Do Bart Ehrman's popular books harm his academic reputation?

[unkleE]

Bart Ehrman has a new book out - How Jesus Became God - and it continues what seems to me to be a worrying pattern.

I have one book by Ehrman, and have read other articles and excerpts by him, including his blog (occasionally). I respect him as a scholar and I get the impression that I would like him as a person - his style of writing seems to me to be genial and quite open and frank. But he is losing credibility with me a little, as some of his books seem to be academically questionable in some ways. Here's the examples that concern me.

Misquoting Jesus

The inside cover of this book says (my bolding) "In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today." In the conclusion of the book he says "how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes". It sounds like enormous and significant change.

Yet when you read the text of the book, the picture is very different. The most significant changes he mentions are these:

• Two complete passages (John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20) which have long been recognised as not being in the original text, and in most translations are consigned to a footnote, or otherwise made clear that they are doubtful. Neither add anything significant to the NT picture of Jesus.
• About 2 dozen words have been added to each of Luke 22:43-44 and 1 John 5:7-8. The former adds little of significance while the latter appears to have been added to strengthen the NT case for the Trinity. Both are also footnoted as probably not genuine in most translations.
• Mark 1:41 and Luke 2:33 appear to have had slight changes to one word to better preserve orthodox christian doctrine. Nothing important hinges on these, and Maurice casey's explanation of the Mark passage (poor translation out of Aramaic into Greek) seems a better explanation than Ehrman's.
• Hebrews 2:9 & Romans 5:1 have a minor wording change that seems to have no significance.
• John 1:18 has varied wording (Jesus as son of God vs Jesus as God) which may have been theologically motivated.

That's pretty much it. When I first read it I was very underwhelmed. The text didn't seem to justify the hyped up language. But why?

Some of the explanation (e.g. the inside cover blurb) may be blamed on Ehrman's editor, perhaps, but that doesn't seem sufficient explanation. But some of it seems to be deliberate by Ehrman. Just after the conclusion that the text has been "radically" altered, he also says this: "To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us." These sentences are so close together that it is hard to see how they don't contradict.

My guess is that Ehrman is really addressing inerrantists and KJV-only christians. The back cover blurb mentions "corrupted and inferior manuscripts" used for the King James Bible, and I daresay that comment is fair. But most of us don't rely on the KJV any more, so his statements seem over the top. And many of the reviews at the time, admittedly from more evangelical christians, made the same criticisms - he much overstated the case.

Did Jesus Exist?

I don't have to review the furore that erupted in mythicist ranks when Ehrman produced this book a few years back. Richard Carrier was particularly vociferous. I didn't follow the ebb and flow of argument and counter argument, but I felt at the time that, although Carrier did his usual self-promotion, and argued fine detail with highly suspect arguments, he did actually push Ehrman to admit that some of his statements were inexact or badly worded. I don't think his central thesis was dented, but I thought his reputation as an accurate scholar was weakened a little.

How Jesus Became God

Larry Hurtado has recently reviewed this latest book by Ehrman. Now we must recognise that Hurtado is a believer (I presume) whereas Ehrman is not, so they are each bound to have some bias. But this topic is Hurtado's speciality while it is certainly not Ehrman's. Hurtado praises many aspects of the book, including a change in Ehrman's position to recognise that Jesus was worshipped as divine earlier than he used to think was the case.

But Hurtado also points out a number of areas where Ehrman's lack of knowledge in this area lead him to questionable statements and conclusions ("on several matters he seems to rely on now discredited views, or over-simplify or misunderstand things"). Of course such disagreement is common, but it raises the same worrying conclusion - does Ehrman do his research well enough and does he present the fairest conclusions based on the available information? Or does he slightly over-sensationalise his popular writings?

I'm not qualified to say. But I wonder if others here have any thoughts please?

[timoneill]

May 31, 2014 4:15:33 GMT unkleE said:

Some of the explanation (e.g. the inside cover blurb) may be blamed on Ehrman's editor, perhaps

No "perhaps" about it. The author never writes that stuff - the marketing department of the publisher does. So there's part of your answer.

My guess is that Ehrman is really addressing inerrantists and KJV-only christians.

