why it was you became one, based on error in the bible and suffering in the world. You have said that many eminent colleagues who are Christians, read your books, without it affecting their beliefs. Just my opinion but I can’t see how highly literate people could do that IF they read them in any detail. I would then suggest they don’t and skip through them and smile back to you and say its just fine. You may not think you are being contraversial but that is EXACTLY why you are in demand….Just my simple view my friend from this side of the Pond.
Log in to Reply  



MikeyS  April 19, 2015
Bart, how many times have you been in a public debate with apologetics in front of a mainly Christian audience and I’ve seen you do this. You have asked them to put their hands up to show how many are there to see you ‘creamed’ I think was the word you used.
That surely is not for anything other than you are attacking their very entrenched Christian beliefs. And you said you don’t mean to be controversial? Pull the other one! ;)
Log in to Reply  

@manx

@manx  April 20, 2015
As you have already alluded to, I suspect in large your been seen as “controversial” is because you are sharing knowledge normally reserved for scholarly circles which would take years of study to attain.
When you put the work of scholars like yourself alongside the modern approach of archaeology, mix in the work done on the cuneiform tablets, the Ugaritic texts, the Dead Sea and Nag Hammandi scrolls among others.
Average people like myself can have a more informed opinion. That in return means that people of “faith” can no longer get away with the out of context quotes and need to work much harder than in the past. And that I also suspect is the main reason for your “controversial” status.
So I simply say thank you and carry on Sir.
Log in to Reply  



madmargie  April 20, 2015
I have a friend that is a retired Methodist preacher/pastor. He told our “Living the Questions” group that he always attempted to teach his congregations the things he learned in seminary and was soon moved..every time. I believe most people don’t study anything and consequently believe those of us who try to stay up on the latest developments in New Testament study..are controversial.
Log in to Reply  



RGM-ills  April 20, 2015
Dr. Bart,
PLEASE stay controversial.
You are the scholastic wrestler that comes out of the dressing room and tells the audience that the two opposing wrestler dressing rooms are connected back stage via the wrestler’s lounge and that you all drink coffee together.
The other wrestlers do not like you doing this.
It is only dogma that causes the controversy. You are the Dogmatic Executioner. It just feels like nothing new to you after years of studying with the scholars. It is NEW to us.
Log in to Reply  


RGM-ills  April 21, 2015
P.S. The other wrestlers don’t want it to be new to us.. or old to us.
Log in to Reply  
 



qaelith2112  April 21, 2015
The “controversy” is in contrast to the views of conservative / inerrantist perspectives, which unfortunately seem to represent a whole lot of the public commentary on your work. I get the idea that very, very few well qualified mainstream scholars are doing much public commentary, apart from the occasional talking head blurbs on the various TV documentaries on History and NatGeo, where some can on occasion be seen sneaking in a sound bite that might also be controversial to the less informed masses, and more often state facts which, while largely unfamiliar to the casual viewer, is more about mundane history and not especially challenging to that casual viewer’s theological commitments. Most of the references to your work on podcasts, widely read blogs, and in popular books found in the “Christianity” subsection of the religion aisle at the major booksellers are unfortunately offered by the inerrantists who are a great deal more in public view than your colleagues who represent mainstream scholarship. As you noted, mainstream scholars just aren’t saying a whole lot to the general public while inerrantists take every opportunity available to do so. Those are the ones branding you as “controversial” and because the general public sees a sizeable number of inerrantists saying one thing (which agrees with their lifelong church-instilled theological commitments) and you’re one of the very few they’ve ever seen who is saying something different, they assume their viewpoint is some sort of consensus and you’re representing a fringe minority. I’ve engaged with some of these people on this matter to understand better and this seems to be what’s going on.
They may very well realize that there are other academics who agree with these conclusions, but they grossly understate just how many there are, how widespread it is, and how the methodology for arriving at these conclusions differs substantially from the methodology of the inerrantists — and they unfortunately don’t see a problem with the inerrantist tendency to start with a conclusion and work backward. That separates apologetics from scholarship, and the distinction is lost on most people who see you as “controversial”. To them, the methodology is no different — it’s merely whether one starts with corrupt liberal extremist hyper-skeptical anti-God leftist presuppositions or whether one is merely “open” to the supernatural, the latter inevitably bringing one to an inerrantist view of things. Nevermind that this is a completely inaccurate representation of how the sides differ….
Log in to Reply  



Wijting  April 21, 2015
Bart, I view controversy like concentric circles. The smaller the group (circle) and more tightly held beliefs, the more likely you are to appear controversial. The wider the group (circle) and more flexible the beliefs, the harder it is to be controversial. In Lawrence, Kansas you would be more controversial than in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
 For instance, James Kugel’s ‘How to Read the Bible’ and courses at Harvard would be considered standard fare for getting your degree in religion. I loved ‘How to Read the Bible,’ as it is one of those very rare books where you get both sides in a beautifully crafted way that allows you to come to your own conclusions. However, to a Hasidic Jew from Brooklyn it is tantamount to demolishing his cherished beliefs. Hasidism’s circle is much tighter and more rigid, and its incorporation of new information is less likely to be successful.
To me, you’re just standard fare scholarship and the sort of thing I’d expect if I wanted to get my feet wet in Christian history. But, if I were to bring your material to a Wednesday night bible study then such things would be considered quite threatening.
It is only controversial to the degree that it threatens the other’s beliefs and worldview. A moderate Muslim is going to be extremely controversial to a radical Islamist, and so on.
Log in to Reply  



EBHinNC  April 22, 2015
I say, blame Princeton! Back in the late 70’s, Jack Rogers taught one Sunday morning at our church while he was doing the research for what turned out to be “The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible” 1979/1999. He was pretty fascinating telling us how he and co-author McKim were tracing the U.S. literalistic belief in the bible back to the textbook choice at Princeton Seminary in the early days. Rather than teaching the bible as “accommodated language” as Calvin and the reformers described it, the Princeton dons used Francis Turretin as textbook, where the bible was regarded as “a nonhistorical body of propositions that offered a base of inerrant information….” Since Princeton taught so many of the first pastors, who in turn taught so many of the early congregants who became clergy in their turn, Turretin’s view became prevalent, and the Reformers’ actual views eclipsed. We’ve been at this for a while, so you are up against quite a mass of inerrancy soft and hard. I think of Briggs and his trial for heresy — and my realizing at seminary that he must be the Briggs of BDB Lexicon — which after a laugh and a sigh gave me great comfort. So, we need you acutely to help us learn what’s most likely true and what the possibilities of the uncertain issues are. I am really sorry it’s tough. But you are doing good in so many ways. Thank you.
Log in to Reply  



gavm  April 22, 2015
why is Bart Ehrman controversial? id say its a bit of a perfect storm
1: you an atheist/ex christain. just a imagine you saw a youtube vid that says “islamic scholar Ex muslim turned atheists talks about islam”. your gonna know what he thinks and why he changed.
2: you talk about things that are potentially not ideal for many versions of Christianity. you say things that the ave person interested in the subject (a christain) prob wont really wanna hear
3: you reveal new info (new meaning new to the ave persons ears), they dont hear this in church
4: your original (in that very few other scholars seem to have gotten the word out to the public about these juciy topics)
5: you sell your points. the ave NT text book might talk about the probs in the NT but people dont know. yr books make it clear. its pretty hard to miss titles like “Forged” and “misquoting Jesus” and not know they are gonna say something juicy
6: you communicate well: yr a good writer/speaker hence when you write a book or give a talk about how jesus prob didnt come back from the dead people will get the point clear as day in there heads (even if its knowledge they didnt really want). yr write books a plumber or a nurse or a farmer can read
7: Yr American. the US is a pretty religious part of the world. If you were Australian i seriously doubt youd be a big deal. to be controversial means to generate disagreement and the US is prob a place where saying something problematic the Christianity will create disagreement
i would guess there have been plenty of people with a few of these qualities (people like Dale Martin or Dom Crossan clearly have veiws very sim to yrs) but yr prob unique in that you got them all, hence yr the top dog to date.
Log in to Reply  



shakespeare66  April 22, 2015
Wow, Bart Ehrman, you struck a big chord with this one and my own experience with learning and sharing my knowledge of early Christianity with those around me. I have felt the same discord and feel like the messenger who was “killed” for delivering the message rather than praised for sharing it. As you might remember, I am a retired English teacher who felt large gaps in his knowledge when I taught British and American literature whenever allusions were made to the Bible. I guess I felt guilty about that lack of knowledge and so I began reading after I had investigated who I was going to read. All arrows led to you. I began reading, and I have read all of your popular books and most of your other books ( textbooks, etc.) You once told me, “That’s a lot of reading!” and I say, “That’s an incredible amount of writing!”
I have often praised the incredible effort you have made to bring the scholarly world of the area to the public’s attention. But I, like you, have to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” whenever one puts out a scholarly argument. I had one “friend” say all of what you have discovered and learned and argued is “balderdash.” I argued vehemently and cogently for you ( and me) because I hold the learning and scholarship of your discoveries to be true. Yet there is a price to pay for displaying the truth to the uneducated public—they are going to judge for the simplest of reasons and call you out on it. Even if you are not trying to be controversial, your discovered truths are going to be bandied about and challenged by those whose belief systems just cannot take the jolt of the light of truth. Remember in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge meets The Ghost of Christmas Past, and she shines the light of truth for him to see, and it is hard to look at. I see most people I “shed the light of truth” to cannot accept it. Their belief systems are too set, and they cannot accept any changes to the history of the Christ they know. I don’t even bother to share with anyone who does not have an open mind—senseless. But you are public figure, a professor who is sharing his scholarly knowledge with the world, and so you are going to meet combatants who will “charge” you with anything and everything to mischaracterize you. Not sure you saw the HBO Series called “Going Clear” about Scientology–I am sure you have. Imagine those guys getting their claws into you if you attacked their religion with ‘the light of truth.” I use the word attacked because they ( your opposition) sees it that way. Anyone who really KNOWS you understands who you are and what your goals are. When things like this happen, they are just the “collateral damage” of putting out “the light of truth” to there unwilling eyes—just as Ebenezer had no desire to look at it face on.
I commend you. I think you are a very courageous person—I learned what it is to be you—armed with all this knowledge about early Christianity and Jesus—and then the consequent silent disregard and the looks and the “he’s crazy” and all of that from those who just are not ready for the “light of truth.”
Even though you don’t intend to be controversial, what you end up saying is “controversial” in the eyes of the opposition, and they are going to belittle you for it. Besides, they are jealous—jealous of your popular books, jealous of your incredible ability to communicate, and jealous of your mind—wow!
Keep up the work. I am incredibly happy to have the opportunity to know you and your work.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/on-being-controversial/
















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogOn Being Controversial 
  
13 votes, average: 4.85 out of 513 votes, average: 4.85 out of 513 votes, average: 4.85 out of 513 votes, average: 4.85 out of 513 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5 (13 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



On Being Controversial

In this post I am going to take a bit of time out to do some self-reflection.   An issue I’ve been puzzling over for some time is the fact that people keep referring to my work as “controversial.”    I hear this all the time.  And truth be told, I’ve always found it bit odd and a disconcerting.   This past week I’ve had two people tell me that they know that I “like to be controversial.”   That’s actually not the case at all.   One person told me that she had seen a TV show where someone had said that they didn’t believe that Jesus existed, and she thought that was right up my alley.   I didn’t bother to tell her that I had written an entire book arguing that Jesus certainly did exist.  She simply assumed that this was the sort of view that I myself would have and delight in making public.
The reason I find that the idea I’m controversial is that my views about the historical Jesus, the authorship of the books of the New Testament, the Greek manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy in early Christianity, the rise of early Christology, and on and on – these are views that are not particularly strange in the academy.  I *acquired* almost all of these views .  With respect to every one of them, what I talk about in my writings is what I myself have learned.   Very rarely in my popular writings do a I put out a view that is unusual and untested in the academic world.
I have done so on occasion, and when I do the response I get from other scholars is very interesting and a bit amusing.   If I advance a thesis in a popular book that is not widely shared among scholars (e.g., in my How Jesus Became God book, where I advanced the idea – which I did not invent myself, but came to agree with from the writings of two other scholars, but which is not a view widely held in the field – that the apostle Paul understood Christ to have originally been an angelic being who became human) some critics objected that I shouldn’t be saying something in a popular book  that does not represent widely accepted scholarship.  The reason this objection is amusing to me is that these very same critics are the same ones who object to my popular books because they “don’t say anything new.”  So, well, how can they have it both ways exactly?
In any event, I may be on the relatively left side of scholarship, but this, that, or the other view I have is widely held in the guild among everyone who is not a religiously conservative Christian.   So why am I, in particular, under attack for being controversial?
What some scholars criticize me for are not my statements but my “tone.”  I’m not sure how one gauges tone.   But when I say things that other scholars who are not controversial say, I’m charged with having a haughty and cynical tone.   Just as one example, some critics have charged me with being excessive and over the top and sensationalistic when, in my book Misquoting Jesus, I wrote that “there are more variants in the manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament.”    Apart from the fact that the statement is true, the line itself is one that I borrowed wholesale from my own teacher, Bruce Metzger!  He was a conservative Christian scholar that almost precisely no one found excessive, over the top, and sensational – let alone controversial!
I have a good reason for thinking that people consider my views controversial when in fact they are not controversial (and when I don’t mean them to be controversial).  That is this:  When I first published my college-level textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings in 1997, no one who reviewed it thought that it was the least bit controversial, off-putting, over the top, cynical, offensive, snarky, insensitive or anything else negative.   It quickly became the bestselling book on the market.  It still is today.  But professors who use it have, over the past seven or eight years, *started* to complain about its “tone” as being over the top and insensitive, even though the parts they complain about (in the current 6th edition) are the parts that I haven’t changed from when I published the first edition eighteen years ago! The words haven’t changed.  But my public persona apparently has changed.  So the words themselves, in my view, are not controversial.  But because *I’m* controversial some scholars charge me with trying to be controversial with words that they used to think were not controversial even though they are the same words!!
It seems to come as a surprise to people that I don’t try to be controversial.  It simply isn’t one of my goals.   I actually don’t enjoy being controversial and would prefer it if I weren’t.  I’d much rather that people read my work and say something like, “Hmmm.   Good point!  I hadn’t seen it that way before.”
I think the reasons I get *interpreted* as being controversial  are (a) I say things publicly that other scholars just say to themselves and one another (these same scholars pull their punches when they are talking to a public audience); and even more important (b) I try to make the way I present things *interesting* to people.   To make things interesting one has to highlight what is intriguing about them.   But what is intriguing and interesting about scholarship almost always is, necessarily, information that people generally don’t know or haven’t thought about.  And so if a compelling or (even just) strong case is made for a position that others have not generally heard (e.g.: there are more variants in the manuscripts than words in the NT), it is thought that you are going out of your way to shock people rather than to do the work of (otherwise dry) scholarship.
Scholarship, in all fields, can be incredibly dry.   I believe in making scholarship interesting.  I don’t do it to be controversial.  I do it to get people interested.  But as many people as get interested, there seem to be more who get upset.   I’m very sorry to see that happen.  But I’m not about to make my public scholarship dull, uninteresting, or inaccessible to public audiences so that no one will get offended!
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.








What Is A Memory?»


18

APR

2015

36
  
Comments
36  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Jason  April 18, 2015
You never seem to me to court controversy. You don’t ever even seem to come off as enjoying your popularity as much as you enjoy the material you teach. I think what’s contrversial is that conservative Christians feel in some sense that they own the corpus of Christian history, writing and teaching and if you aren’t going to tow their party line then by default you’re stirring their pot.
Log in to Reply  



doug  April 18, 2015
I don’t like being called “controversial” either. I figure that’s the price I pay so that I can be me. I’m just trying to be helpful without hurting people. I guess the day I stop being “controversial” will be the day they toss me in the six foot hole.
Log in to Reply  



Adam0685  April 18, 2015
All true. Also for many others (many conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists) it’s easier to write you off as sensational so they can then quickly write off what you say without really listening or engaging with the material. It’s a defense mechanism in this case.
Log in to Reply  



BrianUlrich  April 18, 2015
My sense is that the culture wars have dramatically increased in intensity in the social media age. People who would previously never notice your work now see it in someone’s feed, and so form an opinion on it. What leads to controversy, then, is the fact that people who barely knew secular Biblical scholarship existed find out about it, and of course automatically see it through the culture war lens.
Log in to Reply  



caseyjunior  April 18, 2015
I think the reason you are seen as controversial is because you lay out convincing evidence and draw obvious conclusions from it that a lot of people just don’t want to hear. It’s sort of like the evidence for human influence on global warming; it’s easier to call it controversial than face the facts. Out here in Kansas (remember?) denying the facts in favor of our idea of the way we’d like things to be is a major industry! Keep making things interesting; a lot of us really appreciate it!
Log in to Reply  



RonaldTaska  April 18, 2015
Wow! Thanks for sharing this. My two cents worth, which is probably worth one cent:
 1. That you are introspective enough to be thinking about such things says something good about you.
 2. Although the ideas that you present are not controversial among scholars, the lay public, by and large, unfortunately, has not been taught very much of this material so it upsets a lot of people.
 3. Early Christianity is a very important subject to a lot of people so you write about matters that mean the world to a lot of people. and, hence, people have strong feelings about what you write and that means you are writing about important topics. Unfortunately, many quickly and falsely come to believe that you are debunking Christianity. I don’t agree that you are doing that. I do remember, however, that an entire website was once set up to debunk your work.
 4. People can see in you whatever they want to see. Commonly, people who are upset will use “ad hominem” personal attacks rather than discussing the subject matter.
 5. What you are doing is very important and helpful to many so keep doing it.
 6. You do not have to be perfect, just good enough which you are.
 7. You often debate before hostile crowds so you need to be confident which some can view as your being “haughty” if they want to see you that way. I don’t. It’s part of being a debater. Should you just roll over in a debate and play dead?
 8. My best childhood friend and I met in kindergarten, attended public schools together, attended the same church, played ball on the same teams, attended college together, went to medical school together, and did our medical internships together. He recently died secondary to a brain tumor. Before, he died, he and I started an email group of old friends whom we had met at various stages of our lives. Our first task was for each member of the group to write a summary of his/her religious views and how we developed those views. Many wrote very moving emails. I wrote mostly about what I had learned from your books. One response that I received was quite caustic: “You can either believe Ehrman or you can believe Jesus!” I stopped the group soon after my friend’s death. It was just too nasty. So, the critical examination of crucial questions can be a very lonely and isolating endeavor, but it is still important to do. Several in the group still completely shun me and I am not at all welcome in one particular church. Quite a reaction to a few good theological Bible questions. The reaction actually hurt me a lot as I m sure you have been hurt.
I hope something in this response helps you a little.
Log in to Reply  



living42day  April 19, 2015
I think your analysis of why some folks call you “controversial” is right on target. For some people, I’m sure, calling you (or your books/lectures) controversial is just a way to increase public attention. Indeed, some may view the term as a compliment. A description that would be more accurate might be “controversial in some circles, but fairly mainstream within academia.” The ideas that ought to be considered “controversial” are the ones that most experts in the field have long rejected because they are not supported by solid evidence and/or strong arguments. As you note, the main reason some well-established ideas still seem controversial is that too many scholars have failed to speak/write clearly about them outside the academic guild. Books sales and the attendance at your lectures should make it abundantly clear that there is a great need for what you’re doing. Keep up the good work!
Log in to Reply  



