May 15, 2008
Another Bart D. Ehrman Book to Recommend
I just finished Ehrman’s God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer, and I recommend it for those who want a fine outline of the big mix of views found in the Bible regarding this matter. Everything from suffering as punishment to suffering as a needed hone for one’s righteousness is examined, and Ehrman’s vast erudition and quickness of mind allows him to bring many passages together with great fluidity. I particularly liked his reading of the story of Job; I have been wanting to write something about that myself for some time, but now I don’t have to! Another point he makes that struck me as one that needs to be considered by many of the “end times” people concerns the words of the prophets in the Bible. He notes that they were writing predictions for their own generation–their own people and immediate descendants, and not for an unimaginable population 2,000 years away in the future. When these people spoke of the need for justice, they weren’t imagining something like 9/11, they were hoping that the various armies that swept through to pillage their lands would eventually get their asses kicked. Imagine the self-importance required to arrive at the thought that it’s all about us.
In an earlier post I recommended Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, and shortly after that a fellow flocker recommended N. T. Wright’s book Surprised By Hope. I have just finished reading this work and found it interesting in many ways. The man strikes me as kind and thoughtful–and surely not lacking in courage. His thesis, as others here have described very clearly, is that a vast number of Christians have misread the Bible in forming their views of the nature of the resurrection. Wright wants to expunge what he sees as the pernicious influence of Platonist dualism, seeing this as a source of the notions that obscure the physical primacy of the resurrection. He takes pains to distance himself from pantheistic views, and from the likely connection of his thoughts to those of Teilhard de Chardin–and then he presents an understanding that is sure to not bring him many friends from the ranks of American fundamentalists. Jesus didn’t actually “ascend to heaven” in some abstract, ghost-like way when he died and returned–he sort of slipped through a fold in space-time, in such a way that he is physically here and not here at the same time. Also, Christians don’t have a soul in the way it has been long understood, and they don’t go to “heaven” when they die: they are just sort of on hold (unconscious, he says), until they themselves are resurrected to new bodies that have great new powers. And these powers will be used on Earth, to start with, in the project of renewing all of creation throughout the cosmos. There will be “much work to be done,” Wright says–so there goes the idea of rest and freedon from strife in the “afterlife” (or transformed extension of life, as he might say it). Since Wright mentions several writers of science fiction and fantasy in looking for metaphors to explain such views, it might be fair to say that the afterlife as he has it bears a strong resemblance to an Earth populated by the likes of Spiderman and the Hulk–all glorious in their powers and ready to put things aright. The notion of Progress, here on Earth now, that Wright laments as being doomed to mere wallowing, will not be a problem on the “new” Earth, where there will apparently be no dissent about the best way to go about the job of cosmic renewal. I suppose personality will be one of the things the transformation will set aside.
Wright does make a fine effort when it comes to describing what he has called elsewhere “the epistemology of love.” I tend to agree with him that our perception of love is almost like another sense–that we can be drawn to a feeling of love that disarms us at times in the middle of our disputes and petty enmities, and that even suggests a kind of force opperating possibly throughout the universe. But I don’t want to cede “ownership” of love to any system of beliefs that excludes those who don’t agree and are not on the program. And as for my feeling that love may be a force radiating throughout the universe: the vastness of what I will never know and, in my view, can’t know, will make such thoughts just pleasant speculations and not the foundation of yet another religion.
One last point, about the idea of “the” right reading of the Bible. Wright acknowledges many times here that many millions of Christians hold fast to the very notions he says are not biblically supported. I would say I have a little more knowledge of the way those millions see things than of the way Wright does, but I am often challenged with the accusation that I am singling out “nut cases” and using them to define Christianity. This leads me to ask: Is Christianity to be defined by the full range of views and readings of the Bible that we find around the world, or is it defined by those fortunate enough to apply a good education to the details of their faith? If it’s the latter, don’t we logically encounter the prospect that only one great mind will hit upon the single Right reading–making only that person a real Christian? When I look at the range of conflicting thoughts that Christians all around are able to come to–often in support of the most reprehensible views on war, slavery, rights of environmental destruction (Dominion), sexuality (!), a duty to punish, and so on–I can’t see how anybody in the whole batch could hope to find a comfortable place to sit, particularly while they must be so busy distancing themselves from “those others.”