Or just your average Christian in the street. I know my mother would never have even considered the idea that the text we have may have been altered over time to emphasise or bolster certain theological points. Just because this isn't a revelation to you doesn't mean it wouldn't have been an eye-opener for many other people.

he did actually push Ehrman to admit that some of his statements were inexact or badly worded. I don't think his central thesis was dented, but I thought his reputation as an accurate scholar was weakened a little.

Then I think you need to re-read Artie's tsunami of nitpicks and Ehrman's urbane responses again. Ehrman was forced to concede virtually nothing and the one or two trivial things he did concede simply showed that he is professional and gracious in a way Carrier could never hope to be.

Hurtado praises many aspects of the book, including a change in Ehrman's position to recognise that Jesus was worshipped as divine earlier than he used to think was the case.

Which seems to be Hurtado reading what he would like to read into what Ehrman says. Ehrman quite deliberately uses "divine" where others would use "angelic" or "celestial". He does so to emphasise his points about a gradation of non-human status and the way conceptions of Jesus ascended through that gradation of what he calls "divinity" over time. Hurtado seems to be reading his own orthodox high Christology into this terminology and pretending this means Ehrman has given ground when he has not.

does Ehrman do his research well enough and does he present the fairest conclusions based on the available information?

You're asking this because Hurtado says he "misunderstands" things? What the hell would you expect a conservative scholar to say about anything that doesn't conform to his orthodox belief? The strong impression I got from reading Ehrman's book was of a genuine scholar following the evidence wherever it led him and changing some long-held personal and scholarly positions as he did so. I've never got that impression from Hurtado. Like Carrier, Hurtado starts with his ideological conclusion and goes looking for a way to make the evidence fit it.

[ignorantianescia]

No, I don't think they hurt his scholarly reputation. Academics can have differences of opinion, they can be biased and they can be wrong. Unless Ehrman is egregious in any of these ways, it will not hurt his reputation.

But it does hurt his street creds among conservative Christians. Of course, his non-theist pride efforts likely will only exacerbate their opinion of him.

That said, I do think that the critical side of American New Testament scholarship tend to extremity, compared to critical European scholarship. The Jesus Seminar is the far out case, but Ehrman also gets a little of it.

May 31, 2014 8:24:18 GMT timoneill said:

Hurtado praises many aspects of the book, including a change in Ehrman's position to recognise that Jesus was worshipped as divine earlier than he used to think was the case.

Which seems to be Hurtado reading what he would like to read into what Ehrman says. Ehrman quite deliberately uses "divine" where others would use "angelic" or "celestial". He does so to emphasise his points about a gradation of non-human status and the way conceptions of Jesus ascended through that gradation of what he calls "divinity" over time. Hurtado seems to be reading his own orthodox high Christology into this terminology and pretending this means Ehrman has given ground when he has not.

You seem to misunderstand Hurtado. His perspective is that there was such a sliding scale, but that quite early on veneration to Jesus suggests a high spot for him on that spectrum, close but separate from God. So Hurtado might still be right in stating Ehrman closed in on his position.

May 31, 2014 8:24:18 GMT timoneill said:

does Ehrman do his research well enough and does he present the fairest conclusions based on the available information?

You're asking this because Hurtado says he "misunderstands" things? What the hell would you expect a conservative scholar to say about anything that doesn't conform to his orthodox belief? The strong impression I got from reading Ehrman's book was of a genuine scholar following the evidence wherever it led him and changing some long-held personal and scholarly positions as he did so. I've never got that impression from Hurtado. Like Carrier, Hurtado starts with his ideological conclusion and goes looking for a way to make the evidence fit it.

Eh? Sure, Hurtado's on the conservative side, but still he operates within critical scholarship. He's light years apart from Carrier (Hurtado's are from Terra, Carriers are from Vega A).

[timoneill]

May 31, 2014 15:12:08 GMT ignorantianescia said:

So Hurtado might still be right in stating Ehrman closed in on his position.

I've just finished reading Ehrman's book and I am pretty clear that Ehrman is not remotely close to what Hurtado pretends he is saying.

Sure, Hurtado's on the conservative side, but still he operates within critical scholarship. He's light years apart from Carrier

Okay, the Carrier comparison was a bit mean. But my point stands - Ehrman reads like someone going where the evidence takes him (especially if you have been reading his blog while he was writing that book). Hurtado reads like an apologist finding a way to ensure his interpretation always leads back to his a priori orthodox conclusion.