DanHelton  April 19, 2015
I saw this today on my Facebook feed. Posted by a minister I know in northern Michigan.
FROM PERSON POSTING: Good read. Josephus records Jesus.
SHARED LINK: Bart Ehrman on Denying that Jesus Existed: “You Look Foolish”
In one regard, at least, Ehrman is the Christian’s friend.
 PATHEOS.COM
Log in to Reply  



Jana  April 19, 2015
I’ve been listening to another one of your lectures via youtube and I find your delivery refreshingly straight forward, clear, without emotional prejudice, void of arrogance, factual and definitely thought worthy. In short, I feel enlightened from both listening and reading. Me thinks one must dismiss most peer criticism as jealousy (you are a best selling author/they are not) or in the first example, over simplification to the degree of missing the point all together. If being “controversial” (whatever that word means) forces people to discern then that is also a very good thing !!
Log in to Reply  



Judith  April 19, 2015
You have the gift of making your points piercingly clear to those of us who have begun questioning our Christianity. Your excellence at what you do makes it impossible to defend those crumbling beliefs except to accuse you of being controversial. What else is there? You are beyond refuting. And you are controversial for those of us who are joining you in the way you see Jesus. Now our fundamentalist families and friends think we’ve gone over to the dark side. :-)
I’ve mentioned before that great theologian who made it possible for some of us to grow beyond where we were spiritually. He believes what you are doing is a necessary step on the way to truth. I’m hoping we bloggers can help you feel supported in your excellent brave work.
Log in to Reply  


Elisabeth  April 22, 2015
My thoughts exactly, Judith. That whole post is the story of my life with my (very conservative Christian) family – “you just want to argue” – no, I want you guys to actually research the Bible.
Log in to Reply  
 



John  April 19, 2015
I also find it a bit peculiar that you would be called “controversial”. Perhaps the reason is that you educate a large number of people, and some might have been indoctrinated at an early age that knowledge is dangerous – therefore they feel threatened. By default this might make you controversial to those who do not understand what you are trying to accomplish in your writings. Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris are controversial. I do not consider you to be. Thanks for all the hard work you do.
Log in to Reply  



prairieian  April 19, 2015
At least the upset have read your work, which is success for any author one would think! As well, someone, I forget who, observed that the venom in academic disputes, as often as not on the smallest of matters, is a wonder to behold. And, I suspect there is a touch of jealousy and envy for your success beyond the ivory tower.
Perhaps more fundamentally, from the perspective of the conservative Christian academic, your work is literally ‘off message’ and therefore not welcome. That this is an anti-intellectual position is of no matter. Religion, as a glance at the horrorshow in the Middle East reveals, is not a topic on which some (many?) can calmly reflect, let alone consider the evidence for as if it were some conventional subject. When the god in question has helpfully appointed earthly intermediaries who are all too willing to pass on his instructions and point of view, you have the stage set for truly appalling behaviour. We are very luckly to live in societies that are willing to have such debates, even if they’re often bad tempered and ill-considered, rather than having them closed down and off limits.
Long may it be thus.
Log in to Reply  



rbrtbaumgardner  April 19, 2015
Bart, I very much enjoy your conversational and personal tone. You don’t always have the very careful, measured tone usually expected of scholars and when a sentence like that here or there is isolated and taken from its context you might *appear* to be “controversial.” People who treat you like that and don’t read you in context are just looking for reasons to complain. You know what? Who cares what they think.You are incredibly generous with your time and your knowledge and you care deeply for your work and your students. The blog supports the poor and the hungry. You do good work and good works. I hope you know how much you are appreciated and you won’t be troubled by quibbling detractors.
Log in to Reply  



Mafunzalo  April 19, 2015
You are “controversial” because you are presenting information that is different from what the great masses have been taught for years and years. The masses have a large emotional investment and you are telling them (accurately) that everything they have been taught and believed is wrong. That the information taught to the masses has been altered (modified, changed, totally re-written) by the church fathers is considered heresy. Hence, you ARE controversial and will continue to be until the masses realize that you are presenting accurate history. When THAT will be…
Log in to Reply  



dragonfly  April 19, 2015
It feels like scholars are knowledge hogs. “Yes, us scholars know that, but don’t tell the public!” Maybe what people see as controversial is that you’re spilling the beans to the public about what scholars know and the methods they use to work it out?
Log in to Reply  



mary  April 19, 2015
Count me as one of the readers that read your works as “Yes, that is very interesting” and ” I enjoy learning about scholarly things in a way I can understand”.
As far as I can tell critics do not want to look into the words or subject matter, they only criticize. Are they at it again or should I say still and forever at it?
You must have a very special Aura
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 20, 2015
I keep trying to convince my wife of that….
Log in to Reply  
 



mary  April 19, 2015
I added a smiley to the aura…It did not show up.
Log in to Reply  



VEndris  April 19, 2015
1) I think you are correct. As a case in point, whenever I hear about Albert Schweitzer, I inevitably hear the last paragraph of his book and how Jesus comes to each of us personally and, well, his theology. I didn’t realize until I read either you or Allison, I can’t remember which, what his views on the historical Jesus were. I grew up as an evangelical, and I always heard of Schweitzer as a champion of fundamentalism. So, its not only perception of the person, but also which parts you want to highlight.
2) You brought up the fact that most of what you say is just popular scholarship. What ideas have you put forth that are yours? What will people publish and say, “As Ehrman states, . . .” I haven’t found your view that Jesus did not believe himself to be the Son of Man but was looking for another anywhere else.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 20, 2015
Yes, that’s a view (Son of Man) that has been around for a long time, even if it’s not what most scholars have thought.
Log in to Reply  
 



RonaldTaska  April 19, 2015
Using confirmation bias, people are likely to remember or disremember information in a way that supports what they already believe. A good introductory article about “confirmation bias,” that readers of this blog might find interesting, is “Your Brain Lies to You” by Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt. It appeared in the “Opinion” section of the New York Times on 6/29/08. I assume that the remembering and disremembering of early Christians also were affected by “confirmation bias.” It had to be such since they were humans. How could it be otherwise?
One interesting form of “cognitive bias” is the “Dunning-Kruger Effect” which essentially states that the less you know, the more confident you are about what you know and the more you know, the less confident you are about what you know.
Log in to Reply  

Rick

Rick  April 19, 2015
Controversy, “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” (Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride)…. Several cases in point:
 1. Nowhere is it said that the term must be applied fairly under the rules of academic debate. Particularly, when you have irritated conservatives.
 2. Usually the term is used by the “losing” side to cast aspersion on their opponent rather than the opposing argument; and, to imply more support for their side than actually exists (E.g. Global Warming “Controversy”).
3. It actually places you in rather good company… With respect to the underlying odium thelogicum, John Stewart Mill said something like – in a sincere bigot, it is one of the most unequivocal cases of using moral feeling rather than reasoned argument to justify beliefs.
 4. With respect to the burden of being controversial: “You wouldn’t worry so much about what others think of you if you realized how seldom they do.” ― Eleanor Roosevelt
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  April 19, 2015
I wonder whether part of that perception stems from your having acknowledged that you yourself are an agnostic/atheist?
Before I came here this morning, I visited the CBS News website. Their top-headlined story was about atheists seeking to organize, to protest discrimination! One teacher believed his atheism had cost him his job (though a connection couldn’t be proved). And it had only come to light because someone reported his having “liked” a site about atheism on his Facebook page.
They mentioned that some people who will acknowledge that they “don’t believe in God” reject the term “atheist.” I myself do, because – possibly because of my upbringing, or simply my age bracket – I take it to mean, really, “anti-theist.” (That term itself seems never to be used, by anyone.) And while I think the world will be better off when theistic religions have died out, I realize that in our day, they do enrich some people’s lives.
So I call myself an agnostic and a non-theist. But, fortunately, no one but me gives a hoot what I believe!
Log in to Reply  



rivercrowman  April 19, 2015
Bart, you’re going to get a lot of comments, so I’ll keep mine as short as I can. … I’ve found that born-again Christians can’t believe we don’t have the originals of the New Testament Gospels! … If I try to discuss the tumultuous history of Christianity, I’m generally pegged as someone who “dislikes” Christians — and who should keep my thoughts to myself. … I’m part way through Elaine Pagels book “Beyond Belief,” as I patiently wait for your next book that will be entitled “Jesus Before the Gospels.” … Thank you for your work.
Log in to Reply  



MikeyS  April 19, 2015
Hi Bart, well, it all depends whom your audience is and who buys your books doesn’t it? I don’t know if you would be a best selling author based on your historical research as there are tons of authors doing much the same. My guess is they sell because you are attacking the whole concept of what most Christians believe in the USA especially and that the bible is the literal word of God. Your books and indeed your own loss of faith was based on errors and contradictions within scripture. So you are hated by the Christian Apologetic class and loved by the Agnostic and Atheist groups where your books reinforce their own lost innocence in God as you did. That is why your works are contraversial my friend and little else. Please don’t be fooled into thinking its literary genius or breaking any new ground. Most Christians will never ever buy or read any books by Athiests.
You have said that most of your new students are Christian believers at the start of the course and you are not there to alter any preconceived theological ideas they have about the bible etc and God and their faith BUT! That is exactly what you are doing. I would be very surprised that on completion of your courses, they hold onto those beliefs 100% and many will indeed become Agnostics and Atheists and especially IF you then explain to them why it was you became one, based on error in the bible and suffering in the world. You have said that many eminent colleagues who are Christians, read your books, without it affecting their beliefs. Just my opinion but I can’t see how highly literate people could do that IF they read them in any detail. I would then suggest they don’t and skip through them and smile back to you and say its just fine. You may not think you are being contraversial but that is EXACTLY why you are in demand….Just my simple view my friend from this side of the Pond.
Log in to Reply  



MikeyS  April 19, 2015
Bart, how many times have you been in a public debate with apologetics in front of a mainly Christian audience and I’ve seen you do this. You have asked them to put their hands up to show how many are there to see you ‘creamed’ I think was the word you used.
That surely is not for anything other than you are attacking their very entrenched Christian beliefs. And you said you don’t mean to be controversial? Pull the other one! ;)
Log in to Reply  

@manx

@manx  April 20, 2015
As you have already alluded to, I suspect in large your been seen as “controversial” is because you are sharing knowledge normally reserved for scholarly circles which would take years of study to attain.
When you put the work of scholars like yourself alongside the modern approach of archaeology, mix in the work done on the cuneiform tablets, the Ugaritic texts, the Dead Sea and Nag Hammandi scrolls among others.
Average people like myself can have a more informed opinion. That in return means that people of “faith” can no longer get away with the out of context quotes and need to work much harder than in the past. And that I also suspect is the main reason for your “controversial” status.
So I simply say thank you and carry on Sir.
Log in to Reply  



madmargie  April 20, 2015
I have a friend that is a retired Methodist preacher/pastor. He told our “Living the Questions” group that he always attempted to teach his congregations the things he learned in seminary and was soon moved..every time. I believe most people don’t study anything and consequently believe those of us who try to stay up on the latest developments in New Testament study..are controversial.
Log in to Reply  



RGM-ills  April 20, 2015
Dr. Bart,
PLEASE stay controversial.
You are the scholastic wrestler that comes out of the dressing room and tells the audience that the two opposing wrestler dressing rooms are connected back stage via the wrestler’s lounge and that you all drink coffee together.
The other wrestlers do not like you doing this.
It is only dogma that causes the controversy. You are the Dogmatic Executioner. It just feels like nothing new to you after years of studying with the scholars. It is NEW to us.
Log in to Reply  


RGM-ills  April 21, 2015
P.S. The other wrestlers don’t want it to be new to us.. or old to us.
Log in to Reply  
 



qaelith2112  April 21, 2015
The “controversy” is in contrast to the views of conservative / inerrantist perspectives, which unfortunately seem to represent a whole lot of the public commentary on your work. I get the idea that very, very few well qualified mainstream scholars are doing much public commentary, apart from the occasional talking head blurbs on the various TV documentaries on History and NatGeo, where some can on occasion be seen sneaking in a sound bite that might also be controversial to the less informed masses, and more often state facts which, while largely unfamiliar to the casual viewer, is more about mundane history and not especially challenging to that casual viewer’s theological commitments. Most of the references to your work on podcasts, widely read blogs, and in popular books found in the “Christianity” subsection of the religion aisle at the major booksellers are unfortunately offered by the inerrantists who are a great deal more in public view than your colleagues who represent mainstream scholarship. As you noted, mainstream scholars just aren’t saying a whole lot to the general public while inerrantists take every opportunity available to do so. Those are the ones branding you as “controversial” and because the general public sees a sizeable number of inerrantists saying one thing (which agrees with their lifelong church-instilled theological commitments) and you’re one of the very few they’ve ever seen who is saying something different, they assume their viewpoint is some sort of consensus and you’re representing a fringe minority. I’ve engaged with some of these people on this matter to understand better and this seems to be what’s going on.
They may very well realize that there are other academics who agree with these conclusions, but they grossly understate just how many there are, how widespread it is, and how the methodology for arriving at these conclusions differs substantially from the methodology of the inerrantists — and they unfortunately don’t see a problem with the inerrantist tendency to start with a conclusion and work backward. That separates apologetics from scholarship, and the distinction is lost on most people who see you as “controversial”. To them, the methodology is no different — it’s merely whether one starts with corrupt liberal extremist hyper-skeptical anti-God leftist presuppositions or whether one is merely “open” to the supernatural, the latter inevitably bringing one to an inerrantist view of things. Nevermind that this is a completely inaccurate representation of how the sides differ….
Log in to Reply  



Wijting  April 21, 2015
Bart, I view controversy like concentric circles. The smaller the group (circle) and more tightly held beliefs, the more likely you are to appear controversial. The wider the group (circle) and more flexible the beliefs, the harder it is to be controversial. In Lawrence, Kansas you would be more controversial than in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
 For instance, James Kugel’s ‘How to Read the Bible’ and courses at Harvard would be considered standard fare for getting your degree in religion. I loved ‘How to Read the Bible,’ as it is one of those very rare books where you get both sides in a beautifully crafted way that allows you to come to your own conclusions. However, to a Hasidic Jew from Brooklyn it is tantamount to demolishing his cherished beliefs. Hasidism’s circle is much tighter and more rigid, and its incorporation of new information is less likely to be successful.
To me, you’re just standard fare scholarship and the sort of thing I’d expect if I wanted to get my feet wet in Christian history. But, if I were to bring your material to a Wednesday night bible study then such things would be considered quite threatening.
It is only controversial to the degree that it threatens the other’s beliefs and worldview. A moderate Muslim is going to be extremely controversial to a radical Islamist, and so on.
Log in to Reply  



EBHinNC  April 22, 2015
I say, blame Princeton! Back in the late 70’s, Jack Rogers taught one Sunday morning at our church while he was doing the research for what turned out to be “The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible” 1979/1999. He was pretty fascinating telling us how he and co-author McKim were tracing the U.S. literalistic belief in the bible back to the textbook choice at Princeton Seminary in the early days. Rather than teaching the bible as “accommodated language” as Calvin and the reformers described it, the Princeton dons used Francis Turretin as textbook, where the bible was regarded as “a nonhistorical body of propositions that offered a base of inerrant information….” Since Princeton taught so many of the first pastors, who in turn taught so many of the early congregants who became clergy in their turn, Turretin’s view became prevalent, and the Reformers’ actual views eclipsed. We’ve been at this for a while, so you are up against quite a mass of inerrancy soft and hard. I think of Briggs and his trial for heresy — and my realizing at seminary that he must be the Briggs of BDB Lexicon — which after a laugh and a sigh gave me great comfort. So, we need you acutely to help us learn what’s most likely true and what the possibilities of the uncertain issues are. I am really sorry it’s tough. But you are doing good in so many ways. Thank you.
Log in to Reply  



gavm  April 22, 2015
why is Bart Ehrman controversial? id say its a bit of a perfect storm
1: you an atheist/ex christain. just a imagine you saw a youtube vid that says “islamic scholar Ex muslim turned atheists talks about islam”. your gonna know what he thinks and why he changed.
2: you talk about things that are potentially not ideal for many versions of Christianity. you say things that the ave person interested in the subject (a christain) prob wont really wanna hear
3: you reveal new info (new meaning new to the ave persons ears), they dont hear this in church
4: your original (in that very few other scholars seem to have gotten the word out to the public about these juciy topics)
5: you sell your points. the ave NT text book might talk about the probs in the NT but people dont know. yr books make it clear. its pretty hard to miss titles like “Forged” and “misquoting Jesus” and not know they are gonna say something juicy
6: you communicate well: yr a good writer/speaker hence when you write a book or give a talk about how jesus prob didnt come back from the dead people will get the point clear as day in there heads (even if its knowledge they didnt really want). yr write books a plumber or a nurse or a farmer can read
7: Yr American. the US is a pretty religious part of the world. If you were Australian i seriously doubt youd be a big deal. to be controversial means to generate disagreement and the US is prob a place where saying something problematic the Christianity will create disagreement
i would guess there have been plenty of people with a few of these qualities (people like Dale Martin or Dom Crossan clearly have veiws very sim to yrs) but yr prob unique in that you got them all, hence yr the top dog to date.
Log in to Reply  



shakespeare66  April 22, 2015
Wow, Bart Ehrman, you struck a big chord with this one and my own experience with learning and sharing my knowledge of early Christianity with those around me. I have felt the same discord and feel like the messenger who was “killed” for delivering the message rather than praised for sharing it. As you might remember, I am a retired English teacher who felt large gaps in his knowledge when I taught British and American literature whenever allusions were made to the Bible. I guess I felt guilty about that lack of knowledge and so I began reading after I had investigated who I was going to read. All arrows led to you. I began reading, and I have read all of your popular books and most of your other books ( textbooks, etc.) You once told me, “That’s a lot of reading!” and I say, “That’s an incredible amount of writing!”
I have often praised the incredible effort you have made to bring the scholarly world of the area to the public’s attention. But I, like you, have to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” whenever one puts out a scholarly argument. I had one “friend” say all of what you have discovered and learned and argued is “balderdash.” I argued vehemently and cogently for you ( and me) because I hold the learning and scholarship of your discoveries to be true. Yet there is a price to pay for displaying the truth to the uneducated public—they are going to judge for the simplest of reasons and call you out on it. Even if you are not trying to be controversial, your discovered truths are going to be bandied about and challenged by those whose belief systems just cannot take the jolt of the light of truth. Remember in A Christmas Carol when Scrooge meets The Ghost of Christmas Past, and she shines the light of truth for him to see, and it is hard to look at. I see most people I “shed the light of truth” to cannot accept it. Their belief systems are too set, and they cannot accept any changes to the history of the Christ they know. I don’t even bother to share with anyone who does not have an open mind—senseless. But you are public figure, a professor who is sharing his scholarly knowledge with the world, and so you are going to meet combatants who will “charge” you with anything and everything to mischaracterize you. Not sure you saw the HBO Series called “Going Clear” about Scientology–I am sure you have. Imagine those guys getting their claws into you if you attacked their religion with ‘the light of truth.” I use the word attacked because they ( your opposition) sees it that way. Anyone who really KNOWS you understands who you are and what your goals are. When things like this happen, they are just the “collateral damage” of putting out “the light of truth” to there unwilling eyes—just as Ebenezer had no desire to look at it face on.
I commend you. I think you are a very courageous person—I learned what it is to be you—armed with all this knowledge about early Christianity and Jesus—and then the consequent silent disregard and the looks and the “he’s crazy” and all of that from those who just are not ready for the “light of truth.”
Even though you don’t intend to be controversial, what you end up saying is “controversial” in the eyes of the opposition, and they are going to belittle you for it. Besides, they are jealous—jealous of your popular books, jealous of your incredible ability to communicate, and jealous of your mind—wow!
Keep up the work. I am incredibly happy to have the opportunity to know you and your work.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/on-being-controversial/














Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogRamblings on Charity and Religion 
  
11 votes, average: 5.00 out of 511 votes, average: 5.00 out of 511 votes, average: 5.00 out of 511 votes, average: 5.00 out of 511 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (11 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Ramblings on Charity and Religion

QUESTION:
Don’t you think that being raised in Christianity makes it more likely that you will make decent contributions to others like you do with your charity contributions?  I know that one does not have to be Christian to be decent, but it seems, for many of us, to help increase the odds of being decent at least some of the time.

