“God is not a fan of puns, sir!”
April 13, 2009, 10:25 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Stephen Colbert and Bart Ehrman. I just don’t know how St. Thomas Aquinas did so well without the “duck argument” for the divinity of Christ. Joe K., this one’s for you!
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Bart Ehrman | ||||
|
||||
I wasn’t sure whether the point of this fellow’s book was to say, “inconsistencies equal lies, therefore Christianity is a fool’s delusion,” or something else entirely. He seemed to think that he was the first person in history to notice that the four Gospels aren’t carbon copies of one another. Another example of someone latching onto superficial, uncritical judgments to make sweeping, damning generalizations about the Bible; or someone with something interesting to say? Has anyone read the book?
As usual, kudos to Mr. Colbert.
You are right Thomas that there is nothing new about what Erhman said on the show. Scholars have been discussing these legitimate questions for a long time. The tragedy with Ehrman is somewhere during his studies he lost his faith. He has given sundry reasons for his loss of faith. Perhaps going from being a fundamentalist to a liberal Protestant was too much for him. The latest has him concerned about theodicy.
I find people like him most troubling. They lose their faith then exploit that connection by writing about it making a lot of money. IMHO Crossan is in the same category. Such results prove to me that in the final analysis faith is a gift which these persons lost sight of.
If I had to bring a ‘faith champion’ with me to the ND campus should I bring a finger wagging bishop or Colbert? and Colbert looks more athletic too!
Bill,
I like your analysis of Ehrman. I first learned about Ehrman when one of my Catholic U profs used “Christianity in Late Antiquity” and “After the New Testament,” anthologies of early Christian writings with introductions by Ehrman.
I recently read “God’s Problem,” and he does a good job explaining different answers to the question of theodicy throughout the books of the Bible.
To be fair to Ehrman, he says he is not trying to convert people away from Christianity. He is not trying to be a Hitchens or Dawkins. He even mentions his own wife is a practicing Christian.
I think you are right, though, Bill; it seems natural that a man with Ehrman’s intellectual curiosity would find Fundamentalism unsatisfying. Perhaps if he had grown up in a mainstream Catholic parish he would have an outlook a la Raymond Brown or Ben Witherington.
Listening to the interview, I think Ehrman makes some leaps. Yes, the trinitarian formulations and Greek words like “homoosious” (I hope I spelled that right) are not wordings early New Testament era Christians would have used. Yes, the synoptics may not explicitly come out and say Jesus and the Father are one. But that does not believe the synoptics don’t imply Christ’s divinity. That does not believe early Christians did not believe in the divinity of Christ. It’s not an either/or proposition, as if Jesus can only be human or only be God, but not both.
Ben Witherington does a great job analyzing Ehrman’s new book here and here.
Thanks to Ross Douthat’s blog for linking Witherington’s posts.
Oops, I meant to say, “But that does not mean the synoptics don’t imply Christ’s divinity,” not “But that does not believe the synoptics don’t imply…”. The same for the sentence following.
“But that does not mean the synoptics don’t imply Christ’s divinity,”
It is important to consider the fact that only God can raise man from the dead,(Lazarus) and that Luke, (Chapter 24) Mark,(Chapter 16), and Matthew, (Chapter 28) all give evidence for the Risen Christ who must be Divine.
Cathy:
Well, I got through about half of it. I simply don’t get Colbert.
Happy Easter!
I find it extremely valuable to have people like Bart Ehrman writing popular books on scripture. Jesus Interrupted is going to be the first book I read on my Kindle (arriving Wednesday if all goes well).
It may be true that Ehrman doesn’t say anything new in his popular books, but ever since I read the Pelican New Testament Commentaries back in the 1970s, and continued reading biblical scholarship by people like Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier, volumes from the Anchor Bible series, and a number of things way over my head, like Jesus by Edward Schillebeeckx), it has seemed to me there is a tremendous gap between the “everyday Jesus” and the “everyday God” on the one hand, and Jesus and God as biblical scholars and theologians talk about them.
Bart Ehrman, as most people know, began his scholarly career believing in the literal truth and inerrancy of the Bible. The more he studied, the less tenable he found that position. I am sure many would find him an inspiring figure it he had stopped somewhere in the middle of his journey to from a believer in biblical inerrancy to agnosticism, but the fact that he went all the way discredits him in some people’s eyes. To me it is an indication of his intellectual integrity. He may or may not be correct, but he followed the evidence where it led him, without at some point deciding that he “had to believe” this or that and had to twist the Bible to justify his beliefs.
Anyone who has ever spent just a little time consulting serious reference works on the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, knows that the commonly presented versions of Jesus, his sayings, and Bible stories in general are so vastly oversimplified as to be very close to untrue. The findings of Biblical scholars over the past 100 or 150 years demonstrate what complex documents the Gospels really are and now much meaning has been read into them that quite possibly isn’t there. Whether you agree with Ehrman or not, he is performing a valuable service by writing about these things at a level the average person can understand. I think very highly of him.
I have no reason to doubt Ehrman’s intellectual integrity, but, of course, he has no monopoly on that, I trust we can agree. So the issue comes down to the question of his views, and whether they are right or wrong. If they’re wrong, I wouldn’t be impressed that he writes at a popular level.
I had a high school mentor who deplored appeals to sincerity. “Yes, they’ll tell you he’s sincere. Fine, give him three swings of incense with the thurible, and then hit him over the head with it.”
Well, I got through about half of it. I simply don’t get Colbert.
Fr, Komonchak,
I think one of the problems here is that Colbert often uses his obnoxious right-wing persona to undermine “conservative” guests by agreeing with them in such a way that you laugh at the position of both Colbert and and the guest, or else he enhances the credibility of his “liberal” guests by scoring foolish points off of them, making himself look bad and the guest look good. The problem in this case is it’s difficult to know what Colbert’s intent is. At his best, Colbert is making satirical points by either lampooning them or lampooning those who would disagree with them. In this case, it just seemed to me Colbert was using the persona to no particular end other than to get laughs.