[sandwiches]

I've just finished reading Ehrman's book and I am pretty clear that Ehrman is not remotely close to what Hurtado pretends he is saying.

I would be interested to see you post your view and reasoning on Larry Hurtado's blog. I have posted there several times and always received a polite and informative response.

[ignorantianescia]

May 31, 2014 20:35:42 GMT timoneill said:

May 31, 2014 15:12:08 GMT ignorantianescia said:

So Hurtado might still be right in stating Ehrman closed in on his position.

I've just finished reading Ehrman's book and I am pretty clear that Ehrman is not remotely close to what Hurtado pretends he is saying.

Sure, Hurtado's on the conservative side, but still he operates within critical scholarship. He's light years apart from Carrier

Okay, the Carrier comparison was a bit mean. But my point stands - Ehrman reads like someone going where the evidence takes him (especially if you have been reading his blog while he was writing that book). Hurtado reads like an apologist finding a way to ensure his interpretation always leads back to his a priori orthodox conclusion.

Fair enough, not having read Ehrman's recent book, I can't comment on what Ehrman thinks.

My opinion of hurtado is more positive still, but I won't pursue that further.

[sandwiches]

Larry Hurtado has posted again on this after some exchanges with Ehrman. Ehrman apparently objected to a couple of points made by Hurtado but apparently accepted the rest?:

larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/ehrman-on-jesus-amendments/

Ehrman on Jesus: Amendments

Ehrman seems to have accepted there is evidence of early high Christology? Hurtado has posted before that there is a trend toward this in scholarship, though the late Professor Vermes would never accept such an argument?

larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/early-high-christology-a-recent-assessment-of-scholarly-debate/


“Early High Christology”: A Recent Assessment of Scholarly Debate

[timoneill]

Jun 2, 2014 14:31:56 GMT sandwiches said:

Larry Hurtado has posted again on this after some exchanges with Ehrman. Ehrman apparently objected to a couple of points made by Hurtado but apparently accepted the rest?

No, he didn't accept the rest. He has begun a series of more detailed responses to Hurtado on his blog.

Ehrman seems to have accepted there is evidence of early high Christology?

No he hasn't. Hurtado seems to read everything through the spectacles of orthodox assumptions, even Ehrman. A celestial, angelic Messiah is not "high" unless you pretend it's something that it isn't.

Hurtado has posted before that there is a trend toward this in scholarship

A "trend" so long as you ignore all the people who aren't following the trend at all. But that's okay, according to Hurtado, because they are wrong anyway. Or something.

[ignorantianescia]

Here's the public blog post of Ehrman on Hurtado's review: ehrmanblog.org/larry-hurtados-critique-of-how-jesus-became-god/

Sandwiches, Hurtado doesn't say Ehrman accepts an Early High Christology nor does he speak of a trend, see below:

Well, Ehrman says in his book that he shifted from an earlier/initial assumption that a “high” christology emerged only late to a realization (as he probed evidence & studied scholarship on the matter) that in fact there was an early and sudden eruption of beliefs in Jesus’ heavenly exaltation and his divinity in one sense or another. Can’t say if Ehrman is indicative of a trend, but it’s obviously affirming to see scholars coming around to a view that I’ve advocated for a few decades now.

larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/ehrman-on-jesus-amendments/#comment-10579

In any case, he names a few proponents of Early High Christology on this page: larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/the-early-high-christology-club-ehcc/

In a recent book, the “Early High Christology Club” (EHCC) was referred to mistakenly as if it reflected some particular confessional stance. In the interests of setting the record straight, I offer the following as a charter member of the “club”.