RESPONSE:
This is a really interesting question.  And maybe unanswerable!   Why are those of us who are concerned deeply about others and their welfare so … concerned?  Is it because we are religious?  Or, as in my case, because we used to be religious?
In one of my public debates with Dinesh D’Souza a few years ago, this came out as a point of disagreement.   Dinesh believes that only Christianity drives people to be concerned about others who are in need.   For him, it is not religion in general, but Christianity in particular, that makes people want to be charitable.
In the debate, I found that view to be a bit outrageous.   Really?  Only you Christians are concerned about others?  No one but Christians are?   So I pressed him on the issue.  First I raised the fact, it’s an indisputable fact, that there are lots of highly significant charities in the world that are not Christian.
I cited, for instance, one of the amazing organizations that this blog supports, Doctors Without Borders.  They do absolutely stunning work out of a sense of common humanity, not because of religious beliefs.  Dinesh replied that I was overlooking the fact that the organization originated in France which has historically been a Christian country.   So even though the organization itself is not necessarily Christian, it would not exist without Christian roots.
So I pressed him harder:  did he mean to say that people who lived in countries where there had never been a significant Christian presence were not interested in relieving pain and suffering, that people in China had no humanitarian impulse at all?  Yes, he was quite emphatic, that is what he meant.  People in China do not care about human suffering (other than their own).
I found, and still find, this to be absolutely incredible and scandalous.  But, frankly, I didn’t know enough about charities in non-Christian countries to be able to pursue it.  Maybe someone on the blog does.
The question posed above by a reader on the blog is slightly different in that it is personal, about those of us who are driven by charitable concerns.  Is it because of a religious upbringing?  Again, I don’t know that there is any way to answer the question, except by looking for studies of charity among those not brought up religiously.  But again, Dinesh would respond that all the people we could study in our context were in some sense deeply influenced by the Christian tradition.
Maybe one response to *that* would be that one of the reasons the Christian tradition has always succeeded as well as it has is that it appeals to the better side of human nature and the deeply rooted sense, in most people, that we should help others in need.
But the question has made me think about myself a bit more, and about what drives my own charitable interests.
The first thing that comes to mind is an issue that I’ve pondered a lot over the past few years, which is why everyone doesn’t share the same concerns for helping out others.  I’d be interested in knowing your personal response to that question.   On one level, I guess I’m always puzzled that other people aren’t like me in all sorts of ways – in their political views, their religious views, their ethical views, and so on.   Like most people, I think my views about all such things are just so sensible and clear, and yet on every issue I, like everyone else, is in the minority!  Necessarily, every view we have about everything – even the most important issues in our lives — is a minority view.  Go figure….
But it seems especially odd to me when it comes to charity.  I know lots of very good and humane people who simply, at the end of the day, are not interested in helping out others in need.   People who are very well off and living in luxury who think they are doing a great thing if they occasionally will give a hundred bucks to charity.   The idea of giving a lot – even if it wouldn’t affect them or their lifestyles an iota – is simply beyond the realm of possibility for them.   I have trouble getting my mind around that.
On the other hand, I know others who dedicate their lives to helping out others – living on much less themselves so as to give what they can for others, or spending the majority of their waking lives working to help those in need.   I tend to “get” that approach to life better, and I stand in awe before it.   I’m not like that either, though I often wish I were.
But my main puzzlement remains the first group, those who really just don’t care much if others are suffering.  Or if they care, they aren’t willing to go out of their way to do anything about it.
It may be that my religious past did elevate those kinds of concerns for me personally.   When I was a late teenager and became born again, I came to believe it was my religious obligation to give a tithe – a literal 10% — of my income to the church (or to missionary work, etc.).   I did that even as a dead-poor college student struggling to make enough money to get by on.  My religious communities supported and advocated that level of giving.  Maybe that’s how it all got rooted in me.
I still believe in giving a serious percentage of my income to charity.  And I do this blog, as you know, not for the jollies of it but to raise funds for charity.   That is a different commitment, one involving lots of my time and effort.   But the pay off, for me, is worth it.
Do I do it because of a deeply rooted religious sense of duty for others?  I don’t know!   Do I think others should do comparable things?  Yes!  Do they feel driven to do so?  Some do some don’t.   Some do far, far, far more.   Some do almost nothing.   Why is that?   I really don’t know!
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







What Is A Memory?«
How I’m Writing This Book»


11

APR

2015

51
  
Comments
51  Comments
0  Trackbacks


gmatthews

gmatthews  April 11, 2015
It seems to me that I get more and more charitable each year the longer I’ve NOT been a Christian. I’m that way with both humans and animals.It seems to me that I do it because I realize that once we’re dead, we’re dead. There is no hereafter. If we care about anyone at all then we need to do something about it now because we’re not going to be sitting around singing Kumbayah in heaven when we die. Otherwise, everyone could just say “it’s God’s will” and let suffering and people in poverty continue on their path without trying to improve anything.
I can honestly say I’ve known more caring, giving non-Christians that I’ve known caring, giving Christians. Sure, there are plenty of the latter I’m not saying there aren’t, but I think the majority of Christians who think they’re caring and giving are shining beacons of morality on Sundays, but not the rest of the week. They think “giving” is something you do only in the collection plate on Sunday when everyone can see you, but when no one is looking they could care less.
Log in to Reply  



madmargie  April 11, 2015
I saw a television program last winter about a very rich (millionaire) who spent a lot of time recruiting other millionaires give large amounts of their wealth to charities of their choice….not because they were religious but because they wanted to share some of their wealth doing charitable work. I thought the program was very good. I’m not sure but I think the program was called “The Millionaire’ Club”…anyhow this millionaire had this huge dinner every year and invited all the millionaires he knew. Then he did a pitch for them to share their wealth. Had you heard of this man?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 13, 2015
Nope!
Log in to Reply  


Judith  April 14, 2015
The $600 billion challenge (Fortune 6/16/2010). Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett’s New York City dinner hosted (among others) by David Rockefeller to begin a drive to have the nation’s wealthiest donate half of their net worth to charity in their lifetimes or at death. The campaign started with the Forbes list of four hundred wealthiest Americans.
Log in to Reply  


Jana  April 18, 2015
Tim Cook is the most recent to join.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Jason  April 11, 2015
You couldn’t really study this any more than prayer helping the sick because there’s no way to establish a control group. I do know hat I give more to charities as an ex-Christian than I ever did when I professed that as my faith. The big difference I notice is that I know now when I give it’s because something good inside me wants to give-not because I’m trying to earn “Jesus-Bucks” in a heaven-bank.
Log in to Reply  



jdmartin21  April 11, 2015
You raise an interesting point regarding our religious upbringing resulting in us feeling the need to tithe. Apparently you think, as do most people in the US, that contributions to religious institutions are charitable contributions. After all, when we file our taxes we list those contributions on schedule A under the heading “Gifts to Charity”. Perhaps many of those church contributors feel that they are doing their part to help others in need. However, not all “charities” are equal in the percent of contributions that actually go to helping those in need. The churches I have been affiliated with in my life spend most of their income on supporting and increasing their congregations. They seem to spend but a small portion of their income actually helping the needy. If a person is interested in actually helping those in need and wants to maximize the bang for the charitable contribution buck, perhaps they need to consider reallocating some of their tithe to more efficient charities such as those supported by this blog.
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  April 11, 2015
Some of us who are relatively well-fixed financially now, and make what you might think only modest contributions to charities, have known economic hardship, and other kinds of misery, in our lives…and don’t want to go there again. Protecting one’s assets may mean the difference between spending one’s last years in an assisted living facility or in a nursing home (on Medicaid). There’s a big difference, which may affect both length and quality of life.
Log in to Reply  



Raemon  April 11, 2015
Bart,
 China’s not-for-profit sector has for some time consisted of social organizations (SOs) (shehui tuanti), foundations (jijinhui), and private non-enterprise units (PNUs) (minban fei qiye danwei.) From a Western perspective, these would collectively be called not-for-profit organizations or NPOs. According to a World Bank report back in 2004, China would like to move some social programs from government to private administration. Contributions to designated entities were reported to already be tax-deductible in China. So, to Dinesh’s comment, it’s not just Christians that understand the need for helping the needy. However, he would likely argue that these initiatives in China stem primarily from pragmatic socialist mechanisms and that anything there that looks like real charity is a product of Christian missionary influences over the years. However, one charity operating in China, Muslim Hands – United for the Needy is a non-Christian international non-governmental organization working in China (and elsewhere) to help those affected by natural disasters, conflict and poverty. It seems to be well-regarded as a legitimate charity. There are also indigenous Chinese charities. Despite the government’s nominal atheist stance, most people in China follow Confucius. That means “shi-she” (alms giving) is an important part of their lives.
Log in to Reply  



prairieian  April 11, 2015
Interesting issue…I think some give because of the ‘…there but for the grace of God go I…” and hope that if things ever go sideways for themselves that others will assist in some way. I say this in the secular sense. Others because they feel an impulse to give those who need a leg up – directly (to the individual) or indirectly (via a third party like the Salvation Army). I think that giving to charitable causes normal and at the very least provides a bit of a connection to the wider world outside one’s own little bubble, particularly if you are comfortable in your own financial circumstances.
As for those who don’t, I think there are a couple of reasons. None of them terribly attractive or reflect well on such individuals. One reason is that people blame those in need for their situation and that such folks will never learn anything if they get a ‘freebie’. In other words, ‘you made your bed now lie in it’. A second reason is self-absorbtion – that is, sheer disinterest in anything that is going on outside their world. “Not my problem, bud”, would sum it up. Finally, some, I think, feel that the issues and scale are so daunting that there is nothing to be done and so do nothing.
For me, we are social creatures and we need to look after all of us. Kicking people to the curb is just not right. Basically, for me, we are interdependent, no one gets all they get without social investment, public infrastructure, and support from family, friends and colleagues. Charitable giving falls into the category of social investment and those who need assistance to get by should get it. Statistically, relatively few who do receive assistance stay on it for longer than they have to. It is humiliating and shameful for most who accept charity and, from what I understand, the majority of recipients pick themselves up, dust themselves off and get going again. The permanent welfare recipients are the ones in the news or what people point to. They exist, but represent a minority. Wealthy societies such as ours can be judged on how we deal with our less well off, the marginalised and the ill-educated. I am not convinced we come out of this assessment well.
Log in to Reply  


prairieian  April 12, 2015
As a short follow up…are my views on this due to living in a Western Christian culture? I don’t know enough about other cultures to discuss this with any great depth of knowledge. There are certainly deplorable practices in the wider world that various societies have adopted, but I hesitate to go further than just acknowledge the fact (e.g. the Hindu caste system and the ‘untouchables’). And, of course, there were in past centuries cultural practices within my own tradition that scarcely suggest compassion for one’s fellows. We seem to evolve in these matters.
Log in to Reply  
 



BobHicksHP  April 11, 2015
I always try to approach such questions from the counterpoint.
Is it not likely that those who end up being “religious” have a predisposition to thinking beyond themselves? Isn’t selfishness, at the core, the primary thing that Jesus rails against? Thus, those who are selfish by nature won’t give that up to become “Christian” except for the fringe benefit of self-preservation (from a torturous afterlife), and often “join-up” later in life. Even within religious communities, it’s not too hard to spot those who are “committed” versus those who are more interested in the perks.
As such, I’d say that Mr. D’Souza might actually be right to a certain extent. The actual cause of the effect, however, might not be “spiritual,” but more cultural, i.e., a learned behavior.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 13, 2015
Yes, I’ve wondered that too.
Log in to Reply  
 



MikeyS  April 11, 2015
Interesting thoughts Bart and there are many reasons why some give and others don’t. I don’t think its a religious thing at all and just that people have different reasonings. First though you need to define what are ‘needs’ and ‘wants’? Its essential that people, particularly children, have food and clean water and have treatment for disease etc. And we cannot blame the kids for being born BUT the adults have responsibility for ensuring their families are not too big so there is enough to go around. This is an obvious problem in Africa and eslewhere and so giving massive aid needs matching with birth control measures that most western cultures have come to terms with. eg IF every family in the West had ten kids, would you not think that would cause some issues? Yet the dim wits in the Vatican preach using Condoms are an afront to God. So that is one issue where people will give aid but also want contraception addressed at the same time. But it never seems to.
Now I see you contribute to the homeless and needy in NC and you see it first hand and so will know why that is. But is there any need to support youngish men and women who are fit and able to work to be given free handouts as a way of life? That is not to say a temporary hand up is not a good thing. We in the UK have a social security system that should mean that nobody goes hungry and certainly no kids and yet a million people turn up at food banks, many in cars too. Most people will turn up for a freebee. So is there a difference between Third world charity giving and elsewhere? I was born when there was no social security system support in the UK and yet people claim millions live in poverty today because their household income only reaches 60% of the average industrial wage? I don’t go with that at all.
Some people give massive aid for repairs to Churches and Cathedrals which is nuts. Knock em all down and build houses and flats for the homeless is a better way imo. We have hundreds of beggars on our city streets, you must have the same and these are fit young men mostly who could easily get a job in a pub or something and some will claim they get hundreds of pounds a day by doing it, I used to give lots to the Salvation Army but no more when I realised it was going on free houses, pensions and pay for idle ministers. Same with any other church. We do know that the millions raised after Tsunamies and Earthquakes are kept either by the governments or by the charities themselves many who led by people on huge salaries.
So most of my money is going to animal charites which most people find that appalling. But someone has to. People may find my views ‘uncharitable’ but next time you give to your local charity in NC Bart, make sure the people there too are doing something for themselves so they don’t need it and In the richest nation in the world, they really shouldn’t. How many of all these people would work the hours you do to make a living. People may say that is making a judgement on the poor and needy and I will say as one child that was raised in these circumstances in post war Britain in large family, damn right, I do! ;)
Log in to Reply  



Tom  April 11, 2015
It seems to me that some of the Greek philosophers (Plato and Aristotle at least) encouraged the virtues of generosity and friendliness, among other virtues. Also, I believe the Confucian notion of “ren” – love of humans/humanity/people? – is like the golden rule of the Bible. Though the Greeks are somewhat contemporaneous to, and geographically near ancient Israel, I think both references predate Christianity, and find their source in human beings and not anyone’s Christian religious tradition.
Log in to Reply  



Judith  April 12, 2015
Could it be that empathy is a trait that has to be developed early? Sunday school and church provide endless ways for helping others and instilling an awareness of the good fortune to not need such help. That leads to gratitude and an inclination to do what we can for those less fortunate. The result is a connection to a wider world and joy in being useful beyond ourselves.
Log in to Reply  



BrianUlrich  April 12, 2015
In the Quran, “establish prayer and give charity” is a common phrasing for converting to Islam. D’Souza, however, might just interpret that as a development from the Christian background, and then see the Christian influence on Islam as influencing Sikhism and the Bahai Faith.
In dharmic religions, however, the cultivation of generosity (dana) is an important spiritual discipline. Beyond that, those religions which embrace social hierarchy, Hinduism and Confucianism, also have traditions of noblesse oblige which the elites are supposed to follow.
Log in to Reply  



JSTMaria  April 12, 2015
Well…if I were to get theological here for a second, consider the following: If Jesus is the Word and the Word was with God and all things were created through Him, then that makes Jesus the Cosmic “Inscriber” of ALL hearts regardless of religious affiliation. That’s the only bone I can throw D’Souza from a purely “Christian” standpoint! Personally, I can read the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, and Talmud and hear a lot of the same messages I hear in the Gospels about humility and selfless service. Not sure what compels a person to be more or less charitable…a softened heart helps, but I think that is to be gained with any sincere/deep belief system (for the good) whether it’s religious in nature or not. I believe it is far more righteous and compassionate to do good for the sake of the good without having to be thumped upside the head with a Holy book to do it! But, maybe that’s just me…
Log in to Reply  



Jana  April 12, 2015
As also a long time student of Buddhism (in addition to Yoga) and specifically Dzogchen Buddhism, the ONLY way and it is very specific, the ONLY way Higher Levels of Consciousness can be attained is through Compassion and the enactment of that Compassion on behalf of others. So strongly is this embedded into the intimate experience of the stages of Realization/Rigpa that FROM the all essential View and Meditation states automatically spring Compassion and from Compassion, the final stage Action. One dedicates ones life and all that goes with it to helping others. I want to stress that compassion is not something imposed from the mind (duty although whatever works ok); it DOES spring naturally and emphatically from the heart as one progresses in one’s practice for reasons I cannot explain/it just does … one of those undefineable mysteries. Again for spiritual progress to be authentic, it is intimately experienced and acted upon. I find Dinesh’s opinions (I have not listened to this video) ethnocentric to the point of ignorance.
Log in to Reply  


Jana  April 12, 2015
And the first group … under the influence of selfishness combined with laziness … and both “illnesses” are thick barriers to any advanced state of Consciousness and a permanent and independent kind of Joy.
Log in to Reply  


Jana  April 18, 2015
There are Ashrams throughout India which have established free hospitals as well as “soup kitchens” … one of the most respected is the Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh India founded by the late Swami Sivananda Radha, so revered that the country issued a stamp honoring him.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



RonaldTaska  April 12, 2015
Wow! A terrific blog. I certainly know what it feels like to have a “minority” view on most every meaningful issue. It makes me truly wonder about whether or not my views are correct.
 In my case, even though Christianity no longer makes as much historical sense to me as I would like, I think my childhood emotional experience of the Christian faith has resulted in my having more concern for others than I would have had without that upbringing. I, however, disagree with D’Souza about Christianity being the “only” path to such humanism. I am also repulsed by some of the fruits of that Christian faith with regard to the widespread opposition to gay rights and women’s rights (at least in Fundamentalist churches), and so on and so forth, including the promotion of slavery in the past..
Log in to Reply  



Judith  April 12, 2015
Dr. Ehrman,
I used empathy instead of compassion because I should think a developed sense of empathy would lead to compassion. There but by the grace of God….
Log in to Reply  