In my opinion, the best interview he ever did was the one with the congressman who was pushing a bill to post the Ten Commandments in the House and Senate buildings.
When one looks at the whole picture the issue of inerrancy and literal meaning of Scripture are dwarfed by the relevance of Matt:25: 31-46. Christians killed each other arguing over dogma, especially the Christological disputes, yet routinely ignored the words from Matthew. Erhman, Crossan and even Thomas for that matter drop in value when one considers the simple message of Jesus.
Fr. Komanchak,
There’s a difference between intellectual integrity and sincerity. When a scholar such as Raymond E. Brown or John P. Meier offers opinions that, based on scriptural evidence alone, the most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus had siblings, that (to me, in any case) is intellectual integrity. What they believe personally is not so much the issue. It is how honestly they interpret the text.
I think that if the average person knew what is taken for granted among serious biblical scholars or theologians, they would be shocked. It is not difficult to find references to Raymond E. Brown as a heretic. I think there would be a lot of people who would be very upset to hear what Joseph A. Fitzmyer says in The One Who Is to Come– which I take to be that the Hebrew Bible is not filled with prophecies of the coming of Jesus Christ that the Jews failed to understand before Jesus was born and continue to misinterpret even though the prophecies have all come true.
One disclaimer: I have read a fair amount, but I have not understood a great deal of what I read!
Erhman, Crossan and even Thomas for that matter drop in value when one considers the simple message of Jesus.
Bill,
Could you tell us in a few sentences the simple message of Jesus?
I used to fear that my hell (or very long purgatory) would be standing in line at the grocery behind a woman who either insissts on writing a check for her $1.28 purchase or seems surprised she has to pay when the cashier rings up her total sale and she only then opens a handbag only slightly smaller than the Grand Canyon and, discovering that the bill is for $41.87 cents, says, “Oh wait, I think I have the eighty-seven cents somewhere here in my bag!”
Now I fear it may consist in my having to watch The Colbert Report.
Mr. Nickol: I think sincerity and integrity are closely related, and neither is enough by itself to settle disputes among scholars, or anyone else for that matter.
Joe, do you get the Daily Show?
Contrast the Ehrman interview with Colbert’s several interviews with the “chaplain” of “The Colbert Report,” Father James Martin. Colbert gets in his zingers with Fr. Martin, but he also lets him speak for extended periods of time because, IMO, Colbert respects Fr. Martin and what he has to say. Fr. Martin also plays along with Colbert, and he gets in a few good-natured jabs of his own. There’s a “Report” rapport between the two of them.
There’s no such rapport between Colbert and Ehrman in the video linked by Cathy Kaveny. Ehrman seems almost humorless, and Colbert constantly interrupts him. It could be because Colbert has little patience for the subject matter of Ehrman’s book, or, perhaps, it’s Ehrman’s overall seriousness that Colbert is lampooning.
I’ve read some of Ehrman’s books, and I heard him speak on one occasion about 6 or 7 years ago. He was affable and articulate, and there was no visible sign that he was going through a challenge to his fundamentalist faith. Others have already mentioned the seismic shift in Ehrman’s religious thinking when he began to question one of the primary pillars of his faith: the inerrancy of the Bible. I don’t question Prof. Ehrman’s intellectual honesty, but the two-part critique by Ben Witherspoon (linked earlier in this thread) of Ehrman’s latest book raises the issue of whether Prof. Ehrman has the academic credentials and scriptural research experience–especially in exegesis–to support the conclusions he reaches in his book.
I think Ehrman does have the gift of being able to put complex ideas and subjects in lay persons’ terms, but if there are holes in Ehrman’s understanding of a complex idea or subject such as scriptural interpretation, then of course those defects will be passed along to his lay listeners. Prof. Ehrman may or may not have the protean gifts of an Isaac Asimov, for example, whose ability to synthesize and convey his thought on many subjects (but especially science) to the less-than-protean literally saved me from failing thermodynamics in college. ;)
What is “The Daily Show”?
Oh. Oh. Oh.
I’m clutching my head . . . .
I do not, at the moment, have the time to read Ben Witherington’s critiques in detail, but I do want to add one piece to the discussion. His critique of Ehrman as scriptural novice is just bizzare. Ehrman has written a very widely used introduction to the New Testament that is now in its 4th edition. I have used this text and the last two Bible PhD’s that we have hired use it as well.
There is SO MUCH to discuss on the question of what the historical-critical study of the Bible adds to question of theology and tradition that I do not even dare start to bring them up. However, in a more focused thread, I would be happy to do so.
FWIW, I thought he came across very poorly in this interview.
The “Colbert” character doesn’t work so well when he’s interviewing an author of a book like this one — someone selling an idea that isn’t easily classified along political lines. Then it’s not as clear how (or whether) “Colbert” would oppose the person he’s interviewing. He can still play the proudly ignorant buffoon, and sometimes that’s enough, especially if the interviewee can play along. I think his only agenda in featuring authors on the show is to make the interview entertaining, and it’s awkward when the authors resist that. (Part of the reason this one doesn’t work so well, IMHO, is Ehrman’s humorlessness.)
But this isn’t the first time I’ve seen him briefly slip out of character and speak (or so it would seem) as the real Stephen Colbert, because there’s an obvious, non-ironic point that needs making. And usually (at least when I notice it), the topic is religion. I remember one interview with the author of a book called “The Lucifer Principle,” where Colbert almost accidentally exposed the author’s ignorance about the fall-of-Satan story. When guests are playing fast and loose with religion, the line between the real Colbert and the character gets blurry.
That’s very perceptive Mollie–thanks!