comments
21 Responses to “Another Bart D. Ehrman Book to Recommend”
Leave a Reply
The whole idea of tribalism: if you’re in my group, you’re okay with God, but if you’re not, you’re not human and don’t deserve any better treatment than animals to be slaughtered. Diogenes was a, he said, cosmopolitan: the cosmos was his city/citizenship, which carries with it the idea that he must likewise recognize everyone else as a citizen/human. There is no one who can be treated as detritus; there is no one you can ask God to kill for you.
“But I don’t want to cede “ownership” of love to any system of beliefs that excludes those who don’t agree and are not on the program.”
I guess the problem here is that this statement of intent actually doesn’t cede ownership of love to those who won’t cede ownership of love. (!) I mean, the restriction fails on it’s own terms. However, I empathize since so many of my assumptions fail on their own terms as well, revealing my own hypocrisy.
If you like that work by Tom Wright, a concision of his work in his massive tomes, and you have the time to read about 2500 pages of great scholarly work, you’ll love “The New Testament and the People of God,” ” Jesus and the Victory of God,” and “The Resurrection of the Son of God.” These will plunge you deeply into his thinking. (I’ve absorbed them each twice and it was worth it!)
Wright’s thought is just a reflection of the historic creeds, Apostles’, Nicene and Chalcedonian, not a perspective built on early mid-20th century Christian fundamentalism. What I appreciate about him so much is that know one knows inter-Testamental history/Jewish history and 1st Century Jewish thought as does he. Conflated with his knowledge of the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT, he brings a wonderful insight into Biblical studies.
Re: Cooper Renner’s Comment–”The whole idea of tribalism: if you’re in my group, you’re okay with God, but if you’re not, you’re not human and don’t deserve any better treatment than animals to be slaughtered.”
This can’t be the whole idea of tribalism. Some tribalists don’t believe in God; some believe in extreme nationalism; some in racial superiority; some in nihilism; some in communism; some in bingo; some in Everglades cave diving; some in right wing politics; some in left wing politics…
The idea of any community is exclusive. Any community. And inclusive community cannot abide the ones who aren’t inclusive. Another hypocrisy.
I’m going to read the Ehrman book. Thanks for suggesting it.
One of the most interesting reasons the Bible gives for suffering and evil is the innocence of the victim! That rocks me. Read the prologue to Job and the gospels that culminate in the crucifixion account. And this is the one reason not many folks think the ‘Bible’ offers.
Michael–I’m glad to hear that you will be reading the Ehrman book. Sorry to say though that I probably won’t be working through the 2500 pages of Tom Wright’s work; I mean no offense to you, and it was kind of you to recommend it. It’s just that many books written by Christian scholars are aimed at those who already hold the appropriate context in mind, and want to know more about what they believe they already know. From the outside it all looks much different–and just as Christians often say “you need to believe first before it all makes sense (a self-justifying system), it is also true that many won’t really see how bizarre some of it is until they get out of it and take a look.
About the comment I made concerning “ownership” of love–I am speaking not of a logical possibility but of an actual practice: “I am the way, the truth, and the light, and only through me…” and so on. If a group of people believe that they stand at the essential gate to Love–and all who don’t go that way are doomed to be excluded from that Love, then what matters is the way they act on that knowledge. And many of them deny that they have any need to show love or understanding toward those who don’t agree with their claims–even when their own sacred text prompts them to do otherwise.