Triassicman  April 12, 2015
I have also given a lot of thought into the same question. I went through the ‘born again’ experience one Sunday evening at the age of 14 and I remeber vividly my thoughts around that experience. I was drawn by the story of the man Jesus who was full of love for me and laid his life down for me. Amazingly, he was at the church waiting to come into my heart. It was a love story so strongly presented that it hit all the buttons within my emotions and I was swept away into rapsody. Another reality hit me Monday morning at school when I realised I would lose all my friends if I confessed that I was one of those ‘goody 2 shoes’ boys. I struggled with that dilemma for the next two years and, unable to lose my mates, I eventually left the church but never the forgot the experience of this pure love. Later in life I began to make large amounts of money producing TV commercials but always felt an emptiness inside. I knew I no longer believed in the dogma of Christianity but somehow I was driven to give something to others who were suffering. With the talents that I had i began to produce social documentaries and discovered love and peace within myself again. I do not think that my desire was innate but rather it was passed on to me from my mother. She always cared about others in the church and I projected that love into the story of Jesus. Perhaps at 14 years of age I needed to transfer this love to a male role model? If one is romantically inclined I can’t think of a better narrative than the story of Jesus, particularly from Mathew and Luke, to invoke strong emotion. In my experience, most other religions appear to present a very interllectual approach in their narrative.
 Trust this might throw some light on the subject!
Log in to Reply  



fishician  April 12, 2015
Many openly religious people in our country are the most outspoken about closing our borders to suffering immigrants, or denying Medicaid or other aid to the poor. I have seen people who spent a lifetime in the church be indifferent to others, while some people who never set foot in a church are generous. Many of the “Christian” countries that D’Souza would refer to had no qualms about colonizing and looting areas they considered pagan without regard for those people. And in some cases making slaves of them. Let’s remember that the Holocaust arose in a country that was the very birthplace of the Protestant Reformation. I’m not convinced that religion makes anyone better or more moral but religion is so entrenched in world history that at this point it is impossible to know how the world would have turned out without it.
Log in to Reply  



kentvw  April 12, 2015
Maybe there is just a hint of, “I’ll show them damn Christians how to really give.” I don’t know Bart. Although, it seems to me that you let ring, very loudly, your philanthropic efforts and just how much of a sacrifice it is for you.
 Seems to me that none of us, religious God fearing Christians or Atheists like me, are able to escape human nature. The brighter ones are just able to hide it a bit better behind clouds of self-justified righteousness. Ah the motives behind the motives. I usually find a hint of truth about myself there.
Log in to Reply  


webattorney  April 14, 2015
Ha, ha, you seem like a wise man. Well said.
Log in to Reply  
 



Stephen  April 12, 2015
When any of my christian friends hint around that maybe they have the corner on love and compassion I simply remind them of the story of the “Good Samaritan”. If we don’t know anything else about this person we know one thing -he wasn’t a christian because it hadn’t been invented yet!
Log in to Reply  

cheito

cheito  April 13, 2015
DR Ehrman:
People give for many reasons. Some do it honestly others do it for show and some are not able to give even if they wanted to. Either way giving in itself alone does not make you a better person nor does it mean you have Love of in you.
When reading this blog what comes to my mind is the following words from 1 Corinthians 13:3
3-And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing…
Log in to Reply  



Jennyherre  April 13, 2015
Bart,
 As a former Middle School teacher, born and raised Missouri Synod Lutheran, who taught the rise of the world’s great religions, I had numerous opportunities to compare/ponder religious beliefs (albeit at a fairly simplistic level). Is a possible answer to your question the response that all major religion traditions have a “golden rule”? In Islam, one of the 5 Pillars of the faith is the giving of alms, in Buddhism:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in you religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Gautama Buddha
Surely treating others the way we want to be treated is a moral imperative that includes all mankind, religious or not.
Log in to Reply  

talitakum

talitakum  April 13, 2015
As a Christian, I think that D’Souza position is untenable and it’s also an insult to all those non-Christian people who feel the need of helping others.
 There are many non-Christians who help, there are many Christians who don’t. Anyone think we can count them?
 We may say that the Gospels are extraordinarily plenty of accounts and parables from Jesus regarding the poor, the widow, the hungry, the afflicted, the sick, the prisoners, the stranger.. It seems that this is at the core of the practices preached by Jesus (who is, for Christians, God ), a direct God’s command on which Jesus apparently insisted a lot. I have no idea if this is the same for other religions/scriptures.
 But this is not a competition and I don’t believe anyone can make any inference on the “level of personal attitude” to charity.
Log in to Reply  



VEndris  April 13, 2015
Dr. Ehrman, I first wanted to take a moment to tell you that I think you are a wonderful scholar and enjoy reading your work. You are always fair. Similar to your questions above about charity, I’ve always wondered why scholars in particular, people in general, can’t be fair to others’ opinions.
In answer to your question, I fall back on something C.S. Lewis said in his Mere Christianity. It was something like – all people know that being loving to others is the way to go, the only difference is who we choose to include in our circle. It seems to me that religion just helps us widen our circle. I would venture to say that travel and exposure to other peoples and cultures do that same thing.
Log in to Reply  


MikeyS  April 13, 2015
So folks, exactly what did Jesus and Paul do for the needy, the poor, the widows and orphans they preached what OTHERS should do? Did they work an 12 hour shift in a vineyard to do above or even to pay for their own wants? No they relied the whole time in OTHERS doing it for them. Its easy to talk the talk!
Jesus knew John the Baptist was in Prison and yet didn’t think of visiting him or praying with him? This we are told was the man who baptised him at the River Jordan etc.
Take it all with a pinch of salt and do what you think you should do and treat scripture with suspicious and contempt! There is little in there of value!
Log in to Reply  



webattorney  April 14, 2015
There is an old saying in Asia that goes something like: “Wiser you get, your head lowers more”, meaning older and wiser you get, you become more humble and thankful that you lower yourself.
Log in to Reply  


Scott  April 16, 2015
I thought it meant you got wiser and your brain got heavier making it harder to hold up with your existing neck muscles :)
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Scott  April 13, 2015
Charity (at 2.5%) is one of the Pillars of Islam. I am sure that D’Souza would claim that they got that from Christianity .
Log in to Reply  



Scott  April 13, 2015
I would say that disentangling giving to “church” and giving to “charity” is very difficult. How much of person’s tithe to their church actually pays for services they receive in the form of comfortable and entertaining Sunday services, youth groups for their kids, basketball games in the Family Life Center, etc…? How much of those facilities help members of the congregation (say, the elderly) have a better life? How much helps those in the community?
My sense is that the charity of the faithful and that of non-believers is much closer in scale after the self-serving fluff of church budgets is accounted for.
Log in to Reply  



Scott  April 13, 2015
Personally, my partner and I have striven to “tithe” to various charities each year. I do a recap at tax time. Sadly, we fall short almost every year of what we “should” be giving back. However, the impulse is firmly ingrained in us.
From my own point of view, I have come to recognize the many lucky breaks I have had and to realize that many don’t have those advantages through no fault of their own. That is what drives me. I would consider that outside of Christian influence but, like memory, my motivations can be falsified without my awareness.
Log in to Reply  



spiker  April 13, 2015
How would Dinesh know that people in China had no humanitarian impulse at all? There are any number of factors
 involved. If we look at China during the cultural revolution we might be inclined to draw one sort of conclusion as
 opposed to looking at China today.The Chinese may be more anonymous or secretive with acts of charity.
 Having worked with someone from Taiwan, I can say he was painfully polite and generous. Generosity is certainly part of charity. I can’t recall any instances of charity specifically and also I have to admit he was a Christian of sorts
 I think locally he was not, but on a larger civil level he was. Village versus city or state.
Finally if one doesn’t have the impulse then no amount of preaching will make it appear. Although one can’t ignore
 A Christian tendency to enforce certain institutions and works of charity, but how would you go about comparing
 traditions and institutions in the West with those in China? What would the metrics look like?.
Log in to Reply  



Scott  April 13, 2015
One other thing to consider across countries and cultures is how supportive the inhabitant are of alternate arrangements for supporting the underprivileged and vulnerable. For instance, does support of social programs in liberal European countries demonstrate an equivalent or even superior charitable impulse versus personal charitable efforts in the individualistic US? What about social arrangements in which multi-generation households ensure the well-being of widows versus relying on food pantries down at the Baptist church?
It may be that western Christians are mistaking style for substance and not recognizing that other cultures have committed themselves just as strongly to the welfare of others but have selected different (and some would say more effective) means to achieve the goal.
Log in to Reply  

Bethany

Bethany  April 13, 2015
Late to the party here, but this is something I’ve read philosophical musings on (as well as musing on myself): The extent to which the moral values of atheists/secular organizations could nevertheless be considered to be based on religion. People generally hold the moral values of their culture, and the moral values of Western culture are I think influenced quite heavily by the Abrahamic religions.
Log in to Reply  



jbaughman  April 13, 2015
Being raised a Methodist had no additional bearing as to whether I helped people or not. My parents raised my siblings and me to help anyone, anyway you can. Do not not turn away…Help.
Pink Floyd’s song about “The turning away” sheds volumes on this subject.
Log in to Reply  



dragonfly  April 14, 2015
So… nobody cared before Christianity was invented?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 15, 2015
Apparently.
Log in to Reply  
 



rbrtbaumgardner  April 14, 2015
“The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.
Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.
About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.”
https://philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973
http://connectedtogive.org/
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 15, 2015
Interesting….
Log in to Reply  
 



webattorney  April 14, 2015
I give both in Christian setting and non-Christian setting (I attend churches to maintain harmony of my family), and I have to tell you, giving in a non-Christian setting was more rewarding and freer, mainly because I gave without some ministers telling me I should give. In fact, I donated some money to Doctors Without Borders because of Ebola outbreak and what they were doing.
I have nothing against atheists and Christians (and I sympathize with both camps), but if I am pressed, my answer is “I would not be surprised either way if God exists or doesn’t exist. I honestly don’t know.” I am not one of those atheists who thinks science will set men free or anything like that.
Log in to Reply  



EBHinNC  April 15, 2015
Delighted to learn that this blog supports Doctors Without Borders. In war zones, news organizations routinely learn what’s happening in the horror by talking to MSF doctors on the ground — where most people would evacuate if possible. Kudos to them, and thanks to you for helping us support them!!!
Log in to Reply  



Eric  April 16, 2015
I think there is something to the underlying civilizational argument (Judeo-Christian culture) that is more relevant than individuals in that culture’s current (or past) particular religiosity.
I don’t know Judeo-Christianity has any kind of monopoly, but I could readily believe that it was further along the charity spectrum than say the pre-colonial Hindu caste system or law-and-order Confucianism. While Western monasteries or holy orders (like the Franciscans) at their best were at least ostensibly founded in part at least on charity (despite frequent failures of their actual memberships over time), Bhuddist monastaries, I believe, are traditionallyu founded for different purposes, perhaps admirable, but I’ve never heard charity to the poor was a principle one.
Islam does have “alms giving” as one of its main pillars, so you’d have to lump them in with “the west” in this regard, but then again it stems from a common root.
There might very well be Hottentot cultures that but Western Civilization to shame in this regard.
Log in to Reply  



SBrudney091941  April 22, 2015
It is interesting how often people refer to Eastern traditions to compare to Christian traditions of charity but never mention Judaism. If it pleases Dinesh D’Souza to think that, if it isn’t because of Christianity directly, it is so indirectly, then perhaps one should say that, if it weren’t for the Jewish teachings Jesus was raised with, he would have been less likely to teach what he taught. It was Jesus the Jew who taught love of others, not Jesus the Christian who never existed. It is a prejudiced cliche to characterize the Old Testament and Judaism as teaching of the wrathful, angry, jealous God and the New Testament and Christianity as teaching the loving, forgiving, compassionate God of charity. Also, Judaism didn’t teach that all non-Jews will burn eternally. That is NT and Christianity. On helping the poor, the stranger, the hungry, and the widow, see In the Tanakh, for example:
 Leviticus 25:35 If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens.
 It’s interesting how often people will refer to certain Eastern traditions and never to Judaism.
 Deuteronomy 15:11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
 Proverbs 21:13 If you close your ear to the cry of the poor, you will cry out and not be heard.
 Deuteronomy 24:19 When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings.
Log in to Reply  



gavm  April 23, 2015
it just comes down to personality. to answer yr question more specifically empathy, or chemical reactions in the brain. some people see another in pain and that results in distress, others not. its just how ones brain is wired, cause and effect. if yr brain is wired to be high in empathy youll wanna give lots to charities ect. if you dont get that reaction youll have no desire to give much. bit like a computer.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          




http://ehrmanblog.org/ramblings-on-charity-and-religion/









Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogRamblings on Charity and Religion 
  
11 votes, average: 5.00 out of 511 votes, average: 5.00 out of 511 votes, average: 5.00 out of 511 votes, average: 5.00 out of 511 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5 (11 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Ramblings on Charity and Religion

QUESTION:
Don’t you think that being raised in Christianity makes it more likely that you will make decent contributions to others like you do with your charity contributions?  I know that one does not have to be Christian to be decent, but it seems, for many of us, to help increase the odds of being decent at least some of the time.

RESPONSE:
This is a really interesting question.  And maybe unanswerable!   Why are those of us who are concerned deeply about others and their welfare so … concerned?  Is it because we are religious?  Or, as in my case, because we used to be religious?
In one of my public debates with Dinesh D’Souza a few years ago, this came out as a point of disagreement.   Dinesh believes that only Christianity drives people to be concerned about others who are in need.   For him, it is not religion in general, but Christianity in particular, that makes people want to be charitable.
In the debate, I found that view to be a bit outrageous.   Really?  Only you Christians are concerned about others?  No one but Christians are?   So I pressed him on the issue.  First I raised the fact, it’s an indisputable fact, that there are lots of highly significant charities in the world that are not Christian.
I cited, for instance, one of the amazing organizations that this blog supports, Doctors Without Borders.  They do absolutely stunning work out of a sense of common humanity, not because of religious beliefs.  Dinesh replied that I was overlooking the fact that the organization originated in France which has historically been a Christian country.   So even though the organization itself is not necessarily Christian, it would not exist without Christian roots.
So I pressed him harder:  did he mean to say that people who lived in countries where there had never been a significant Christian presence were not interested in relieving pain and suffering, that people in China had no humanitarian impulse at all?  Yes, he was quite emphatic, that is what he meant.  People in China do not care about human suffering (other than their own).
I found, and still find, this to be absolutely incredible and scandalous.  But, frankly, I didn’t know enough about charities in non-Christian countries to be able to pursue it.  Maybe someone on the blog does.
The question posed above by a reader on the blog is slightly different in that it is personal, about those of us who are driven by charitable concerns.  Is it because of a religious upbringing?  Again, I don’t know that there is any way to answer the question, except by looking for studies of charity among those not brought up religiously.  But again, Dinesh would respond that all the people we could study in our context were in some sense deeply influenced by the Christian tradition.
Maybe one response to *that* would be that one of the reasons the Christian tradition has always succeeded as well as it has is that it appeals to the better side of human nature and the deeply rooted sense, in most people, that we should help others in need.
But the question has made me think about myself a bit more, and about what drives my own charitable interests.
The first thing that comes to mind is an issue that I’ve pondered a lot over the past few years, which is why everyone doesn’t share the same concerns for helping out others.  I’d be interested in knowing your personal response to that question.   On one level, I guess I’m always puzzled that other people aren’t like me in all sorts of ways – in their political views, their religious views, their ethical views, and so on.   Like most people, I think my views about all such things are just so sensible and clear, and yet on every issue I, like everyone else, is in the minority!  Necessarily, every view we have about everything – even the most important issues in our lives — is a minority view.  Go figure….
But it seems especially odd to me when it comes to charity.  I know lots of very good and humane people who simply, at the end of the day, are not interested in helping out others in need.   People who are very well off and living in luxury who think they are doing a great thing if they occasionally will give a hundred bucks to charity.   The idea of giving a lot – even if it wouldn’t affect them or their lifestyles an iota – is simply beyond the realm of possibility for them.   I have trouble getting my mind around that.
On the other hand, I know others who dedicate their lives to helping out others – living on much less themselves so as to give what they can for others, or spending the majority of their waking lives working to help those in need.   I tend to “get” that approach to life better, and I stand in awe before it.   I’m not like that either, though I often wish I were.
But my main puzzlement remains the first group, those who really just don’t care much if others are suffering.  Or if they care, they aren’t willing to go out of their way to do anything about it.
It may be that my religious past did elevate those kinds of concerns for me personally.   When I was a late teenager and became born again, I came to believe it was my religious obligation to give a tithe – a literal 10% — of my income to the church (or to missionary work, etc.).   I did that even as a dead-poor college student struggling to make enough money to get by on.  My religious communities supported and advocated that level of giving.  Maybe that’s how it all got rooted in me.
I still believe in giving a serious percentage of my income to charity.  And I do this blog, as you know, not for the jollies of it but to raise funds for charity.   That is a different commitment, one involving lots of my time and effort.   But the pay off, for me, is worth it.
Do I do it because of a deeply rooted religious sense of duty for others?  I don’t know!   Do I think others should do comparable things?  Yes!  Do they feel driven to do so?  Some do some don’t.   Some do far, far, far more.   Some do almost nothing.   Why is that?   I really don’t know!
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







What Is A Memory?«
How I’m Writing This Book»


11

APR

2015

51
  
Comments
51  Comments
0  Trackbacks


gmatthews

gmatthews  April 11, 2015
It seems to me that I get more and more charitable each year the longer I’ve NOT been a Christian. I’m that way with both humans and animals.It seems to me that I do it because I realize that once we’re dead, we’re dead. There is no hereafter. If we care about anyone at all then we need to do something about it now because we’re not going to be sitting around singing Kumbayah in heaven when we die. Otherwise, everyone could just say “it’s God’s will” and let suffering and people in poverty continue on their path without trying to improve anything.
I can honestly say I’ve known more caring, giving non-Christians that I’ve known caring, giving Christians. Sure, there are plenty of the latter I’m not saying there aren’t, but I think the majority of Christians who think they’re caring and giving are shining beacons of morality on Sundays, but not the rest of the week. They think “giving” is something you do only in the collection plate on Sunday when everyone can see you, but when no one is looking they could care less.
Log in to Reply  



madmargie  April 11, 2015
I saw a television program last winter about a very rich (millionaire) who spent a lot of time recruiting other millionaires give large amounts of their wealth to charities of their choice….not because they were religious but because they wanted to share some of their wealth doing charitable work. I thought the program was very good. I’m not sure but I think the program was called “The Millionaire’ Club”…anyhow this millionaire had this huge dinner every year and invited all the millionaires he knew. Then he did a pitch for them to share their wealth. Had you heard of this man?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 13, 2015
Nope!
Log in to Reply  


Judith  April 14, 2015
The $600 billion challenge (Fortune 6/16/2010). Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett’s New York City dinner hosted (among others) by David Rockefeller to begin a drive to have the nation’s wealthiest donate half of their net worth to charity in their lifetimes or at death. The campaign started with the Forbes list of four hundred wealthiest Americans.
Log in to Reply  