Joe, Jon Stewart is a comedian too–but his style is more like “fake news.” Both Stewart (who’s Jewish) and Colbert (Catholic) regularly cover religious matters. Their public square includes religion.
Here you go.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223897&title=faith-the-nation
Is there any particular reason one should care what these two comedians, more than other people, make of religion?
So I have read (quickly) Witherington’s critiques of Ehrman and am unimpressed. First, he refers to him throughout as Bart. This is annoying, unnecessary, unprofessional, and suggests a meanness of spirit. Second, assumes the worst about Ehrman, at one point suggesting that his scholarship does not seem much beyond what one would learn after a year at seminary. This, too, is mean, but is especially open to counter refutation. As I indicated earlier, the notion that Ehrman is some sort of scripture scholar neophyte is just weird. Consider a review from the second edition of Ehrman’s textbook that I referenced above “The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings”
“An outstanding introduction. Blends, contemporary scholarship, the Early Christian world, and attention to the needs of students most skillfully. The best introduction currently available” Francis J. Maloney, The Catholic University of America
or the Amazon review of the 4th edition
“Quite simply excellent; this text has become the standard text for introductory New Testament courses. Ehrman’s prose is fluid, sophisticated, and engaging. At the same time that he presents material accurately, he avoids unnecessarily technical vocabulary and writes in a way that engages undergraduate readers.”–Jeremy Schott, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Check out the reviews of his much earlier work, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” at Amazon.
Now, a few details of substance. Witherington suggests that Ehrman does not understand that the gospels were written in a genre of biography very different from the kinds of biographies we read today, different such that attention to chronological detail was not that important (therefore no big wup if overturning the money changers happens at the end of Jesus’s career as in the synoptics or the beginning as in John). In fact, Ehrman has an entire chapter on this point (albeit a short one) in his textbook where he draws the conclusion that biographies of the day were more studies in character than in historical details. The conclusion that Ehrman draws from this is that the authors who used this genre did not really care if the events they narrated were 100% accurate, as long as what was narrated reveal accurate details about the person’s character. This would also go a long way in explaining so-called redaction criticism; criticism suggesting that gospel writers had theological motivations for crafting the stories the way they did.
Related to this, I have bone to pick with Witherington’s defense of the historical accuracy of BOTH infancy narratives. First, he suggests there is no evidence to indicate that Joseph and Mary did lived in Bethlehem before they lived in Nazareth. But Matthew’s gospel indicates that the wise men entered the house where Jesus lived (not the inn/manger). Second, after returning from Egypt (a flight that raises the thematic question of whether or not Matthew was more interested in portraying Jesus as the new Moses than in historical detail), Joseph and Mary head south toward Judea (where Bethlehem is) and only after being warned in a dream that it was not safe did they turn north to the Galilee (where Nazareth is). Now this may not constitute decisive evidence, but it seems rather hard to make this account compatible with Luke’s beginning the story in Nazareth with only a quick trip to Bethlehem and then a return to Nazareth.
Add to this that there is no record of the census referred to in Luke, combined with the idea the fact that the purpose of a census was twofold – taxation and conscription – which renders the idea of registering in a city other than where one lives, such as the city of one’s ancestors, rather inexplicable since one would not then be able to find anyone who had moved from the city of one’s ancestors and so could not tax or conscript them.
The point here is not some positivistic debate about history. The point is whether or not there are competing, and not just complementary, theologies in the NT. In order to open the door to this possibility, it is necessary in the eyes of some to establish that the purpose the NT writers was first and foremost theological. Historical discrepancies become indications not of contradiction, but of differences in perspective, differences that are then found to have theological significance.
I could go on and on. Suffice it to say, I would not recommend Witherington as the final word on the work of Bart Ehrman. I have no idea about the current work, as I have not read it, but his earlier is simply much more well received by the academic establishment than Witherington suggests.
We are mixing a lot of things here. Ehrman is a better scholar than Witherington. My contention is that Erhman’s findings do not jeopardize the faith. Witherington, in my opinion, is as bad a scriptural scholar as Joseph Ratzinger, who makes a mockery out of scriptural scholarship. We should keep in mind that the main reason Witherington and Ratzinger et alii get all worked up about historical criticism is that their faith is threatened by it. This need not be. This kind of thinking causes tension among scholars which is unnecessary. Again, Erhman’s loss of faith has nothing to do with his scholarship. His fundamental assumptions finally did him in.
Bill,
Could you tell us in a few sentences the simple message of Jesus?
David,
The beatitudes. Those who humble themselves will be exalted. Love of enemies. Matt: 25:31-46. Hierarchical, monarchical Christianity has failed miserably in this.
Sorry for all of the writing errors in the above text. I am bushed. I would also value any feedback that Alan Mitchell, someone who always has wise things to say and is vastly more qualified to speak on this topic than me, thinks about the work of Bart Ehrman.
Anyone know how to activate the Mitchell signal?
One final thought, and then to bed. What would happen to Christianity if the gospels were understood as analogous to the great rabbis of the Talmud? In the Talmud the existence of conflicting voices is not a problem. While there is a preliminary decision in the direction of one rabbi or another, minority voices are preserved, in part so that future generations can again take up the discussion. Nor is the possibility of new voices, voices that might challenge the favored interpretation, ruled out a priori. In fact, God is for some understood to be revealed more in the debate than in the resolution. Hmmmzzzzzz.
That would be “feedback that Alan Mitchell…has to offer about the work of Bart Ehrman.”
Doug Kmiec is going to be on Colbert Thursday night!
I’m so jealous!
I’ll trade him the ambassadorship to the Vatican for Thursday night.
(Joke, joke, joke.)