“The Early High Christology Club” (EHCC) is a jocular self-designation coined by a group of scholars of various backgrounds with research interests in earliest Christianity who emphasize that an exalted place of Jesus in belief and devotional practice (including corporate worship) is evident in the earliest Christian sources and likely goes back to the first circles of Jesus’ followers from shortly after his crucifixion. The nickname originated among several scholars who formed the steering committee of a progam-unit in the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in the 1990s, the “Divine Mediators in Antiquity Group,” which was focused on the Roman-era historical context in which the “high Christology” (beliefs that Jesus is in some way worthy of divine honor) reflected in the New Testament first emerged. This initial group included David Capes, Wendy Cotter, Jarl Fossum, Larry Hurtado, Donald Juel, John R. Levison, Carey Newman, Pheme Perkins, Alan Segal and Marianne Meye Thompson. In addition to those already mentioned, others who associate themselves with the EHCC include Clinton Arnold, Loren Stuckenbruck, James Davila, Charles Gieschen, Richard Bauckham, Martin Hengel, April DeConick, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and Jörg Frey.

An incident often cited subsequently took place after an annual meeting of the “Divine Mediators in Antiquity Group” that featured invited presentations from James D. G. Dunn and Maurice Casey (who each took somewhat different views on the origins of “high Christology,” both of them tending to see it as a somewhat later development). After the meeting concluded, Dunn and Casey joined Capes, Hurtado, Newman and Segal for dinner at a Greek restaurant. After Segal (who spoke modern Greek) ordered for the group and wine was poured, Newman (with characteristic mischief) proposed a toast “To early high Christology.” Capes, Hurtado and Segal raised their glasses, while Dunn and Casey hesitated. After a few seconds, Dunn raised his glass with a smile saying, “To high Christology”, and after a few more seconds Casey (with a twinkle in his eye) raised his glass toasting, “To Christology”. (At some point thereafter, Newman in good-natured teasing proposed that Dunn and Casey be accorded leading status in an affiliate group, “The Late, Low and Slow Club” of early Christology.)

[unkleE]

Most of you have focused on Ehrman vs Hurtado, which is understandable since it is a current discussion. But it is the weakest of the three examples I gave, and on its own, wouldn't count for anything - just two scholars disagreeing.

I'm wondering about my other two examples. Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus and have a comment on the matters I raised (which was my most substantial point)?

Tim thinks Ehrman only had to concede a couple of trivial points to Carrier and did it in a polite and professional way, whereas while I agree that Ehrman's behaviour was way better than Carrier's, I thought Carrier made Ehrman uncomfortable on a few admittedly minor matters, but detail is important to a scholar. What did others think?

[ignorantianescia]

Jun 4, 2014 21:58:59 GMT unkleE said:

Most of you have focused on Ehrman vs Hurtado, which is understandable since it is a current discussion. But it is the weakest of the three examples I gave, and on its own, wouldn't count for anything - just two scholars disagreeing.

I'm wondering about my other two examples. Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus and have a comment on the matters I raised (which was my most substantial point)?

Tim thinks Ehrman only had to concede a couple of trivial points to Carrier and did it in a polite and professional way, whereas while I agree that Ehrman's behaviour was way better than Carrier's, I thought Carrier made Ehrman uncomfortable on a few admittedly minor matters, but detail is important to a scholar. What did others think?

I have not read Misquoting Jesus. But my thoughts on the Carrier debacle are similar to Tim's. As you said, the points he had to concede were minor. As I count them:

Carrier is a Classicist: Ehrman mistakenly called Carrier a classicist, but Carrier lied about Ehrman being depreciatory. This is not a terrible error and somebody making such a fuss about being wrongly called a classicist would be seen as a weirdo.
The Pilate Error: Carrier was wrong, Ehrman was right that Pilate was a prefect.
The Forged Tacitus: Carrier was wrong again, the scholars named in Benario's article didn't think the passage in Tacitus was a forgery.
Dying and Rising Gods: Carrier was wrong with several assertions, whereas Ehrman hasn't been uncareful unlike Carrier's claims.
Hasmonean Jesus: Carrier takes one of Ehrman's statements out of context.
What Have the Romans Ever Recorded For Us: Carrier takes one of Ehrman's statements out of context.
The Doherty Slander: Carrier misconstrues one of Ehrman's statements.
Pliny: Here, Ehrman did make a mistake. But it is completely unprofessional to overstate such an error it in the way Carrier did and claim it means Ehrman never read Pliny. Anyone can see such a claim is insane.
The Priapus: Ehrman seems to make a mistake about the statue and Carrier jumps on this. But the backstory of the statue is only tangential to the point Ehrman tries to make.

I see nothing that hurts Ehrman's scholarly credibility.