Jana  April 18, 2015
Tim Cook is the most recent to join.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Jason  April 11, 2015
You couldn’t really study this any more than prayer helping the sick because there’s no way to establish a control group. I do know hat I give more to charities as an ex-Christian than I ever did when I professed that as my faith. The big difference I notice is that I know now when I give it’s because something good inside me wants to give-not because I’m trying to earn “Jesus-Bucks” in a heaven-bank.
Log in to Reply  



jdmartin21  April 11, 2015
You raise an interesting point regarding our religious upbringing resulting in us feeling the need to tithe. Apparently you think, as do most people in the US, that contributions to religious institutions are charitable contributions. After all, when we file our taxes we list those contributions on schedule A under the heading “Gifts to Charity”. Perhaps many of those church contributors feel that they are doing their part to help others in need. However, not all “charities” are equal in the percent of contributions that actually go to helping those in need. The churches I have been affiliated with in my life spend most of their income on supporting and increasing their congregations. They seem to spend but a small portion of their income actually helping the needy. If a person is interested in actually helping those in need and wants to maximize the bang for the charitable contribution buck, perhaps they need to consider reallocating some of their tithe to more efficient charities such as those supported by this blog.
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  April 11, 2015
Some of us who are relatively well-fixed financially now, and make what you might think only modest contributions to charities, have known economic hardship, and other kinds of misery, in our lives…and don’t want to go there again. Protecting one’s assets may mean the difference between spending one’s last years in an assisted living facility or in a nursing home (on Medicaid). There’s a big difference, which may affect both length and quality of life.
Log in to Reply  



Raemon  April 11, 2015
Bart,
 China’s not-for-profit sector has for some time consisted of social organizations (SOs) (shehui tuanti), foundations (jijinhui), and private non-enterprise units (PNUs) (minban fei qiye danwei.) From a Western perspective, these would collectively be called not-for-profit organizations or NPOs. According to a World Bank report back in 2004, China would like to move some social programs from government to private administration. Contributions to designated entities were reported to already be tax-deductible in China. So, to Dinesh’s comment, it’s not just Christians that understand the need for helping the needy. However, he would likely argue that these initiatives in China stem primarily from pragmatic socialist mechanisms and that anything there that looks like real charity is a product of Christian missionary influences over the years. However, one charity operating in China, Muslim Hands – United for the Needy is a non-Christian international non-governmental organization working in China (and elsewhere) to help those affected by natural disasters, conflict and poverty. It seems to be well-regarded as a legitimate charity. There are also indigenous Chinese charities. Despite the government’s nominal atheist stance, most people in China follow Confucius. That means “shi-she” (alms giving) is an important part of their lives.
Log in to Reply  



prairieian  April 11, 2015
Interesting issue…I think some give because of the ‘…there but for the grace of God go I…” and hope that if things ever go sideways for themselves that others will assist in some way. I say this in the secular sense. Others because they feel an impulse to give those who need a leg up – directly (to the individual) or indirectly (via a third party like the Salvation Army). I think that giving to charitable causes normal and at the very least provides a bit of a connection to the wider world outside one’s own little bubble, particularly if you are comfortable in your own financial circumstances.
As for those who don’t, I think there are a couple of reasons. None of them terribly attractive or reflect well on such individuals. One reason is that people blame those in need for their situation and that such folks will never learn anything if they get a ‘freebie’. In other words, ‘you made your bed now lie in it’. A second reason is self-absorbtion – that is, sheer disinterest in anything that is going on outside their world. “Not my problem, bud”, would sum it up. Finally, some, I think, feel that the issues and scale are so daunting that there is nothing to be done and so do nothing.
For me, we are social creatures and we need to look after all of us. Kicking people to the curb is just not right. Basically, for me, we are interdependent, no one gets all they get without social investment, public infrastructure, and support from family, friends and colleagues. Charitable giving falls into the category of social investment and those who need assistance to get by should get it. Statistically, relatively few who do receive assistance stay on it for longer than they have to. It is humiliating and shameful for most who accept charity and, from what I understand, the majority of recipients pick themselves up, dust themselves off and get going again. The permanent welfare recipients are the ones in the news or what people point to. They exist, but represent a minority. Wealthy societies such as ours can be judged on how we deal with our less well off, the marginalised and the ill-educated. I am not convinced we come out of this assessment well.
Log in to Reply  


prairieian  April 12, 2015
As a short follow up…are my views on this due to living in a Western Christian culture? I don’t know enough about other cultures to discuss this with any great depth of knowledge. There are certainly deplorable practices in the wider world that various societies have adopted, but I hesitate to go further than just acknowledge the fact (e.g. the Hindu caste system and the ‘untouchables’). And, of course, there were in past centuries cultural practices within my own tradition that scarcely suggest compassion for one’s fellows. We seem to evolve in these matters.
Log in to Reply  
 



BobHicksHP  April 11, 2015
I always try to approach such questions from the counterpoint.
Is it not likely that those who end up being “religious” have a predisposition to thinking beyond themselves? Isn’t selfishness, at the core, the primary thing that Jesus rails against? Thus, those who are selfish by nature won’t give that up to become “Christian” except for the fringe benefit of self-preservation (from a torturous afterlife), and often “join-up” later in life. Even within religious communities, it’s not too hard to spot those who are “committed” versus those who are more interested in the perks.
As such, I’d say that Mr. D’Souza might actually be right to a certain extent. The actual cause of the effect, however, might not be “spiritual,” but more cultural, i.e., a learned behavior.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 13, 2015
Yes, I’ve wondered that too.
Log in to Reply  
 



MikeyS  April 11, 2015
Interesting thoughts Bart and there are many reasons why some give and others don’t. I don’t think its a religious thing at all and just that people have different reasonings. First though you need to define what are ‘needs’ and ‘wants’? Its essential that people, particularly children, have food and clean water and have treatment for disease etc. And we cannot blame the kids for being born BUT the adults have responsibility for ensuring their families are not too big so there is enough to go around. This is an obvious problem in Africa and eslewhere and so giving massive aid needs matching with birth control measures that most western cultures have come to terms with. eg IF every family in the West had ten kids, would you not think that would cause some issues? Yet the dim wits in the Vatican preach using Condoms are an afront to God. So that is one issue where people will give aid but also want contraception addressed at the same time. But it never seems to.
Now I see you contribute to the homeless and needy in NC and you see it first hand and so will know why that is. But is there any need to support youngish men and women who are fit and able to work to be given free handouts as a way of life? That is not to say a temporary hand up is not a good thing. We in the UK have a social security system that should mean that nobody goes hungry and certainly no kids and yet a million people turn up at food banks, many in cars too. Most people will turn up for a freebee. So is there a difference between Third world charity giving and elsewhere? I was born when there was no social security system support in the UK and yet people claim millions live in poverty today because their household income only reaches 60% of the average industrial wage? I don’t go with that at all.
Some people give massive aid for repairs to Churches and Cathedrals which is nuts. Knock em all down and build houses and flats for the homeless is a better way imo. We have hundreds of beggars on our city streets, you must have the same and these are fit young men mostly who could easily get a job in a pub or something and some will claim they get hundreds of pounds a day by doing it, I used to give lots to the Salvation Army but no more when I realised it was going on free houses, pensions and pay for idle ministers. Same with any other church. We do know that the millions raised after Tsunamies and Earthquakes are kept either by the governments or by the charities themselves many who led by people on huge salaries.
So most of my money is going to animal charites which most people find that appalling. But someone has to. People may find my views ‘uncharitable’ but next time you give to your local charity in NC Bart, make sure the people there too are doing something for themselves so they don’t need it and In the richest nation in the world, they really shouldn’t. How many of all these people would work the hours you do to make a living. People may say that is making a judgement on the poor and needy and I will say as one child that was raised in these circumstances in post war Britain in large family, damn right, I do! ;)
Log in to Reply  



Tom  April 11, 2015
It seems to me that some of the Greek philosophers (Plato and Aristotle at least) encouraged the virtues of generosity and friendliness, among other virtues. Also, I believe the Confucian notion of “ren” – love of humans/humanity/people? – is like the golden rule of the Bible. Though the Greeks are somewhat contemporaneous to, and geographically near ancient Israel, I think both references predate Christianity, and find their source in human beings and not anyone’s Christian religious tradition.
Log in to Reply  



Judith  April 12, 2015
Could it be that empathy is a trait that has to be developed early? Sunday school and church provide endless ways for helping others and instilling an awareness of the good fortune to not need such help. That leads to gratitude and an inclination to do what we can for those less fortunate. The result is a connection to a wider world and joy in being useful beyond ourselves.
Log in to Reply  



BrianUlrich  April 12, 2015
In the Quran, “establish prayer and give charity” is a common phrasing for converting to Islam. D’Souza, however, might just interpret that as a development from the Christian background, and then see the Christian influence on Islam as influencing Sikhism and the Bahai Faith.
In dharmic religions, however, the cultivation of generosity (dana) is an important spiritual discipline. Beyond that, those religions which embrace social hierarchy, Hinduism and Confucianism, also have traditions of noblesse oblige which the elites are supposed to follow.
Log in to Reply  



JSTMaria  April 12, 2015
Well…if I were to get theological here for a second, consider the following: If Jesus is the Word and the Word was with God and all things were created through Him, then that makes Jesus the Cosmic “Inscriber” of ALL hearts regardless of religious affiliation. That’s the only bone I can throw D’Souza from a purely “Christian” standpoint! Personally, I can read the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, and Talmud and hear a lot of the same messages I hear in the Gospels about humility and selfless service. Not sure what compels a person to be more or less charitable…a softened heart helps, but I think that is to be gained with any sincere/deep belief system (for the good) whether it’s religious in nature or not. I believe it is far more righteous and compassionate to do good for the sake of the good without having to be thumped upside the head with a Holy book to do it! But, maybe that’s just me…
Log in to Reply  



Jana  April 12, 2015
As also a long time student of Buddhism (in addition to Yoga) and specifically Dzogchen Buddhism, the ONLY way and it is very specific, the ONLY way Higher Levels of Consciousness can be attained is through Compassion and the enactment of that Compassion on behalf of others. So strongly is this embedded into the intimate experience of the stages of Realization/Rigpa that FROM the all essential View and Meditation states automatically spring Compassion and from Compassion, the final stage Action. One dedicates ones life and all that goes with it to helping others. I want to stress that compassion is not something imposed from the mind (duty although whatever works ok); it DOES spring naturally and emphatically from the heart as one progresses in one’s practice for reasons I cannot explain/it just does … one of those undefineable mysteries. Again for spiritual progress to be authentic, it is intimately experienced and acted upon. I find Dinesh’s opinions (I have not listened to this video) ethnocentric to the point of ignorance.
Log in to Reply  


Jana  April 12, 2015
And the first group … under the influence of selfishness combined with laziness … and both “illnesses” are thick barriers to any advanced state of Consciousness and a permanent and independent kind of Joy.
Log in to Reply  


Jana  April 18, 2015
There are Ashrams throughout India which have established free hospitals as well as “soup kitchens” … one of the most respected is the Sivananda Ashram, Rishikesh India founded by the late Swami Sivananda Radha, so revered that the country issued a stamp honoring him.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



RonaldTaska  April 12, 2015
Wow! A terrific blog. I certainly know what it feels like to have a “minority” view on most every meaningful issue. It makes me truly wonder about whether or not my views are correct.
 In my case, even though Christianity no longer makes as much historical sense to me as I would like, I think my childhood emotional experience of the Christian faith has resulted in my having more concern for others than I would have had without that upbringing. I, however, disagree with D’Souza about Christianity being the “only” path to such humanism. I am also repulsed by some of the fruits of that Christian faith with regard to the widespread opposition to gay rights and women’s rights (at least in Fundamentalist churches), and so on and so forth, including the promotion of slavery in the past..
Log in to Reply  



Judith  April 12, 2015
Dr. Ehrman,
I used empathy instead of compassion because I should think a developed sense of empathy would lead to compassion. There but by the grace of God….
Log in to Reply  



Triassicman  April 12, 2015
I have also given a lot of thought into the same question. I went through the ‘born again’ experience one Sunday evening at the age of 14 and I remeber vividly my thoughts around that experience. I was drawn by the story of the man Jesus who was full of love for me and laid his life down for me. Amazingly, he was at the church waiting to come into my heart. It was a love story so strongly presented that it hit all the buttons within my emotions and I was swept away into rapsody. Another reality hit me Monday morning at school when I realised I would lose all my friends if I confessed that I was one of those ‘goody 2 shoes’ boys. I struggled with that dilemma for the next two years and, unable to lose my mates, I eventually left the church but never the forgot the experience of this pure love. Later in life I began to make large amounts of money producing TV commercials but always felt an emptiness inside. I knew I no longer believed in the dogma of Christianity but somehow I was driven to give something to others who were suffering. With the talents that I had i began to produce social documentaries and discovered love and peace within myself again. I do not think that my desire was innate but rather it was passed on to me from my mother. She always cared about others in the church and I projected that love into the story of Jesus. Perhaps at 14 years of age I needed to transfer this love to a male role model? If one is romantically inclined I can’t think of a better narrative than the story of Jesus, particularly from Mathew and Luke, to invoke strong emotion. In my experience, most other religions appear to present a very interllectual approach in their narrative.
 Trust this might throw some light on the subject!
Log in to Reply  



fishician  April 12, 2015
Many openly religious people in our country are the most outspoken about closing our borders to suffering immigrants, or denying Medicaid or other aid to the poor. I have seen people who spent a lifetime in the church be indifferent to others, while some people who never set foot in a church are generous. Many of the “Christian” countries that D’Souza would refer to had no qualms about colonizing and looting areas they considered pagan without regard for those people. And in some cases making slaves of them. Let’s remember that the Holocaust arose in a country that was the very birthplace of the Protestant Reformation. I’m not convinced that religion makes anyone better or more moral but religion is so entrenched in world history that at this point it is impossible to know how the world would have turned out without it.
Log in to Reply  



kentvw  April 12, 2015
Maybe there is just a hint of, “I’ll show them damn Christians how to really give.” I don’t know Bart. Although, it seems to me that you let ring, very loudly, your philanthropic efforts and just how much of a sacrifice it is for you.
 Seems to me that none of us, religious God fearing Christians or Atheists like me, are able to escape human nature. The brighter ones are just able to hide it a bit better behind clouds of self-justified righteousness. Ah the motives behind the motives. I usually find a hint of truth about myself there.
Log in to Reply  


webattorney  April 14, 2015
Ha, ha, you seem like a wise man. Well said.
Log in to Reply  
 



Stephen  April 12, 2015
When any of my christian friends hint around that maybe they have the corner on love and compassion I simply remind them of the story of the “Good Samaritan”. If we don’t know anything else about this person we know one thing -he wasn’t a christian because it hadn’t been invented yet!
Log in to Reply  

cheito

cheito  April 13, 2015
DR Ehrman:
People give for many reasons. Some do it honestly others do it for show and some are not able to give even if they wanted to. Either way giving in itself alone does not make you a better person nor does it mean you have Love of in you.
When reading this blog what comes to my mind is the following words from 1 Corinthians 13:3
3-And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing…
Log in to Reply  



Jennyherre  April 13, 2015
Bart,
 As a former Middle School teacher, born and raised Missouri Synod Lutheran, who taught the rise of the world’s great religions, I had numerous opportunities to compare/ponder religious beliefs (albeit at a fairly simplistic level). Is a possible answer to your question the response that all major religion traditions have a “golden rule”? In Islam, one of the 5 Pillars of the faith is the giving of alms, in Buddhism:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in you religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Gautama Buddha
Surely treating others the way we want to be treated is a moral imperative that includes all mankind, religious or not.
Log in to Reply  

talitakum

talitakum  April 13, 2015
As a Christian, I think that D’Souza position is untenable and it’s also an insult to all those non-Christian people who feel the need of helping others.
 There are many non-Christians who help, there are many Christians who don’t. Anyone think we can count them?
 We may say that the Gospels are extraordinarily plenty of accounts and parables from Jesus regarding the poor, the widow, the hungry, the afflicted, the sick, the prisoners, the stranger.. It seems that this is at the core of the practices preached by Jesus (who is, for Christians, God ), a direct God’s command on which Jesus apparently insisted a lot. I have no idea if this is the same for other religions/scriptures.
 But this is not a competition and I don’t believe anyone can make any inference on the “level of personal attitude” to charity.
Log in to Reply  



VEndris  April 13, 2015
Dr. Ehrman, I first wanted to take a moment to tell you that I think you are a wonderful scholar and enjoy reading your work. You are always fair. Similar to your questions above about charity, I’ve always wondered why scholars in particular, people in general, can’t be fair to others’ opinions.
In answer to your question, I fall back on something C.S. Lewis said in his Mere Christianity. It was something like – all people know that being loving to others is the way to go, the only difference is who we choose to include in our circle. It seems to me that religion just helps us widen our circle. I would venture to say that travel and exposure to other peoples and cultures do that same thing.
Log in to Reply  


MikeyS  April 13, 2015
So folks, exactly what did Jesus and Paul do for the needy, the poor, the widows and orphans they preached what OTHERS should do? Did they work an 12 hour shift in a vineyard to do above or even to pay for their own wants? No they relied the whole time in OTHERS doing it for them. Its easy to talk the talk!
Jesus knew John the Baptist was in Prison and yet didn’t think of visiting him or praying with him? This we are told was the man who baptised him at the River Jordan etc.
Take it all with a pinch of salt and do what you think you should do and treat scripture with suspicious and contempt! There is little in there of value!
Log in to Reply  



webattorney  April 14, 2015
There is an old saying in Asia that goes something like: “Wiser you get, your head lowers more”, meaning older and wiser you get, you become more humble and thankful that you lower yourself.
Log in to Reply  


Scott  April 16, 2015
I thought it meant you got wiser and your brain got heavier making it harder to hold up with your existing neck muscles :)
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Scott  April 13, 2015
Charity (at 2.5%) is one of the Pillars of Islam. I am sure that D’Souza would claim that they got that from Christianity .
Log in to Reply  



Scott  April 13, 2015
I would say that disentangling giving to “church” and giving to “charity” is very difficult. How much of person’s tithe to their church actually pays for services they receive in the form of comfortable and entertaining Sunday services, youth groups for their kids, basketball games in the Family Life Center, etc…? How much of those facilities help members of the congregation (say, the elderly) have a better life? How much helps those in the community?
My sense is that the charity of the faithful and that of non-believers is much closer in scale after the self-serving fluff of church budgets is accounted for.
Log in to Reply  



Scott  April 13, 2015
Personally, my partner and I have striven to “tithe” to various charities each year. I do a recap at tax time. Sadly, we fall short almost every year of what we “should” be giving back. However, the impulse is firmly ingrained in us.
From my own point of view, I have come to recognize the many lucky breaks I have had and to realize that many don’t have those advantages through no fault of their own. That is what drives me. I would consider that outside of Christian influence but, like memory, my motivations can be falsified without my awareness.
Log in to Reply  



spiker  April 13, 2015
How would Dinesh know that people in China had no humanitarian impulse at all? There are any number of factors
 involved. If we look at China during the cultural revolution we might be inclined to draw one sort of conclusion as
 opposed to looking at China today.The Chinese may be more anonymous or secretive with acts of charity.
 Having worked with someone from Taiwan, I can say he was painfully polite and generous. Generosity is certainly part of charity. I can’t recall any instances of charity specifically and also I have to admit he was a Christian of sorts
 I think locally he was not, but on a larger civil level he was. Village versus city or state.
Finally if one doesn’t have the impulse then no amount of preaching will make it appear. Although one can’t ignore
 A Christian tendency to enforce certain institutions and works of charity, but how would you go about comparing
 traditions and institutions in the West with those in China? What would the metrics look like?.
Log in to Reply  