Ehrman knows his stuff, but his ex-fundamentalism has mutated into another form of fundamentalism. I heard him lecture passionately at the last Oxford Patristic Conference on the New Testament as a collection of fakes and forgeries, on the basis that its writers didn’t sign their real names (only 7-8 Pauline letters and Luke-Acts might escape this stricture). But this is curiously shortsighted. The names those early communities chose to put at the head of their texts reflect more the tradition they wish to be aligned with. True, there is a bit of fakery in the Pastorals, pseudo-biography for Paul, almost a foretaste of the extreme inventiveness of Pseudo-Dionysius five centuries later.
Slightly off topic: many Christians have ended up stepping back from dogmatic Christianity to a simple earlier community outlook centred on the teachings of Jesus. I think the truth of classical dogma, in updated interpretations, is to be respected, but there is some merit too in putting dogma in a context that makes it dependent on rather than dominant over the more simple Christianity that the figure of Jesus inspires.
As to the divinity of Christ in the NT, I suggest that this doctrine is far more subtle than we are led to believe. The closest the NT comes to indicating the divinity of Christ is John 1:14, which says that the eternal Word/Wisdom of God, which is in God and is God, dwells among us in the human historical sphere — and this dwelling is particularly connected with the life, teaching, ministry, death and ongoing life of Jesus — he brings the penitude or pleroma of the shekinah. Mysterious? Sure.
correction: plenitude
The Church made a mistake in condemning Nestorius — he was struggling to articulate the unity of divine and human in Christ and was too quickly stereotyped as a heretic dividing the Christ. Chalcedon leaves ample space for a patient contemplation of the human and divine dimensions of Christ, but its style is too peremptory and laconic.
Joe K,
You are such a party pooper. After your retirement we are going to exile you to South Bend so you can realize what its like to undergo severe winters and general isolation.
Cathy, I am now officially mounting a campaign to get you on the Colbert show. Get ready.
I suppose a lot depends on the meaning of the word “sent.” As a prof of mine said, if you took Jesus in John by the collar and pushed him against the wall and said, “Who are you?” he would say “The one whom the Father has sent.”
To be sent from implies a prior being-with. But one point of John’s gospel is that being-with is not enough: what is necessary is a being-in. Power (not political power but the power to give life) depends on being-sent, which means living-in and staying-in.
Joe Pettit,
The “signal” was activated. I, too, use Ehrman’s NT intro in my Introduction to Biblical Literature sections. I find it to be a good text for undergraduates. As with all such intros I need to tweak them to work in my course, none of them is fully adequate in my estimation. His, however is readable and offers substance on many of the issues I cover in the New Testament part of that course.
I agree with Fr. O’Leary that he has traded one form of fundamentalism for another. As Fitzmyer has pointed out in his recent book on the historical critical method, the method is only as good as its practitioners. By that he means one has to resist saying more than can be reliably said.
On the issue of inerrancy it is good to be reminded that the truth of the Bible does not reside in its words alone, and so it is not immune to historical and scientific error. I believe Dei Verbum, 11 got it right: “…we must acknowledge the Books of Scripture as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error the truth that God wishes to be recorded in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” Noteworthy is that the Council Fathers chose not to use the words “inerrancy” or “inerrant” and opted for “truth” rather than “truths”.
Professor Mitchell,
I’m glad the signal was activated and that you responded. I like the distinction between “truth” and “truths,” but I am not sure what to make of the phrase “without error.” If the scriptures contain many things, including historical truths and historical errors, scientific errors, AND “the truth that God wishes to be recorded…for the sake of our salvation,” then presumably only the last component would be that to which the qualifier “without error” is relevant. But what does that mean? Is just a way of saying that the truth God wants us to know is firmly affirmed in scripture, now go find it? Can there be theological errors in scripture and not just historical and scientific ones? If so, then the qualifier “without error” would add nothing to saying that the truth God wants us to know is found in scripture. If it were an error, then it would not be a truth, let alone a truth that God wants us to know.
I guess the really important questions are whether or not theological error can be found in scripture, and if so, what guidelines would be used by the churches both institutionally and through their membership to discern theological truth from theological error.
Christ did not come to confuse us. He would not Found His Church and not ensure that His Word would remain consistent. (“I am with you until the end of Time.”) Thank God for the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Teaching of the Magisterium, which includes God’s chosen leader for His Church, during this period of Time in History, Holy Pope Benedict XVI.
Bart Ehrman was interviewed for two hours last night on WGN Radio in Chicago, including taking questions from listeners for some time, on Milt Rosenberg’s program. I believe an audio file will be available for those who’d like a more in-depth exposure to Ehrman the person, but the radio station’s server seems to be down as I write this.
I didn’t catch the entire interview (because, I’m not ashamed to admit, I’ve become hooked on “Saving Grace” and its bizarre but compelling mixture of police procedural and and angel apparitions). However, one point that Ehrman referred to might be worth thinking about. It’s the seeming gap between what preachers are taught about scripture in their seminary training, and what they preach from the pulpit.
Ehrman’s view seems to be that there is widespread ignorance about the inconsistencies found in the Bible, and perhaps about the historical-critical method as a whole. And that is because preachers, as the primary teachers about the Bibile, learn about such things during their study, but do not pull aside the curtain in their sermons and Buble study groups to reveal this aspect of Scripture.
I suppose I fall into this category myself. But I’m curious to know if folks here think that it would be important or helpful for preachers to talk about, for example, the inconsistencies between the infancy narratives or the various passion accounts, either from the pulpit or in parish-based Bible study programs.
Joe Pettit,
I think the expression “without error” was a deliberate choice to avoid using “inerrantly” because of the historical usage of the term to counter post-Enlightenment interpretations that would challenge the historicity of certain aspects of the Bible. The context of it in Dei Verbum supports the Bible as a reliable guide to salvation. Thus DV adopts a non-polemical tone and remains positive on the role of the Bible in helping people to reach salvation.
BTW you can call me Alan, unless you want me to refer to you as Professor Pettit.
Christ did not come to confuse us. He would not Found His Church and not ensure that His Word would remain consistent.