Scott  April 13, 2015
One other thing to consider across countries and cultures is how supportive the inhabitant are of alternate arrangements for supporting the underprivileged and vulnerable. For instance, does support of social programs in liberal European countries demonstrate an equivalent or even superior charitable impulse versus personal charitable efforts in the individualistic US? What about social arrangements in which multi-generation households ensure the well-being of widows versus relying on food pantries down at the Baptist church?
It may be that western Christians are mistaking style for substance and not recognizing that other cultures have committed themselves just as strongly to the welfare of others but have selected different (and some would say more effective) means to achieve the goal.
Log in to Reply  

Bethany

Bethany  April 13, 2015
Late to the party here, but this is something I’ve read philosophical musings on (as well as musing on myself): The extent to which the moral values of atheists/secular organizations could nevertheless be considered to be based on religion. People generally hold the moral values of their culture, and the moral values of Western culture are I think influenced quite heavily by the Abrahamic religions.
Log in to Reply  



jbaughman  April 13, 2015
Being raised a Methodist had no additional bearing as to whether I helped people or not. My parents raised my siblings and me to help anyone, anyway you can. Do not not turn away…Help.
Pink Floyd’s song about “The turning away” sheds volumes on this subject.
Log in to Reply  



dragonfly  April 14, 2015
So… nobody cared before Christianity was invented?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 15, 2015
Apparently.
Log in to Reply  
 



rbrtbaumgardner  April 14, 2015
“The more important religion is to a person, the more likely that person is to give to a charity of any kind, according to new research released today.
Among Americans who claim a religious affiliation, the study said, 65 percent give to charity. Among those who do not identify a religious creed, 56 percent make charitable gifts.
About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.”
https://philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973
http://connectedtogive.org/
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 15, 2015
Interesting….
Log in to Reply  
 



webattorney  April 14, 2015
I give both in Christian setting and non-Christian setting (I attend churches to maintain harmony of my family), and I have to tell you, giving in a non-Christian setting was more rewarding and freer, mainly because I gave without some ministers telling me I should give. In fact, I donated some money to Doctors Without Borders because of Ebola outbreak and what they were doing.
I have nothing against atheists and Christians (and I sympathize with both camps), but if I am pressed, my answer is “I would not be surprised either way if God exists or doesn’t exist. I honestly don’t know.” I am not one of those atheists who thinks science will set men free or anything like that.
Log in to Reply  



EBHinNC  April 15, 2015
Delighted to learn that this blog supports Doctors Without Borders. In war zones, news organizations routinely learn what’s happening in the horror by talking to MSF doctors on the ground — where most people would evacuate if possible. Kudos to them, and thanks to you for helping us support them!!!
Log in to Reply  



Eric  April 16, 2015
I think there is something to the underlying civilizational argument (Judeo-Christian culture) that is more relevant than individuals in that culture’s current (or past) particular religiosity.
I don’t know Judeo-Christianity has any kind of monopoly, but I could readily believe that it was further along the charity spectrum than say the pre-colonial Hindu caste system or law-and-order Confucianism. While Western monasteries or holy orders (like the Franciscans) at their best were at least ostensibly founded in part at least on charity (despite frequent failures of their actual memberships over time), Bhuddist monastaries, I believe, are traditionallyu founded for different purposes, perhaps admirable, but I’ve never heard charity to the poor was a principle one.
Islam does have “alms giving” as one of its main pillars, so you’d have to lump them in with “the west” in this regard, but then again it stems from a common root.
There might very well be Hottentot cultures that but Western Civilization to shame in this regard.
Log in to Reply  



SBrudney091941  April 22, 2015
It is interesting how often people refer to Eastern traditions to compare to Christian traditions of charity but never mention Judaism. If it pleases Dinesh D’Souza to think that, if it isn’t because of Christianity directly, it is so indirectly, then perhaps one should say that, if it weren’t for the Jewish teachings Jesus was raised with, he would have been less likely to teach what he taught. It was Jesus the Jew who taught love of others, not Jesus the Christian who never existed. It is a prejudiced cliche to characterize the Old Testament and Judaism as teaching of the wrathful, angry, jealous God and the New Testament and Christianity as teaching the loving, forgiving, compassionate God of charity. Also, Judaism didn’t teach that all non-Jews will burn eternally. That is NT and Christianity. On helping the poor, the stranger, the hungry, and the widow, see In the Tanakh, for example:
 Leviticus 25:35 If any of your kin fall into difficulty and become dependent on you, you shall support them; they shall live with you as though resident aliens.
 It’s interesting how often people will refer to certain Eastern traditions and never to Judaism.
 Deuteronomy 15:11 There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.
 Proverbs 21:13 If you close your ear to the cry of the poor, you will cry out and not be heard.
 Deuteronomy 24:19 When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings.
Log in to Reply  



gavm  April 23, 2015
it just comes down to personality. to answer yr question more specifically empathy, or chemical reactions in the brain. some people see another in pain and that results in distress, others not. its just how ones brain is wired, cause and effect. if yr brain is wired to be high in empathy youll wanna give lots to charities ect. if you dont get that reaction youll have no desire to give much. bit like a computer.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          
http://ehrmanblog.org/ramblings-on-charity-and-religion/
















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogWhy Do I Devote Myself to Studying the Bible? 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Why Do I Devote Myself to Studying the Bible?

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 of the context within which I live, move, and have my being: the research university.   If I were teaching at a seminary or divinity school, training future ministers, the question would make sense: then I’d be teaching students whose ministry was in some sense rooted in the biblical traditions as normative texts for what to believe and how to behave.  If I were an agnostic in that context (there are some!) then it would be a bit strange (but not impossible to imagine; but that’s another discussion).   But I’m not in that context.  I’m not engaged in this kind of work in a church, or a Christian education program, or a believing community of any kind, or a seminary or divinity school.  I engage in it in a secular research university.
The context makes all the difference.   At a tier-one university, established scholars in all sorts of fields engage in teaching, research, and writing – in the hard sciences (as opposed to the easy ones, I suppose), the social sciences, and the arts and humanities.  They engage in this work because the topics they choose to work on are generally recognized, by people who know about such things, as being historically, culturally, politically, economically, socially, or scientifically important.  In this context, people teach and research all *sorts* of things they don’t “believe” in.
My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer.   She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important.   There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists.  Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists.  Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis.  Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers.
I teach religious studies.  It doesn’t mean I’m religious.  And there’s no reason that should be any weirder than the fact that a professor of Greek classics is not a pagan.   Even within Religious Studies it is widely the case that experts of one field or another do not practice the religion.   That’s because we do not teach religion in the sense that we are trying to convince people that the religion is “true” or that it ought to be “adopted.”  We’re not interested in converting people, but in teaching them.  And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.
So too with biblical studies.  Scholars of the Bible are not necessarily believers in the Bible.  Now, I have to admit, that historically, most biblical scholars in America have been (and still are) practicing Christians.   Some few New Testament scholars are practicing Jews.  And some few – like me – are none of the above.   I think the reason so many scholars in this particular field have a personal attachment to it has to do with the nature of our society:  people who really get into the Bible when they’re young usually get into it for personal religious, rather than academic, reasons.  That was certainly the case for me.   I didn’t become an agnostic until long after I had studied and revered the Bible as a hard-core Christian.   But once I became an agnostic I didn’t lose my interest in the Bible.  It’s just that the reasons for my interest radically shifted – shifted to what the reasons would have been had I been an agnostic in college and took a class on the Bible and gotten hooked then.
The reasons for being interested in studying the Bible are pretty much the same as the reasons for being interested in studying Chaucer, or Plato, or Latin classics, or modern German history, or medieval Japan, or most anything else.   These are all important topics – historically, culturally, socially, politically, and so on – and are, in themselves, endlessly fascinating.
In our world, the Bible is especially important and interesting.  When it comes to importance, there’s no other book that can come *close* to the Bible for its influence on Western civilization in virtually all of its aspects.    How can someone interested in books not be interested in the Bible?  Moreover, far and away the most important and influential institution in the history of the West is the Christian church.  Who shouldn’t be interested in how it all started?  And no figure in history is more important and influential than Jesus of Nazareth.   Who shouldn’t want to know everything possible about him and the religion built on him?
And so back to the question: I understand how,  on one level, it may seem strange that someone who did not believe in the Bible would devote his life to researching and teaching the Bible; but on another level, it doesn’t seem strange at all.   It is a bona fide academic subject.   I refuse to yield the field of biblical studies to fundamentalists who want to thump the Bible.   The field belongs just as much – if not more —  to secular historians and literary scholars who are intent on coming to an educated understanding of this most important book and its historical and literary significance.

 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Forgeries in the Name of Paul«
Why Not the Gospel of Peter?»


13

DEC

2014

29
  
Comments
29  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Tom  December 13, 2014
Are there differences between seminaries and divinity schools, or does that depend on who you ask?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
A seminary is a free-standing independent institution; a divinity school is a professional school that is part of a university (like the law school and the medical school). Their missions and curricula are not different.
Log in to Reply  


Tom  December 15, 2014
Makes sense to me.
Thanks.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Wilusa  December 13, 2014
What I’ve sometimes found myself wondering is whether your field should really be a branch of the History Department (or whatever term UNC uses), rather than being called “Religious Studies.”
And I don’t find it strange that you’ve maintained your interest in the field despite having become an agnostic. But I *do* doubt that you would have gravitated to it if you’d been an agnostic – or a nominal “Christian” who felt trapped in a religion he found loathsome – in your college days.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
The problem is that not everyone who teaches in Religoius Studies is a historian. Many are social scientists (e.g., anthropologists), or literary scholars, or philosophers. It’s a truly interdisciplinary discipline.
Log in to Reply  


Mhamed Errifi  December 26, 2014
You said scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim . if you mean in the west maybe but in the east all scholars of islam are not only muslims by faith but they are also world authority on 7 century arabic . what you call scholar of islam by western standard are not recognised in muslim world as such
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 27, 2014
Yes, in Muslim world, scholars of Islam are Muslim.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Wijting  December 13, 2014
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
One of the major issues when it comes to the bible is the decision to read it as either unique revelation or ancient literature or perhaps a bit of both. Because of the assumptions embedded in the bible or the koran or any purported “divine” book, it behooves the reader it make decisions about such embedded assumptions.
However, the scholar of Chaucer, Shakespeare or Homer is not faced with such a dilemma . I’ve yet to hear of a Homer scholar bemoan he’s losing sleep because the Illiad is appearing less and less divine (not that it ever assumed such properties).
However, with the bible, well there’s a hell of a lot more to lose. Unless you’ve arrived at the agnostic position that writes off prior beliefs about the bible as nothing more than pious imagination.
So my point is that literature in general has different assumptions than those of a religious bent. Egypitian, Jewish or Christian mention of God/gods actually imply belief that such exists. Whereas other literature is not that concerned with literal belief in a God/gods but may use them as literary devices.
Best,
Yuri
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
I don’t think there *are* assumptions built into the Bible that it is in the inspired word of God, at least no more so than for any other religious text from antiquity.
Log in to Reply  
 



doug  December 13, 2014
I don’t believe in God (I’m a secular humanist). But I find the study of Jesus and early Christianity to be fascinating. That is probably so, in part, because I grew up as a strong believer in Christianity. Also, Jesus is arguably the most famous and (indirectly) influential person who ever lived. And I find knowledge (as opposed to dogma) about Jesus important because so many people use him to try to justify questionable actions and beliefs.
Log in to Reply  



Jana  December 13, 2014
During my freshman year at University, I took a class in “Bible as Literature” … it was in some ways life changing when I realized that analytics could and should be applied to all texts especially religious.
Log in to Reply  



cwspeaks  December 13, 2014
I remember when I learned that my undergrad professor, Dr. Derek Krueger (with whom I’m fairly certain you’re quite familiar), was Jewish. At the time, with my horizons still narrowed by adolescence, I couldn’t quite figure how a Jew could teach courses on historic Christianity and remain unconverted! Afterwards and with much more study of my own, I can understand how.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
Yes, I’ve known Derek for years!
Log in to Reply  
 



Jason  December 14, 2014
“Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers.”
That you know of-maybe their research makes them capable of being the most successful mass murderers of all time (outside of the Oval Office that is…)
In any case, I work for a University Research Institute and am fascinated by the variety of things that qualify as research-especially in the context of textual criticism. The Bible hasn’t changed (much) in about 400 years and there’s at least a hundred years or so of textual criticism on the books-how do you come up with ideas for new directions to explore in the field? Is it mostly fringe texts and variant manuscripts now or are scholars still finding new insights from the canon?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
Well, my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture helped change how the field of study even went about doing its work — what kinds of quesitons it was interested in and what sorts of subjects it explored.
Log in to Reply  
 



RonaldTaska  December 14, 2014
Amen!
Log in to Reply  



Forrest  December 14, 2014
Bart,
 Thank you for your continued commitment to the study of the most important book in Western culture. Who knows what or where we would be if this were left to “believers” only. I recently had an interesting experience while Christmas shopping for a new Bible for my wife. (That’s what she wants.) As I went through a religious bookstore, I read that certain individuals (usually evangelicals) didn’t like certain versions because it did’t present “Christian” beliefs properly. Instead of letting the text itself guide the discussion, they want to have their theological/philosophical perspectives imposed on the document. Who knows where that rabbit hole would lead us?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
I’m afraid we *do* know. :-)
Log in to Reply  
 



Jim  December 14, 2014
Great question & an awesome answer with a succinct conclusion of ” I refuse to yield the field of biblical studies to fundamentalists who want to thump the Bible.”
A breath of fresh air to Biblical Studies.
Log in to Reply  



Colin P  December 14, 2014
To follow on from your previous post Bart I am very grateful :) that you are there producing the books you do despite your lack of Christian faith. I totally agree with your stance that study of early Christianity should not be the preserve of Christians. As an agnostic it fascinates me. It’s got everything – history, psychology, religion, philosophy, drama. One thing I really struggle with when reading the subject is the potential bias of some christian authors. After all, if they believe some of the dogmas of Christianity, how can it fail to influence their interpretation and account of christian history. It is so good to have your view on things as a counterpoint. I wish there were more like you!
Log in to Reply  



Goat  December 15, 2014
Professor Ehrman,
 Equally as I am jealous of my fellow parishioners’ faith, I admire the depth of your passion for your studies. The comparison that you make to the interest that other scholars display for their areas of expertise does not do it justice. The passion which you exhibit for your field of study does not appear to be coicidental. Your example is very inspiring, even if it directs my attention to challenges that wish I could ignore.
Log in to Reply  



dragonfly  December 15, 2014
I find this stuff really interesting, so much I’m willing to pay money to be on this blog. And I would say I’m an agnostic. But not about Christianity. I don’t believe in a God that thinks it’s a good laugh to see if he can get Abraham to kill his own son for no reason. And I don’t believe in a God that thinks eternal torture is the appropriate punishment for the heinous crime of simply being born. But lots of people do and that makes it interesting. So I find the question a bit puzzling too.
Log in to Reply  



simonelli  December 15, 2014
You said; ” I engage in it in a secular research university.” You can discuss any men made subject that you like without incurring the wrath of God. However in this case you are discussing the Word of God; therefore, you are plying with fire, for unless you are able to handle it accurately, you will eventually bring offence to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. Some sins are judged in this life, others are judged after this life.
Log in to Reply  


mjordan20149  December 15, 2014
It might be a good idea to get Dr. Ehrman to discuss “hell” in the context of the New Testament sometime (although I’m sure I can find discussions of “hell” elsewhere on this blog. I don’t think that there is much organized theological discussion of hell in the New Testament. My understanding is that there are three greek words that are translated as “hell,” and that none of them have much to do with the eternal damnation that the church eventually espoused. Gehenna is a burning trash dump outside Jerusalem. Hades is the place of the dead in Greek mythology. Tartarus (only used one time in “Paul”s” letter to Titus, I believe, was a place of exile for the defeated Titans, again in Greek mythology. So, in my view, hell is an invention of the early church that became a place of eternal torment during the middle ages.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 16, 2014
I deal with this issue in my book Jesus Interrupted. But you’re right, it would be a good blog post. I’ll add it to the list.
Log in to Reply  
 



alandiehl  December 16, 2014
Take some time to read Dr. Ehrman’s writings. You will quickly realize the Bible could not possibly the words of a God or gods. On second thought, just read the Bible…that should bring you to the same conclusion.
Log in to Reply  
 



Jana  December 22, 2014
Given how unreliable I’m learning that the Gospels are … I want to tell you another personal story … when my still best girlfriend of 40 some years was young .. well we both were very young … she decided to live her daily life according to her astrological chart. She knew the time and date and of course the year and after a detailed reading faithfully for at least a year lived according to her chart’s revelations. It was only later during a visit with her late mother in upstate NY that she learned (they were Italian immigrants) that both her birth day and time had been copied wrong on her birth certificate. My friend is now the Mother Superior of a Trappist Catholic monastery. (I find this funny if not charming/I hope you do too)
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 22, 2014
Terrific!
Log in to Reply  
 

@manx

@manx  March 31, 2015
Personally i find the whole subject simply fascinating. Having been brought up in the Catholic school system and receiving my RE lessons from Jesuit Priests to been dragged “kicking and screaming” as a 13 year old by my mother into the Pentecostal system to my now Atheist position … It is still a subject i enjoy reading and discussing.
 So a big thank you to yourself for the great reading and viewpoints you offer. @manx
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/why-do-i-devote-myself-to-studying-the-bible/


















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogWhy Do I Devote Myself to Studying the Bible? 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Why Do I Devote Myself to Studying the Bible?