Nancy,
There are over 38,000 Christian denominations.
Nancy:
Jesus’ promise that the church would always endure does not necessarily mean that it will endure everywhere. Msgr. John Tracy Ellis.
Jesus founded a church, not a school or a magisterium, and he organized a college of apostles, not of rabbis, and he proclaimed love, not torah. John McKenzie, S.J.
Joe Petit,
I, too, felt Witherington went a little too far trying advocate for the historicity of the nativity stories. Even the most cursory reading of Matt and Luke shows the two stories don’t mesh. Like Rayond Brown says, we can still accept Christian truths like the Virgin Birth while seeing the Gospel accounts as midrash.
And, yes, it comes off as unprofessional when Witherington calls Ehrman by his first name. Perhaps it’s because he titled the blog entries “Bart, Interrupted,” as a play off of the book’s title “Jesus, Interrupted.” Perhaps they know each fairly well; I think they both teach at UNC-Chapel Hill.
Although his critique of Ehrman’s scholarly standand, I believe, still stands. For sure, Ehrman’s textbooks are good. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I had them in a grad school class at CUA. They are solid anthologies of early Christian writings. Ehrman does a fine job summarizing these primary sources. But there is no original scholarship. The textbooks are what they are: college student intros.
It’s possible that Ehrman is a good explicator, a good, well, teacher, without being a groundbreaking scholar. Will Ehrman be remembered in a couple generations, a la Gunkel or Bultmann or Raymond Brown? I don’t know. Witherington concedes that Ehrman has a graduate level knowledge of Scripture, but his criticism is that Ehrman shows nothing beyond this in his popular books.
To add a point in Ehrman’s favor, I appreciate he admits his lack of faith. I will take that any day over someone like Bishop Spong, who pumps out book after book (largely devoid of scholarship) calling every major Christian teaching a lie, while pretending that his own beliefs are the new, chic, brand of Christianity for “enlightened” people.
Will Ehrman be remembered in a couple generations, a la Gunkel or Bultmann or Raymond Brown?
Sean,
Why even mention Raymond Brown? He’s dead!
Witherington: “A quick perusal of the footnotes to this book, reveal mostly cross-references to Ehrman’s earlier popular works, with a few exceptions sprinkled in—for example Raymond Brown and E.P Sanders, the former long dead, the latter long retired. What is especially telling and odd about this is Bart does not much reflect a knowledge of the exegetical or historical study of the text in the last thirty years.”
I was kind of taken aback when I read that. It seemed almost like a swipe at Brown and Sanders rather than a swipe at Ehrman. Certianly Raymond Brown is still worth quoting.
I haven’t read Ehrman’s book (although I am looking forward to it), but when I do read it, I don’t expect to be brought up to date on the last thirty years of exigetical or historical studies. I am presuming that Ehrman doesn’t deal with anything particularly new. I am presuming it his not his message that recent developments in biblical scholarship have noted discrepancies in the Gospels (or have reconciled discrepancies in the Gospels) but rather biblical scholarship has dealt with these issues for over a century, but the general public is largely ignorant of them.
Sean,
As best I can tell, Witherington teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary. Regarding Ehrman himself, I have no interest in defending efforts that take the historical-critical method farther than it can take itself, and if Ehrman does this, so be it.
But here is I why I think he is correct to think that he has his hand on a tiger’s tail, and so is doing more than just some quality textbook writing. As others on this blog have endured me claiming before, I think Christianity is in the midst of something of an identity crisis, and it is a crisis caused largely by the rise of historical-critical scholarship.
Here is the problem in a nutshell: the churches have made theological claims that they have defended at least in part in the past with uncritical appeals to scripture. Some of these appeals have, in part because of scripture studies, had their credibility challenged. I would include among those claims most impacted by historical-critical studies the following:
1) What it would have meant to refer to Jesus as the Messiah and as the Son of God
2) What it would have meant for the earliest Christian communities to be apocalyptic in character and then to back away from apocalyptic expectations over time
3) How such apocalyptic expectations influenced Christian understandings of Gentiles and how these understandings might have changed when Christian communities backed away from apocalyptic expectations
4) What Jesus taught and practiced regarding the Law and therefore about Jews and Gentiles
5) Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, especially in light of difficulties reconciling Acts with Paul’s own letters and changes in apocalyptic expectations
6) The impact of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple on the remaining pockets of Jewish Christianity.
7) The value, or lack thereof, of so-called messianic proof-texts in the NT
It is often remarked among those who follow the historical-critical method that Christianity began a Jewish religion and rather quickly became a Gentile religion. I think this raises all sorts of questions regarding the accurate translation of theological traditions and concepts.
Of course, the churches are free to proclaim anything they want, but I think they have at least two problems on their hands. Insofar as what they proclaim is linked to history, they better be able to have a credible link to history. Second, I think some of the theological weak spots in the tradition are coming home to roost. To cut to the chase, the most obvious being the relevance of the divinity of Christ to salvation. It is one thing to proclaim the divinity of Christ as a fact, take it or leave it, it is another thing to explain the salvific relevance of this belief. Historical studies make clear that the answer to this question has changed so often in the history of the church as to make one’s head spin. When I ask Christians today to explain the relevance, I usually get a combination of 1) It is a simple fact; 2) This is what Christians believe, and 3) Mystery. None of these are remotely helpful answers.
So, perhaps I am just projecting my own issues on to Ehrman in finding his work to be important, but I think Ehrman senses that this is an important time in the intellectual history of Christianity, and he wants to get in on that. Of course, one may conclude that he could be more constructive in his contributions.
“There are over 38,000 Christian denominations.”
While this statement may be true, that was never God’s intention from the beginning.
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.”- The Christ, Son of the Living God, The Word of God Made Flesh.
There is only One Word of God.
“I believe Dei Verbum, 11 got it right”
So do I.
Or rather, so did I, until October’s synod from which John Allen culled this tidbit we all remember:
Some exegetes saw in the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” a warrant for restricted inerrancy, though that interpretation was rejected by German Cardinal Augustin Bea, who was involved in the drafting of Dei Verbum.
In his 1967 book The Word of God and Mankind, Bea wrote that the language of Dei Verbum “explains God’s purpose in causing the scriptures to be written, and not the nature of the truth enshrined therein.”
I’d like to know where that revelation leaves us.
While this statement may be true, that was never God’s intention from the beginning.
Nancy,
Isn’t it rather bold of you to say what God’s intentions were?
In the story as Christians tell it, from the creation to the present day, just about every major thing that God intended didn’t work out. Adam and Eve bring down the whole human race with their sin. The world becomes so wicked that God actually regrets creating it and intends to wipe out not only the human race, but all the animals as well. (Fortunately, he partly changes his mind and has Noah build an Ark.) Israel is constantly going astray and being punished, and when God sends his son as the Messiah, the Jews reject him. Nevertheless, the one, true Church gets founded, and thanks to Gentiles, who were not originally God’s Chosen, it grows. But then, in spite of God’s intentions, Christianity fractures into thousands of different groups who can’t agree on what exactly the Word of God means.
It appears to be true not only that the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, but the best laid plans of God himself do as well.
Teresa Skelton,
What an excellent question. One has to remember how complex a figure Bea was. After all he engineered the production of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s Sancta Mater Ecclesia, better known as the Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels to insure the promulgation of Dei Verbum against the opposition of the Ottaviani party, who had grave reservations about the historical method. In the end Bea won. Now that he might have had reservations about some of the wording of DV, as you point out should not be a surprise. There is an ambiguity in the expression “for the sake of our salvation,” but I do not think Bea got it right by disassociating “the nature of the truth enshrined therein” from the purpose of the Scriptures having been written. DV insists, as did Divino Afflante Spiiritu, that Scripture is the word of God written in human words, and that the full agency of the human writers was employed in its composition in order to insure that humans could apprehend divine revelation. For me, therein lies the good news that God trusted human enough to entrust them with revelation “for the sake of salvation” of all humans. There was the co-operation of grace and nature, the human and the divine. The nature of the truths enshrined in Scripture are at the heart of it divine truths, but they cannot be untouched by the vagaries of human expression. That in my estimation is the “nature of the truths enshrined in Scripture.” How could it be otherwise? Bea sets up a false dichotomy. Where does it leave us? God has spoken an effective word, as Hebrews says, that can be understood in human terms so that for “the sake of our salvation” we might grasp the truth enshrined in Scripture.
David, with all due Respect, these are the Word of God, not my words. I Believe, that is all.
Alan (sorry, the habits of former undergraduates die hard),
“The vagaries of human expression” sounds rather benign; like we are trying to say something but do not quite get it just right. What about the vagaries of human understanding. To say that grace is operative in scripture does not answer whether or not grace is everywhere and in all respects operative in scripture.
For example, to say that Jesus was the final and perfect sacrifice might be read in away to leads the mind and heart to the mercy of God revealed in Jesus Christ. But it does seem to say much more than that. For example, it implies that God actually needed sacrifice, and that prior to Jesus no sacrifice would suffice to make the mercy and grace of God available to humanity. Both those latter claims strike this armchair theologian as incorrect. But I would have no objection to any theological understanding that leads one to better appreciate the mercy of God. However, in order to get to what I see as a grace-filled revelation, I have to reject the plain sense of the original claim. This seems to be more than just an instance of the vagaries of human expression.
David,
I meant no swipe at Raymond Brown. I respect him. I think he’s good. I had to read his giant commentary on the NT to study for my comps in grad school. I mentioned him and Gunkel and Bultmann as three people in the field of bible studies whose works have lasted. They are all mentioned, taught, and used in college level scripture classes. I used them as a contrast to Ehrman. I raised the question, “will Ehrman reach their level?” I don’t think he will, but who knows?
Joe,
Those are all excellent questions. Ehrman isn’t the only thinker dealing with them. Elaine Pagels and Roger Haight, to name two off the top of my head, are interested in those questions, too. If Christianity is in an identity crisis, Ehrman is one among many shedding light. I’d say his scholarship is better than Pagels (another popular author), but not as good as Haight (which also might explain why Haight isn’t well known outside academic circles).
Also, Christians have been confronting the questions you raise for 2000 years. They are not new in light of current historical-criticism. Your first question (What it would have meant to refer to Jesus as the Messiah and as the Son of God?) caused the controversy that led to the creedal statements of Nicaea. Arius felt Jesus could be Messiah but still less than God. Most Bishops at the Council didn’t.
Further, you say, “When I ask Christians today to explain the relevance, I usually get a combination of 1) It is a simple fact; 2) This is what Christians believe, and 3) Mystery. None of these are remotely helpful answers.” Athanasius and Anselm both offer more than “I just believe” or “the Bible tells me so.” Maybe their arguments won’t satisfy all, and maybe they need to be re-evaluated in light of modern scripture study, but they do offer intellectual answers.
Joe Pettit,
Not a problem. If you are half as good a professor as you were a Georgetown undergraduate your students are still in the plus column.
Can the vagaries of human expression be distinct from the vagaries of human understanding? I live by the rule, “Be careful of what you say, because you do not know what I will hear.” Humans get it right within the confines of being human. Inspiration is not mantic. Expression differs, understanding differs; that is what it means to be human. We trust that God does not expect more than that from us. The problems only arise when humans think they have to be gods to please God. The purpose of the incarnation was to show us what it is to be human. Jesus does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. That is the Easter message.