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 of the context within which I live, move, and have my being: the research university.   If I were teaching at a seminary or divinity school, training future ministers, the question would make sense: then I’d be teaching students whose ministry was in some sense rooted in the biblical traditions as normative texts for what to believe and how to behave.  If I were an agnostic in that context (there are some!) then it would be a bit strange (but not impossible to imagine; but that’s another discussion).   But I’m not in that context.  I’m not engaged in this kind of work in a church, or a Christian education program, or a believing community of any kind, or a seminary or divinity school.  I engage in it in a secular research university.
The context makes all the difference.   At a tier-one university, established scholars in all sorts of fields engage in teaching, research, and writing – in the hard sciences (as opposed to the easy ones, I suppose), the social sciences, and the arts and humanities.  They engage in this work because the topics they choose to work on are generally recognized, by people who know about such things, as being historically, culturally, politically, economically, socially, or scientifically important.  In this context, people teach and research all *sorts* of things they don’t “believe” in.
My wife is an expert, among many other things, in Chaucer.   She doesn’t “believe” in Chaucer, although she loves the texts and finds them personally important.   There are professors in the university who teach the history of communism; most of them are not communists.  Others teach the philosophy of Plato; they are not necessarily Platonists.  Others teach the history of 20th century Germany; they aren’t Nazis.  Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers.
I teach religious studies.  It doesn’t mean I’m religious.  And there’s no reason that should be any weirder than the fact that a professor of Greek classics is not a pagan.   Even within Religious Studies it is widely the case that experts of one field or another do not practice the religion.   That’s because we do not teach religion in the sense that we are trying to convince people that the religion is “true” or that it ought to be “adopted.”  We’re not interested in converting people, but in teaching them.  And so a scholar of Buddhism is not necessarily Buddhist (the ones I know aren’t); a scholar of American fundamentalism is not necessarily an American fundamentalist (one of my colleagues in that field at UNC is an Israeli Jew); a scholar of the history of Catholicism is not necessarily Roman Catholic (another colleague of mine in that field is, again, somewhat oddly, another Israeli Jew); scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim (neither of my colleagues in that field are); etc etc.
So too with biblical studies.  Scholars of the Bible are not necessarily believers in the Bible.  Now, I have to admit, that historically, most biblical scholars in America have been (and still are) practicing Christians.   Some few New Testament scholars are practicing Jews.  And some few – like me – are none of the above.   I think the reason so many scholars in this particular field have a personal attachment to it has to do with the nature of our society:  people who really get into the Bible when they’re young usually get into it for personal religious, rather than academic, reasons.  That was certainly the case for me.   I didn’t become an agnostic until long after I had studied and revered the Bible as a hard-core Christian.   But once I became an agnostic I didn’t lose my interest in the Bible.  It’s just that the reasons for my interest radically shifted – shifted to what the reasons would have been had I been an agnostic in college and took a class on the Bible and gotten hooked then.
The reasons for being interested in studying the Bible are pretty much the same as the reasons for being interested in studying Chaucer, or Plato, or Latin classics, or modern German history, or medieval Japan, or most anything else.   These are all important topics – historically, culturally, socially, politically, and so on – and are, in themselves, endlessly fascinating.
In our world, the Bible is especially important and interesting.  When it comes to importance, there’s no other book that can come *close* to the Bible for its influence on Western civilization in virtually all of its aspects.    How can someone interested in books not be interested in the Bible?  Moreover, far and away the most important and influential institution in the history of the West is the Christian church.  Who shouldn’t be interested in how it all started?  And no figure in history is more important and influential than Jesus of Nazareth.   Who shouldn’t want to know everything possible about him and the religion built on him?
And so back to the question: I understand how,  on one level, it may seem strange that someone who did not believe in the Bible would devote his life to researching and teaching the Bible; but on another level, it doesn’t seem strange at all.   It is a bona fide academic subject.   I refuse to yield the field of biblical studies to fundamentalists who want to thump the Bible.   The field belongs just as much – if not more —  to secular historians and literary scholars who are intent on coming to an educated understanding of this most important book and its historical and literary significance.

 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Forgeries in the Name of Paul«
Why Not the Gospel of Peter?»


13

DEC

2014

29
  
Comments
29  Comments
0  Trackbacks




Tom  December 13, 2014
Are there differences between seminaries and divinity schools, or does that depend on who you ask?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
A seminary is a free-standing independent institution; a divinity school is a professional school that is part of a university (like the law school and the medical school). Their missions and curricula are not different.
Log in to Reply  


Tom  December 15, 2014
Makes sense to me.
Thanks.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Wilusa  December 13, 2014
What I’ve sometimes found myself wondering is whether your field should really be a branch of the History Department (or whatever term UNC uses), rather than being called “Religious Studies.”
And I don’t find it strange that you’ve maintained your interest in the field despite having become an agnostic. But I *do* doubt that you would have gravitated to it if you’d been an agnostic – or a nominal “Christian” who felt trapped in a religion he found loathsome – in your college days.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
The problem is that not everyone who teaches in Religoius Studies is a historian. Many are social scientists (e.g., anthropologists), or literary scholars, or philosophers. It’s a truly interdisciplinary discipline.
Log in to Reply  


Mhamed Errifi  December 26, 2014
You said scholars of Islam are not necessarily Muslim . if you mean in the west maybe but in the east all scholars of islam are not only muslims by faith but they are also world authority on 7 century arabic . what you call scholar of islam by western standard are not recognised in muslim world as such
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 27, 2014
Yes, in Muslim world, scholars of Islam are Muslim.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Wijting  December 13, 2014
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
One of the major issues when it comes to the bible is the decision to read it as either unique revelation or ancient literature or perhaps a bit of both. Because of the assumptions embedded in the bible or the koran or any purported “divine” book, it behooves the reader it make decisions about such embedded assumptions.
However, the scholar of Chaucer, Shakespeare or Homer is not faced with such a dilemma . I’ve yet to hear of a Homer scholar bemoan he’s losing sleep because the Illiad is appearing less and less divine (not that it ever assumed such properties).
However, with the bible, well there’s a hell of a lot more to lose. Unless you’ve arrived at the agnostic position that writes off prior beliefs about the bible as nothing more than pious imagination.
So my point is that literature in general has different assumptions than those of a religious bent. Egypitian, Jewish or Christian mention of God/gods actually imply belief that such exists. Whereas other literature is not that concerned with literal belief in a God/gods but may use them as literary devices.
Best,
Yuri
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
I don’t think there *are* assumptions built into the Bible that it is in the inspired word of God, at least no more so than for any other religious text from antiquity.
Log in to Reply  
 



doug  December 13, 2014
I don’t believe in God (I’m a secular humanist). But I find the study of Jesus and early Christianity to be fascinating. That is probably so, in part, because I grew up as a strong believer in Christianity. Also, Jesus is arguably the most famous and (indirectly) influential person who ever lived. And I find knowledge (as opposed to dogma) about Jesus important because so many people use him to try to justify questionable actions and beliefs.
Log in to Reply  



Jana  December 13, 2014
During my freshman year at University, I took a class in “Bible as Literature” … it was in some ways life changing when I realized that analytics could and should be applied to all texts especially religious.
Log in to Reply  



cwspeaks  December 13, 2014
I remember when I learned that my undergrad professor, Dr. Derek Krueger (with whom I’m fairly certain you’re quite familiar), was Jewish. At the time, with my horizons still narrowed by adolescence, I couldn’t quite figure how a Jew could teach courses on historic Christianity and remain unconverted! Afterwards and with much more study of my own, I can understand how.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
Yes, I’ve known Derek for years!
Log in to Reply  
 



Jason  December 14, 2014
“Others teach criminology; they aren’t necessary mass murderers.”
That you know of-maybe their research makes them capable of being the most successful mass murderers of all time (outside of the Oval Office that is…)
In any case, I work for a University Research Institute and am fascinated by the variety of things that qualify as research-especially in the context of textual criticism. The Bible hasn’t changed (much) in about 400 years and there’s at least a hundred years or so of textual criticism on the books-how do you come up with ideas for new directions to explore in the field? Is it mostly fringe texts and variant manuscripts now or are scholars still finding new insights from the canon?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
Well, my book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture helped change how the field of study even went about doing its work — what kinds of quesitons it was interested in and what sorts of subjects it explored.
Log in to Reply  
 



RonaldTaska  December 14, 2014
Amen!
Log in to Reply  



Forrest  December 14, 2014
Bart,
 Thank you for your continued commitment to the study of the most important book in Western culture. Who knows what or where we would be if this were left to “believers” only. I recently had an interesting experience while Christmas shopping for a new Bible for my wife. (That’s what she wants.) As I went through a religious bookstore, I read that certain individuals (usually evangelicals) didn’t like certain versions because it did’t present “Christian” beliefs properly. Instead of letting the text itself guide the discussion, they want to have their theological/philosophical perspectives imposed on the document. Who knows where that rabbit hole would lead us?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 15, 2014
I’m afraid we *do* know. :-)
Log in to Reply  
 



Jim  December 14, 2014
Great question & an awesome answer with a succinct conclusion of ” I refuse to yield the field of biblical studies to fundamentalists who want to thump the Bible.”
A breath of fresh air to Biblical Studies.
Log in to Reply  



Colin P  December 14, 2014
To follow on from your previous post Bart I am very grateful :) that you are there producing the books you do despite your lack of Christian faith. I totally agree with your stance that study of early Christianity should not be the preserve of Christians. As an agnostic it fascinates me. It’s got everything – history, psychology, religion, philosophy, drama. One thing I really struggle with when reading the subject is the potential bias of some christian authors. After all, if they believe some of the dogmas of Christianity, how can it fail to influence their interpretation and account of christian history. It is so good to have your view on things as a counterpoint. I wish there were more like you!
Log in to Reply  



Goat  December 15, 2014
Professor Ehrman,
 Equally as I am jealous of my fellow parishioners’ faith, I admire the depth of your passion for your studies. The comparison that you make to the interest that other scholars display for their areas of expertise does not do it justice. The passion which you exhibit for your field of study does not appear to be coicidental. Your example is very inspiring, even if it directs my attention to challenges that wish I could ignore.
Log in to Reply  



dragonfly  December 15, 2014
I find this stuff really interesting, so much I’m willing to pay money to be on this blog. And I would say I’m an agnostic. But not about Christianity. I don’t believe in a God that thinks it’s a good laugh to see if he can get Abraham to kill his own son for no reason. And I don’t believe in a God that thinks eternal torture is the appropriate punishment for the heinous crime of simply being born. But lots of people do and that makes it interesting. So I find the question a bit puzzling too.
Log in to Reply  



simonelli  December 15, 2014
You said; ” I engage in it in a secular research university.” You can discuss any men made subject that you like without incurring the wrath of God. However in this case you are discussing the Word of God; therefore, you are plying with fire, for unless you are able to handle it accurately, you will eventually bring offence to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. Some sins are judged in this life, others are judged after this life.
Log in to Reply  


mjordan20149  December 15, 2014
It might be a good idea to get Dr. Ehrman to discuss “hell” in the context of the New Testament sometime (although I’m sure I can find discussions of “hell” elsewhere on this blog. I don’t think that there is much organized theological discussion of hell in the New Testament. My understanding is that there are three greek words that are translated as “hell,” and that none of them have much to do with the eternal damnation that the church eventually espoused. Gehenna is a burning trash dump outside Jerusalem. Hades is the place of the dead in Greek mythology. Tartarus (only used one time in “Paul”s” letter to Titus, I believe, was a place of exile for the defeated Titans, again in Greek mythology. So, in my view, hell is an invention of the early church that became a place of eternal torment during the middle ages.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 16, 2014
I deal with this issue in my book Jesus Interrupted. But you’re right, it would be a good blog post. I’ll add it to the list.
Log in to Reply  
 



alandiehl  December 16, 2014
Take some time to read Dr. Ehrman’s writings. You will quickly realize the Bible could not possibly the words of a God or gods. On second thought, just read the Bible…that should bring you to the same conclusion.
Log in to Reply  
 



Jana  December 22, 2014
Given how unreliable I’m learning that the Gospels are … I want to tell you another personal story … when my still best girlfriend of 40 some years was young .. well we both were very young … she decided to live her daily life according to her astrological chart. She knew the time and date and of course the year and after a detailed reading faithfully for at least a year lived according to her chart’s revelations. It was only later during a visit with her late mother in upstate NY that she learned (they were Italian immigrants) that both her birth day and time had been copied wrong on her birth certificate. My friend is now the Mother Superior of a Trappist Catholic monastery. (I find this funny if not charming/I hope you do too)
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  December 22, 2014
Terrific!
Log in to Reply  
 

@manx

@manx  March 31, 2015
Personally i find the whole subject simply fascinating. Having been brought up in the Catholic school system and receiving my RE lessons from Jesuit Priests to been dragged “kicking and screaming” as a 13 year old by my mother into the Pentecostal system to my now Atheist position … It is still a subject i enjoy reading and discussing.
 So a big thank you to yourself for the great reading and viewpoints you offer. @manx
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          

http://ehrmanblog.org/why-do-i-devote-myself-to-studying-the-bible/












Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogDid Jesus Exist? Interview by Guy Raz 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Did Jesus Exist? Interview by Guy Raz

On April 1, 2012, I had an interview with Guy Raz, previous weekend host of NPR News’ signature afternoon news magazine “All Things Considered” and now host of TED Radio Hour. The topic was my book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.
As readers of this blog probably know, there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists.  As I say int he interview, “It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are.  Historically, they’ve been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some parts of the West – in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed.  In my book, I marshal all of the evidence showing that contrary to this mythicist view, Jesus certainly did exist.
Please adjust gear icon for 720p High-Definition:

image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







My Debate with Dan Wallace: Is the Original NT Lost?«
Some Other Gnostics»


4

JAN

2015

24
  
Comments
24  Comments
0  Trackbacks




countybaseball  January 5, 2015
Good short interview.
Log in to Reply  



Goat  January 5, 2015
In your interview you state that Paul’s conversion took place within a year or two after Jesus’ death. How strong is the evidence for the timing of Paul’s conversion? Would this topic lend itself to a short explanation?
 Thanks,
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 5, 2015
I tend to date it to two or three years after now, instead of one or two. I think it’s pretty well conceded that it must have been something like that, based on the chronological comments Paul makes in a few places (three years later I did this…then after seventeen years… etc.)
Log in to Reply  
 



toejam  January 5, 2015
More off-topic questions:
I’m aware you see Luke 1-2 as a later addition to the gospel. I’ve also just been reminded that Irenaeus said something similar about the Ebionite version of the Gospel of Matthew – that it also didn’t have a nativity scene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites#Jesus).
I think the nativity narratives are probably the last pieces to be put into place and that proto-Marcionites and Ebionites had split from the proto-orthodox prior to their inclusion. My question is what is the earliest and latest these nativity narratives could have been added? I know you normally date Matthew and Luke to c.80-85CE. Would you say this includes the nativity narratives? I am starting to think the nativity narratives may have been added even later, perhaps early 2nd century. If there any reason this couldn’t be so?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 5, 2015
My sense is that Matthew had its first two chapters, but that Luke did not. When I date Luke to 80-85, I mean the first edition, without these chapters. If the chapters were added, it could have been any time after that, but probably not *too* many decades afterwards, since then it would be hard to explain why all the surviving manuscripts have these chapters (starting with the fourth century — but still….)
Log in to Reply  
 



moose  January 5, 2015
Why is this ‘brother of the Lord’ statement from Paul so significant?
Do you realize that Jesus was not only the son of Joseph, but also the son of God?
Could it be that God had more sons?
 Matthew: “From Egypt I called my son.” Well, the son of God in this prophecy referred originally to Israel / Jacob, and not to Jesus.
Exodus 4:22: Then say two Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son’
James, the Lord’s brother, is Israel. Peter is none other than Moses.
Who then is Paul? Well, then I will have to write much more extensive. I have no time for that now.
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  January 5, 2015
Very enjoyable!
I know I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again, because I wonder whether there may be *many* people like my somewhat younger self.
I was an agnostic. And in a casual way, I speculated that the “Jesus” so many people worshipped might be based on an amalgam of events in the lives of a number of different men. Because the name Yeshua was common in itself, and because it might have been used as a spiritual name or nom de guerre (honoring the earlier “Joshua”). I never shared those ideas with anyone…but I did hold them.
After I viewed some of your Great Courses lectures, I realized you and scholars like you had done an enormous amount of research in the field, and “Jesus” definitely isn’t a composite.
Log in to Reply  
Matilda

Matilda  January 6, 2015
Wilusa
 I’m just the opposite. I used to be Catholic. The more I read the more I am drifting away from the existence of Jesus. I love Bart’s work but my faith has been eroded ( not that it was ever really that strong). At this point in time, I’m so disillusioned that I just don’t give a hoot. Whether Jesus is/was a myth or actual historical person doesn’t change the fact that the story around him is a giant myth. Honestly, I wish Jesus would just go away along with Mohammad and the rest of the crazy bunch. That’s the mood I’m in about religion.
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  January 6, 2015
Matilda,
I can understand and empathize with where you’re coming from! I think theistic religions will die out within a few hundred more years…and the world will be much better without them.
But I know that while it’s hard for me to understand, Catholicism really does enrich many people’s lives. And most of those people aren’t causing harm to anyone.
Unfortunately, Catholicism also blights many people’s lives. It did mine, when I was young. I was miserable. And in my twenties, the only things I wanted to do that were contrary to Catholic teachings were to stop going to church, stop receiving sacraments, and stop pretending to believe things I didn’t believe. I didn’t make the break for years, because I didn’t want to hurt my mother. But in the end, she understood perfectly, and our relationship didn’t suffer at all.
I don’t know what the percentages are: how many lives are enriched by Catholicism, how many blighted. But because it’s really good for some people, I consider myself non-Catholic rather than anti-Catholic. (Also, agnostic and non-theist, rather than “atheist.”)
I must admit a priest unintentionally helped me. In my senior year in a Catholic high school, he taught the class how (as he intended) to come to a belief in Catholicism by offering “proofs” of first, the existence of God; then, Christianity’s being the true form of theism; and finally, Catholicism’s being the true form of Christianity. At age 16, I accepted it all, despite not liking the result. But a few years later, I no longer accepted it. So I thought it through for myself…using that same start-from-the-beginning approach. And I concluded that the existence of a “Creator” was not the only, or even the most likely, explanation for the existence of the Cosmos.
Log in to Reply  
Matilda

Matilda  January 8, 2015
It’s so nice to talk with you Wilusa. I hope Bart doesn’t mind. I’ll make it short just incase. I think all Catholics, especially ones raised in the 1950s, have many stories to tell which shaped their “recovery” as adults. We should all collaborate on a book! Metaphorically there are many things I like about Catholicism but the negatives just outweigh the positives- and no I wasn’t molested as a child as people always think when one is no longer Catholic.
 I’ve reached the point where science has replaced religion. Who needs myth and fiction when you have the Hubble and Kepler telescopes and that wonderful little Mars rover to marvel over?!!! So much to tell, but for now I’ll stop. See you on the next post.
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  January 10, 2015
Hi again Matilda!
Oh yes, I agree with you. I was never molested either, but both I and my parents before me had other kinds of bad experiences with priests and nuns.
I remember your saying you were disillusioned at some point – I never was. I found everything about Catholicism unpleasant from the start. So for me, it was all about whether the doctrines were true. At first, I assumed they were; then I began questioning, and when I was still very young, that priest’s arguments convinced me. I forget the specifics, but he was probably begging the question, treating claims made in the Bible as undisputed fact. I didn’t stay convinced for long. But I’m thankful that he led me to a methodology that “works for me”: start by assuming nothing (rather than assuming God’s existence and asking whether there are reasons to doubt it).
I have a very short essay posted online, spelling out my current hypotheses. I wonder if it will be okay to post a link to it? I’m not trying to influence anyone – I just think you, Matilda, will get a kick out of it! Though I certainly don’t object to anyone else’s reading it…
https://www.fictionpress.com/s/3191602/1/Where-I-Stand
 
 
 
 
 



tripp  January 5, 2015
I’m just about finished reading this book. Got it for Xmas and I’ve really enjoyed it. Looking forward to the last chapter today. The interview is a very nice synopsis, but there’s loads of good stuff in the book so I’d recommend it to anyone who’s interested in the subject.
Log in to Reply  



Esko  January 5, 2015
Hi Bart,
 This time you are sounding like a redneck American (hope it has the same meaning there as it has here).
 Anyhow, in Scandinavia, evangelical-Lutheran churches used to be the state churches and still are in most of the Scandinavian countries. Before the freedom of religion was granted some 100 years ago, practically every citizen belonged to this Christian denomination. The number of adherents has been falling ever since the freedom of religion was granted. However, evangelical-Lutheran is still the dominant fate here in Scandinavia.
 The percentage of citizens belonging to the “state” churches is currently roughly the following in Scandinavia countries:
 Sweden 65%
 Denmark 80%
 Norway 75%
 Finland 75%
 Plus there are all the other Christian denominations on top of these figures.
 Hence, I would claim that it is nonsense that “in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed”.
I would rather say that it is things like Zeitgeist: The Movie etc. (that are actually quite entertaining) that promotes such a worldviews. These ideas are distributed through US companies like Netflix. Do not get me wrong as I have nothing against them doing so but a few buys such ideas here in Scandinavia.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 5, 2015
Interesting. Of course, belonging to a church and having certain beliefs is not the same thing. (Think of all those Brits who identify as Anglican!) I got the informatoin from a poll that had been done, but I’m not sure I saved the specifics. And of course the poll could have been completely wrong!
Log in to Reply  
 