We need to put Scripture within our human experience to understand it. The biblical authors were just like us, grappling with the issues of faith and expressing them as best they could. That is not a diminishment of scripture but a recognition of what it is. The sooner we understand the Tradition in those terms, i.e. council documents, etc. the better off we will be. The old scholastic norm rules” quidquid recipitor…”
Nancy: one of the joys of posting on dotCommonweal is that Commonweal the magazine can be mined for a lot of current and past wisdom, such as:
Rather than say that I know what I believe, I think it is closer to the truth to say that I know the framework within which I believe, and doubt, and wonder. —- Christian faith must not be seen as a series of propositions to which one assents. When membership in the church is reduced to this level, it cannot provide us with a community within which people may be transformed. Faith has to do with a relationship with someone, not something. It is not a party line. Seeing who this person is, as clearly as we can, is the reason for dogma.
John Garvey, “Doubt and the Community of Believers”, Commonweal, 2/23/2007
It seems that Vatican II shied away from tackling the status quo on biblical inerrancy because not enough theological groundwork had been done on the problem. Dei Verbum offers slight pointers to how we might move forward. Of course the Bible is not inerrant in any ordinary sense of the word; and as Ehrman rightly asks, ‘what Bible are we talking about?’ — the actual text of the Bible is very far from being stable. The early Church yoked itself to a fundamentalist view of Scripture from the time the Canon was established as a bulwark against Gnosticism. Every word of Scripture was seen as unquestionably true, divinely inspired, and necessarily containing important meaning. Barth offers a way out of this magical approach; he sees the Bible as not containing, but attesting, the Word of God, a Word that is effectively heard when the Bible is heard by the prayerful community — it is then that Scripture becomes Scripture. The role that the most barren and brutal fundamentalism plays in American public life is sapping the political and moral fiber of the American people.
Sean,
The first words of mine ever published in this fine magazine were in defense of Roger Haight; I am a big fan. I also enjoy the writing of Paula Fredricksen on these issues. Yes, Athanasius and Anselm are intellectual, but they are also interesting examples of Gentile thinking. They both presuppose a rupture between humanity and God that the Jews do not affirm. Thus, they create a problem for Jesus to solve (and even then, it is not clear what it means for him to solve it). You note that Arius did not think the Messiah needed to be God, but that most of the other bishops disagreed. Arius did affirm the Messiah was divine, just created. But the more relevant point is that it would never ever have occured to the Jews to think of the Messiah as divine, much less God. Does that matter if all of the earliest followers who called Jesus Messiah were Jewish? Does it matter that for 2000 years non-Jews have been given free reign to interpret central Jewish ideas like Messiah, Son of God, sacrifice, etc?
I guess I presented my questions not as one who would find reassurance in the fact that they have been asked for 2000 years (although I doubt that in the case of most of them), but as one who was suggesting that the confidence many have had in previous answers to such questions might be misplaced.
Alan,
You are kind to say such things about me, and you describe a world of Christian inquiry that I am quite drawn to, but do not much find these days. BTW, I wish Prof. Gillis all the best in his new roll (good U of C alum that he is!).
Joe,
You are absolutely correct that the Jewish people never would have expected the Messiah to be divine. It’s a huge break from Judaism. I assume that the original Jewish followers of Jesus never would have imagined the later Greek formulations by Gentile Christians in the 4th century. But I do think the later Gentile Christians created these Greek formulations (trinity, homoousios, etc.) to try to explain and understand the original faith of the original Jewish Christians. I think the later Christian creedal statements encapsulate the faith of the early followers, even if the early followers would have found the terminology foreign.
I understand why Arius placed Jesus as a created being, below God; he was afraid that making Jesus equal to the Father would split the Godhead and rupture the connection to monotheism. Yet, I can’t help but seeing his “Superman” Jesus as a break with monotheism. His Jesus is super divine being, just below the top divine being.
Does it matter that for 2000 years non-Jews have been given free reign to interpret central Jewish ideas like Messiah, Son of God, sacrifice, etc?
It definately raises issues, and I honestly have no answers. Unfortunately, the early Church broke from its Jewish roots. After a couple generations, there were not many Jewish Christians left to deal with the issues that took until Nicaea to answer (and are still being answered now). But, I have no answers. Great question.
Joe Pettit,
You are welcome. And, of course, it should be “recipitur” I am a lousy typist.
Mr. Pettit: You wrote: “Athanasius and Anselm are intellectual, but they are also interesting examples of Gentile thinking. They both presuppose a rupture between humanity and God that the Jews do not affirm.” Your last sentence is in the present tense, so you may be referring to Jews (some of them? all of them?) today; but Saul/Paul thought that there was “a rupture between humanity and God” (see Rom 1-3) and that it took the cross and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth to reconcile the world to Himself and to set human beings right with Him. And John, also a Jew, said that God had sent his only Son to save the world, which, it would seem, he thought needed to be saved. I don’t think that this issue is correctly posed as between Jews and Gentiles.
Fr. Komonchak:
I have a hunch that you would never accept the word of one Christian for the purpose of defining Christian belief. Paul was one Jew. His ministry was, I would argue, exclusively to Gentiles (I don’t think the synagogue accounts of Acts are historically accurate, as Paul never himself mentions them), and so his arguments were geared toward Gentiles. Regarding the past and the present, I would guess that 99.999 percent of Jews throughout history, to the present day, have not affirmed a rupture between God and humanity. I would value knowing about any indications to the contrary.
Ooops. Missed the reference to John in my haste to get something in before class. John is a longer conversation. For now, I will just claim that I do not think he is speaking for the vast majority of Jews. Christians, of course, are free to argue whatever they want. In the case of this rupture argument, I think you have problems of historical credibility (Very few Jews think it, and it does not appear to be a central argument in the synoptics) and of theological credibility (what caused this rupture, and how does such a rupture get in the way of God’s grace and mercy?). One also has the rhetorical problem of seeming to justify a religious claim (the universal salvific act of Jesus Christ) by creating a problem that needs solving in order to provide a rationale for the conclusion for which one is arguing.
Joe,
It seems to me that Jews have never made much of the story of Adam and Eve. I believe I am correct that once it concludes in Genesis, it is never mentioned again in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Certainly Jews today don’t accept the idea of “the Fall.” It would be interesting to know if there were any interpretations of the story of Adam and Eve at the time Paul was writing that influenced him to lay the groundwork for the theory of Original Sin by describing Jesus as the “last Adam.” I am no expert on Paul (although I can search the Bible and tell you how many times the word “Adam” comes up), but it looks to me like he mentions this idea only a couple of times. Yet it has been elaborated to become the bedrock of Christian doctrine about the need for a Savior.
I posted this question and answer from the Baltimore Catechism once before:
The point that strikes me in rereading it is in these two sentences: “No creature could, of himself, make adequate satisfaction for sin, which offends the infinite majesty of God. Every creature is finite and, as such, is unable to make infinite satisfaction.”
Since every creature is finite, and consequently cannot make infinite satisfaction, it is strange to think of finite creatures committing an “infinite offense” that requires infinite satisfaction. Human beings have proven, since the beginning, to be rather weak and humble creatures vis-à-vis God. Even granting his infinite majesty, how could he hold such extraordinarily finite creatures guilty of an “infinite offense” that they can never atone for on their own?
It would seem, according to this way of thinking, that any offense at all against “infinite majesty” would be an offense that requires infinite satisfaction. If the magnitude of the offense is wholly dependent on the person or thing being offended, then even the most trivial offense on the part of Adam and Eve would have resulted in the Fall of mankind.
There are all kinds of problems (well known) in interpreting the story of Adam and Eve, one of them being that if they had no knowledge of good and evil — if they didn’t know right from wrong — how could they be blamed for doing something wrong?
Also, something that bothers me is this passage:
Adam and Eve seem to be ousted from the garden not exactly for disobedience, but rather to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and living forever. And in the New Testament, Adam and Eve are said to have brought death into the world, yet clearly they were mortal all along, since they had to be prevented from eating from the tree of life and becoming immortal. Also, we all have eternal life, in that we have immortal souls. Of course, that is an idea that came well after the story of Adam and Eve was written.
David,
Whenever I read that last Genesis passage to my students, they are, to a person, stunned. Everyone of them will tell you that A and E were expelled from the Garden for disobedience. When they read 3:22-24 they think they are reading some foreign text.
Of course, if the creationists are correct, the Garden should still exist somewhere in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Seems like a perfect topic for the Discovery channel, “The Garden of Eden: Is There Another Way In?” (or maybe EWTN could do an “In Search of the Garden of Eden”).
Mr. Pettit: What do we make of the Psalms of repentance, or of the promises of forgiveness, (Though your sins be as scarlet…); or of sacrifices of atonement? Or of prophetical indictments of a sinful Israel?
Is perhaps the issue what this “rupture” means? Are you taking it as meaning that God has broken off his relationship to us? I’ve been taking it as meaning that we’ve broken off ours with Him. In OT terms, we’ve broken the covenant; God hasn’t.
Fr. Komonchak:
The Jews have been and are today certainly aware of the existence of sin and of the need for repentance, returning to God, etc. However, they also see the opportunity to seek forgiveness, repentance, etc. as continuously present in human life. I take the Christian notion of what I have been calling a rupture to be some kind of denial that this opportunity has always and continuously exists. It is argued that but for the salvific action of Jesus Christ, this opportunity would still not exist, and, subsequent to that action, some will even argue that it does not exist except for those who are truly Christian. Christians seem to disagree with Jews about the human condition before God, with Jews thinking that the human condition before God does not require transformation through Jesus Christ, and Christians claiming that it does.
Fr. Komonchak,
I posted a question and answer from the old Baltimore Catechism above, which I think explains what I believe is under discussion. It is interesting to me to note that even the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of Jesus opening the gates of heaven:
I posted all of what is below from the Baltimore Catechism the last time this topic came up. It is not in sophisticated terms, but it certainly reflects what I was taught, even after leaving grade school and the Baltimore Catechism behind.
Prof. Pettit: This is rather a different question than the one to which I addressed myself. I didn’t realize that this is what lay behind your distinction between Jew and Gentile with regard to a rupture between God and humanity. I do wonder whether you do not underestimate the diversity within Judaism–e.g., with regard to the role of the Temple and of the priests with respect to atoning for sin–at the time Christians were beginning to claim that this Jesus who had been crucified had been made Lord and Messiah and that in him was the forgiveness of sins. These were claims made by Jews and made, first of all, to Jews. Paul called himself a “Pharisee of the Pharisees.” I found Dunn’s book, “The Partings of the Ways” very helpful on how Christianity gradually differentiated itself from within Judaism because of the claims it made about the Jesus it believed to be the Messiah.
As for your comment: “One also has the rhetorical problem of seeming to justify a religious claim (the universal salvific act of Jesus Christ) by creating a problem that needs solving in order to provide a rationale for the conclusion for which one is arguing.” I don’t see this so much as a rhetorical problem as an expression of the self-consistency of the Christian claims. I have argued elsewhere that Christian anthropology expresses what must be true about man if what it says about salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is true.
This announcement seems timely:
VATICAN CITY, 16 APR 2009 (VIS) – The Pontifical Biblical Commission is due to celebrate its annual plenary meeting at the Vatican’s “Domus Sanctae Marthae” from 20 to 24 April, under the presidency of Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Fr. Klemens Stock S.J., pro-secretary general of the commission, will oversee and direct the work of the assembly.
This will be the first gathering of the Pontifical Biblical Commission since the partial renewal of its membership, in accordance with current norms. During the meeting attention will be given to a new study entitled “Inspiration and Truth of the Bible”, the draft version of which has already been examined by the commission members.
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/b1_en.htm