Steefen  January 6, 2015
Dr. Ehrman (at about 4 minutes): “If you’re going to make up a messiah, you’d make up a super hero. You wouldn’t make up someone who was humiliated, tortured, and killed by the enemy.”
Steefen: If you’re going to make up a messiah during the Flavian Empire (Emperor Vespasian, former general in the First Jewish-Roman War; Emperor Titus, former general in the First Jewish-Roman War), the Jewish Messiah must lose, historically reflecting the outcome of the First Jewish-Roman War.
Point of fact: Vespasian did kill a Jesus of Galilee. Did Jesus really miss the elephant in the room, Rome, and not call it evil; or, again, we have gospels written during the reign of those who defeated the Jewish Revolt who would not consider their rule of Israel evil?
Second, with Paul running expressing his desire to be tried by Nero rather than Jews, one would suspect his “Jesus crucified” would keep him out of trouble in Rome. Just as Pilate could care less if Jesus’ kingdom was in Heaven, Nero could care less if Jesus was coming again, lifting live and dead people into mid air.
At about 5 minutes, you say Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. I do not think you give Jesus credit for foretelling the destruction of the Temple (gospels are dated after the destruction of the Temple because scholars do not acknowledge Jesus foresaw the armies in Jerusalem and foresaw the Temple’s destruction). Take away the Tribulation the biblical Jesus foresaw (people frightened by the armies surrounding cities, the destruction of the Temple and the city), where is the apocalypse in the apocalyptic prophet?
Log in to Reply  



curious  January 6, 2015
Dear Bart,
I agree completely with your attachment to the ethical teachings of Jesus. I have always been moved by the Sermon on the Mount and the other Jesus sayings in Matthew and Luke regarding human compassion and justice. I also agree that speaker of those sayings, whom I take to be the historical Jesus, would not recognize himself in the religion of Christianity that resulted from his life and death. The way I understand Jesus in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew is of a person passionately concerned not only with promoting social justice and egalitarian values, but with challenging individuals to love and respect one another even when those values are unreciprocated. It is a sad irony to me that the religion that sprang from his name is so preoccupied with what people believe rather than what they do. I am not a Christian but I do try to be a follower of Jesus’ teachings to the best of my ability. I would like you to know that I admire and appreciate your work.
Log in to Reply  



curious  January 7, 2015
Dear Bart
I think, as I believe you and other historians have pointed out, that the apologetic gospel accounts of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist– that seem to suggest that he was one of John’s disciples at one point– and Matthew and Luke’s awkward and discrepant explanations of how Jesus lived and taught in Galilee but was born in Bethlehem, in order to meet the traditional requirement that the Messiah be born in that place, also speaks to historicity of Jesus. At any rate some historical personage is responsible for the ethical teachings so eloquently expressed in Matthew and Luke, so it might as well have been Jesus of Nazareth.
Log in to Reply  



jrhislb  January 8, 2015
As a bona fide Scandinavian I would say that most people do not spend a lot of time thinking about Jesus and probably have no settled view on his existence or non-existence.
Log in to Reply  



Jana  January 12, 2015
Fascinating Dr. Erhman … so personally you separate out the ethical teachings of Jesus from the often (can I use this word?) fraudulent historical setting? Am I right in interpreting then that in your eyes Jesus was a wise man but not necessarily acting on behalf of a (non existing) Deity or was in fact was that Deity?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 13, 2015
I see Jesus as a wise, apocalyptic prophet predicting the end of the age and the need to repent in preparation for it. As an agnostic I don’t believe in God, or obviously that Jesus was the son of God.
Log in to Reply  


Jana  January 21, 2015
Thank you. I need to reread your book Jesus: The Apocalyptic Prophet, in light of what I’ve gleaned from your blogs. It remains a steep learning curve.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



gavm  March 12, 2015
You know I don’t think NT scholars do enough to promote the idea that Jesus existed. Your the only one prof. I know you guys think it’s just so obvious he did but that’s easy for people with PhDs and yrs of mastering the study of history. Look at it from the eyes of average joe. Your whole life yr told jesus was magical and did these amazing things and the bible is 100% accurate. Then you get older and find out the nt was written so much latter, by biased non witnesses, in a diff Lang, after yrs of Chinese whispers. And we don’t even have the org manuscritps! When people find out so much of it is BS it’s only logical to go one step further and think the guys is prob yet another fictional character like Adam and eve. Nt scholars need to understand this and make an effort to say “yes much of the nt isn’t reliable but Jesus did exist”.
Your doing yr part but your friends arnt
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 13, 2015
It’s because it’s not a big issue among NT scholars. It’s not even a little issue!
Log in to Reply  


gavm  March 14, 2015
Prof I understand this, but it’s not the point. It is a big issue to a lot of the skeptical public so it does matter. I work in medical imaging. A lot of people are very scared of radiation, even though the doses we use can’t uss hurt anyone. We make a big effort to educate people about radiation and why it’s safe. All the experts know there is no need to be scared of a simple X-ray or ct but we can’t expect the general public to know that. The same goes for Jesus and nt scholars. As I said your doing yr part but your friends arnt.
Log in to Reply  
 
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-interview-by-guy-raz/
















Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogDid Jesus Exist? Interview by Guy Raz 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Did Jesus Exist? Interview by Guy Raz

On April 1, 2012, I had an interview with Guy Raz, previous weekend host of NPR News’ signature afternoon news magazine “All Things Considered” and now host of TED Radio Hour. The topic was my book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.
As readers of this blog probably know, there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists.  As I say int he interview, “It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are.  Historically, they’ve been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some parts of the West – in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed.  In my book, I marshal all of the evidence showing that contrary to this mythicist view, Jesus certainly did exist.
Please adjust gear icon for 720p High-Definition:

image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







My Debate with Dan Wallace: Is the Original NT Lost?«
Some Other Gnostics»


4

JAN

2015

24
  
Comments
24  Comments
0  Trackbacks




countybaseball  January 5, 2015
Good short interview.
Log in to Reply  



Goat  January 5, 2015
In your interview you state that Paul’s conversion took place within a year or two after Jesus’ death. How strong is the evidence for the timing of Paul’s conversion? Would this topic lend itself to a short explanation?
 Thanks,
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 5, 2015
I tend to date it to two or three years after now, instead of one or two. I think it’s pretty well conceded that it must have been something like that, based on the chronological comments Paul makes in a few places (three years later I did this…then after seventeen years… etc.)
Log in to Reply  
 



toejam  January 5, 2015
More off-topic questions:
I’m aware you see Luke 1-2 as a later addition to the gospel. I’ve also just been reminded that Irenaeus said something similar about the Ebionite version of the Gospel of Matthew – that it also didn’t have a nativity scene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites#Jesus).
I think the nativity narratives are probably the last pieces to be put into place and that proto-Marcionites and Ebionites had split from the proto-orthodox prior to their inclusion. My question is what is the earliest and latest these nativity narratives could have been added? I know you normally date Matthew and Luke to c.80-85CE. Would you say this includes the nativity narratives? I am starting to think the nativity narratives may have been added even later, perhaps early 2nd century. If there any reason this couldn’t be so?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 5, 2015
My sense is that Matthew had its first two chapters, but that Luke did not. When I date Luke to 80-85, I mean the first edition, without these chapters. If the chapters were added, it could have been any time after that, but probably not *too* many decades afterwards, since then it would be hard to explain why all the surviving manuscripts have these chapters (starting with the fourth century — but still….)
Log in to Reply  
 



moose  January 5, 2015
Why is this ‘brother of the Lord’ statement from Paul so significant?
Do you realize that Jesus was not only the son of Joseph, but also the son of God?
Could it be that God had more sons?
 Matthew: “From Egypt I called my son.” Well, the son of God in this prophecy referred originally to Israel / Jacob, and not to Jesus.
Exodus 4:22: Then say two Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son’
James, the Lord’s brother, is Israel. Peter is none other than Moses.
Who then is Paul? Well, then I will have to write much more extensive. I have no time for that now.
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  January 5, 2015
Very enjoyable!
I know I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again, because I wonder whether there may be *many* people like my somewhat younger self.
I was an agnostic. And in a casual way, I speculated that the “Jesus” so many people worshipped might be based on an amalgam of events in the lives of a number of different men. Because the name Yeshua was common in itself, and because it might have been used as a spiritual name or nom de guerre (honoring the earlier “Joshua”). I never shared those ideas with anyone…but I did hold them.
After I viewed some of your Great Courses lectures, I realized you and scholars like you had done an enormous amount of research in the field, and “Jesus” definitely isn’t a composite.
Log in to Reply  
Matilda

Matilda  January 6, 2015
Wilusa
 I’m just the opposite. I used to be Catholic. The more I read the more I am drifting away from the existence of Jesus. I love Bart’s work but my faith has been eroded ( not that it was ever really that strong). At this point in time, I’m so disillusioned that I just don’t give a hoot. Whether Jesus is/was a myth or actual historical person doesn’t change the fact that the story around him is a giant myth. Honestly, I wish Jesus would just go away along with Mohammad and the rest of the crazy bunch. That’s the mood I’m in about religion.
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  January 6, 2015
Matilda,
I can understand and empathize with where you’re coming from! I think theistic religions will die out within a few hundred more years…and the world will be much better without them.
But I know that while it’s hard for me to understand, Catholicism really does enrich many people’s lives. And most of those people aren’t causing harm to anyone.
Unfortunately, Catholicism also blights many people’s lives. It did mine, when I was young. I was miserable. And in my twenties, the only things I wanted to do that were contrary to Catholic teachings were to stop going to church, stop receiving sacraments, and stop pretending to believe things I didn’t believe. I didn’t make the break for years, because I didn’t want to hurt my mother. But in the end, she understood perfectly, and our relationship didn’t suffer at all.
I don’t know what the percentages are: how many lives are enriched by Catholicism, how many blighted. But because it’s really good for some people, I consider myself non-Catholic rather than anti-Catholic. (Also, agnostic and non-theist, rather than “atheist.”)
I must admit a priest unintentionally helped me. In my senior year in a Catholic high school, he taught the class how (as he intended) to come to a belief in Catholicism by offering “proofs” of first, the existence of God; then, Christianity’s being the true form of theism; and finally, Catholicism’s being the true form of Christianity. At age 16, I accepted it all, despite not liking the result. But a few years later, I no longer accepted it. So I thought it through for myself…using that same start-from-the-beginning approach. And I concluded that the existence of a “Creator” was not the only, or even the most likely, explanation for the existence of the Cosmos.
Log in to Reply  
Matilda

Matilda  January 8, 2015
It’s so nice to talk with you Wilusa. I hope Bart doesn’t mind. I’ll make it short just incase. I think all Catholics, especially ones raised in the 1950s, have many stories to tell which shaped their “recovery” as adults. We should all collaborate on a book! Metaphorically there are many things I like about Catholicism but the negatives just outweigh the positives- and no I wasn’t molested as a child as people always think when one is no longer Catholic.
 I’ve reached the point where science has replaced religion. Who needs myth and fiction when you have the Hubble and Kepler telescopes and that wonderful little Mars rover to marvel over?!!! So much to tell, but for now I’ll stop. See you on the next post.
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  January 10, 2015
Hi again Matilda!
Oh yes, I agree with you. I was never molested either, but both I and my parents before me had other kinds of bad experiences with priests and nuns.
I remember your saying you were disillusioned at some point – I never was. I found everything about Catholicism unpleasant from the start. So for me, it was all about whether the doctrines were true. At first, I assumed they were; then I began questioning, and when I was still very young, that priest’s arguments convinced me. I forget the specifics, but he was probably begging the question, treating claims made in the Bible as undisputed fact. I didn’t stay convinced for long. But I’m thankful that he led me to a methodology that “works for me”: start by assuming nothing (rather than assuming God’s existence and asking whether there are reasons to doubt it).
I have a very short essay posted online, spelling out my current hypotheses. I wonder if it will be okay to post a link to it? I’m not trying to influence anyone – I just think you, Matilda, will get a kick out of it! Though I certainly don’t object to anyone else’s reading it…
https://www.fictionpress.com/s/3191602/1/Where-I-Stand
 
 
 
 
 



tripp  January 5, 2015
I’m just about finished reading this book. Got it for Xmas and I’ve really enjoyed it. Looking forward to the last chapter today. The interview is a very nice synopsis, but there’s loads of good stuff in the book so I’d recommend it to anyone who’s interested in the subject.
Log in to Reply  



Esko  January 5, 2015
Hi Bart,
 This time you are sounding like a redneck American (hope it has the same meaning there as it has here).
 Anyhow, in Scandinavia, evangelical-Lutheran churches used to be the state churches and still are in most of the Scandinavian countries. Before the freedom of religion was granted some 100 years ago, practically every citizen belonged to this Christian denomination. The number of adherents has been falling ever since the freedom of religion was granted. However, evangelical-Lutheran is still the dominant fate here in Scandinavia.
 The percentage of citizens belonging to the “state” churches is currently roughly the following in Scandinavia countries:
 Sweden 65%
 Denmark 80%
 Norway 75%
 Finland 75%
 Plus there are all the other Christian denominations on top of these figures.
 Hence, I would claim that it is nonsense that “in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed”.
I would rather say that it is things like Zeitgeist: The Movie etc. (that are actually quite entertaining) that promotes such a worldviews. These ideas are distributed through US companies like Netflix. Do not get me wrong as I have nothing against them doing so but a few buys such ideas here in Scandinavia.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 5, 2015
Interesting. Of course, belonging to a church and having certain beliefs is not the same thing. (Think of all those Brits who identify as Anglican!) I got the informatoin from a poll that had been done, but I’m not sure I saved the specifics. And of course the poll could have been completely wrong!
Log in to Reply  
 



Steefen  January 6, 2015
Dr. Ehrman (at about 4 minutes): “If you’re going to make up a messiah, you’d make up a super hero. You wouldn’t make up someone who was humiliated, tortured, and killed by the enemy.”
Steefen: If you’re going to make up a messiah during the Flavian Empire (Emperor Vespasian, former general in the First Jewish-Roman War; Emperor Titus, former general in the First Jewish-Roman War), the Jewish Messiah must lose, historically reflecting the outcome of the First Jewish-Roman War.
Point of fact: Vespasian did kill a Jesus of Galilee. Did Jesus really miss the elephant in the room, Rome, and not call it evil; or, again, we have gospels written during the reign of those who defeated the Jewish Revolt who would not consider their rule of Israel evil?
Second, with Paul running expressing his desire to be tried by Nero rather than Jews, one would suspect his “Jesus crucified” would keep him out of trouble in Rome. Just as Pilate could care less if Jesus’ kingdom was in Heaven, Nero could care less if Jesus was coming again, lifting live and dead people into mid air.
At about 5 minutes, you say Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. I do not think you give Jesus credit for foretelling the destruction of the Temple (gospels are dated after the destruction of the Temple because scholars do not acknowledge Jesus foresaw the armies in Jerusalem and foresaw the Temple’s destruction). Take away the Tribulation the biblical Jesus foresaw (people frightened by the armies surrounding cities, the destruction of the Temple and the city), where is the apocalypse in the apocalyptic prophet?
Log in to Reply  



curious  January 6, 2015
Dear Bart,
I agree completely with your attachment to the ethical teachings of Jesus. I have always been moved by the Sermon on the Mount and the other Jesus sayings in Matthew and Luke regarding human compassion and justice. I also agree that speaker of those sayings, whom I take to be the historical Jesus, would not recognize himself in the religion of Christianity that resulted from his life and death. The way I understand Jesus in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew is of a person passionately concerned not only with promoting social justice and egalitarian values, but with challenging individuals to love and respect one another even when those values are unreciprocated. It is a sad irony to me that the religion that sprang from his name is so preoccupied with what people believe rather than what they do. I am not a Christian but I do try to be a follower of Jesus’ teachings to the best of my ability. I would like you to know that I admire and appreciate your work.
Log in to Reply  



curious  January 7, 2015
Dear Bart
I think, as I believe you and other historians have pointed out, that the apologetic gospel accounts of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist– that seem to suggest that he was one of John’s disciples at one point– and Matthew and Luke’s awkward and discrepant explanations of how Jesus lived and taught in Galilee but was born in Bethlehem, in order to meet the traditional requirement that the Messiah be born in that place, also speaks to historicity of Jesus. At any rate some historical personage is responsible for the ethical teachings so eloquently expressed in Matthew and Luke, so it might as well have been Jesus of Nazareth.
Log in to Reply  



jrhislb  January 8, 2015
As a bona fide Scandinavian I would say that most people do not spend a lot of time thinking about Jesus and probably have no settled view on his existence or non-existence.
Log in to Reply  



Jana  January 12, 2015
Fascinating Dr. Erhman … so personally you separate out the ethical teachings of Jesus from the often (can I use this word?) fraudulent historical setting? Am I right in interpreting then that in your eyes Jesus was a wise man but not necessarily acting on behalf of a (non existing) Deity or was in fact was that Deity?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 13, 2015
I see Jesus as a wise, apocalyptic prophet predicting the end of the age and the need to repent in preparation for it. As an agnostic I don’t believe in God, or obviously that Jesus was the son of God.
Log in to Reply  


Jana  January 21, 2015
Thank you. I need to reread your book Jesus: The Apocalyptic Prophet, in light of what I’ve gleaned from your blogs. It remains a steep learning curve.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



gavm  March 12, 2015
You know I don’t think NT scholars do enough to promote the idea that Jesus existed. Your the only one prof. I know you guys think it’s just so obvious he did but that’s easy for people with PhDs and yrs of mastering the study of history. Look at it from the eyes of average joe. Your whole life yr told jesus was magical and did these amazing things and the bible is 100% accurate. Then you get older and find out the nt was written so much latter, by biased non witnesses, in a diff Lang, after yrs of Chinese whispers. And we don’t even have the org manuscritps! When people find out so much of it is BS it’s only logical to go one step further and think the guys is prob yet another fictional character like Adam and eve. Nt scholars need to understand this and make an effort to say “yes much of the nt isn’t reliable but Jesus did exist”.
Your doing yr part but your friends arnt
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 13, 2015
It’s because it’s not a big issue among NT scholars. It’s not even a little issue!
Log in to Reply  


gavm  March 14, 2015
Prof I understand this, but it’s not the point. It is a big issue to a lot of the skeptical public so it does matter. I work in medical imaging. A lot of people are very scared of radiation, even though the doses we use can’t uss hurt anyone. We make a big effort to educate people about radiation and why it’s safe. All the experts know there is no need to be scared of a simple X-ray or ct but we can’t expect the general public to know that. The same goes for Jesus and nt scholars. As I said your doing yr part but your friends arnt.
Log in to Reply  
 
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

More on Collective Memory
April 24, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (18) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


More on Collective Memory
As I discussed in my previous post, the sixth chapter of my proposed book Jesus Before the Gospels will cover the area of “...


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-exist-interview-by-guy-raz/