Daryl, good thoughts and two things:
1) Re: praxis/agape- My issue here is that Jesus really did claim exclusivity as the way to the Father. But for people, all of us, we ‘worship’ in ignorance (whatever we worship, by the way, and we all do) and if you’re a Xn that kind of self-awareness is foundational for Xn practice. You can’t read Jesus’ words in any other way. That said, love isn’t simply inclusion, but understanding balanced by honesty. Problem for all of us is that honesty is so much easier than patience.
2) Every narrative is self-justifying. No narrative stands on it’s own terms but requires a prior commitment. (’We worship/trust/commit in ignorance.’) There really are no exceptions to this. And it’s because we are dependent, contingent.
By the way, I’m going to read more than this work by Ehrman. I’m going to read several.
My “definition” of tribalism doesn’t exhaust the term, but I’ll stand by its general thrust, whether all tribes believe in “God” or not. The line drawn by nationalism is, for me anyway, a “tribal” line: We Americans (or Italians or Serbians or Oogum-Boogum-ists) are better than everyone else simply because we are who we are. And it’s possible for a cosmopolitan like Diogenes to disdain tribalists without excluding them or being hypocritical. It may not happen much, but it’s possible. I’ve just begun reading Thomas L. Thompson’s The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel. It’s dense reading, but Thompson isn’t simply some pointy-headed liberal: his views cost him, for many years, a career in academia.
PS: I’m a Texan. When I write or say “the whole (anything)” I don’t mean the whole of it: I mean, the big idea or the central idea or however you want to express it. I believe that discourse can be casual.
Michael–great talking to you here. And let me respond to your last thoughts:
whatever we worship, by the way, and we all do.
There’s worship, and then there’s worship. I don’t particularly like the word because, in my mind, it has become associated with various formal ways of going about it. But if you want to say that I approach the grandness of what I percieve of the universe with an open question marked by a background sense of gratitude–then, okay.
Problem for all of us is that honesty is so much easier than patience
I don’t actually think that honesty is easy at all. In fact I think much that goes for honesty is, as William James said of thinking, “much rearranging of prejudices.” Real honesty requires one to begin with the thought that the answers one finds and regards as Truth may not fall right into line with one’s existing hopes. It might, in fact, not support such views and hopes at all. And honesty would then require one to step back from that certainty. I have known a number of Christians who say they would never take that step, no matter what happened.
Every narrative is self-justifying. No narrative stands on it’s own terms but requires a prior commitment. (’We worship/trust/commit in ignorance.’)
In my view, this is a totalizing notion that confers a sense of the speaker’s perceptiveness–in spite of the fact that the statement itself precludes this. Also, to the extent that we want to say all of these are of this nature, we have said nothing, really, about any of them. People, ideas, books–all are known as much by their differences as by their underlying sameness, and a person who wants to chant “we are all biased, we are all biased, we are all biased…” still must contend with getting smacked in the head for being annoying.
“I believe that discourse can be casual.” Me too, Cooper. Words to live by. So to speak (so to speak).
Very interesting. By the way, there’s no ‘d’ in Bart Ehrman’s name.
Also, he and Wright have a back-and-forth on suffering here:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/
Thanks Benjamin–for the link and for the correction; I’ll make repairs.
Cooper, you Texan tribalist you!
Two things,
1) How do you (plural–’all’?) get time do respond to this stuff! I’m just too slow, I guess.
2) I only want to say that all community, every type, includes and excludes. Some graciously, others invidiously;’ some discriminate graciously, others discriminate with animus. They simply reflect the range of human differences. And both G-community and I-community reflect state, politics, religion, art, land preservation, climate change, climate preservation, climate progression….
Benjamin, thanks for this link! I suspected, when I read the synopses of Ehman’s work on Amazon, Wright must have interacted with him. Well, I guess he has. Looking forward to reading the exchange.
Daryl, briefly:
1) Re: Worship. Meant that less restrictivel. When I want a gin and tonic at the end of the day I’m pretty irritated when I don’t get what I want. And we all have these parallels. We all have our idols.
2) Patience/Honest: Frankly, I find it easier to unload on someone irritating me than be gracious.
3) A friend once said to me when I was annoyed by idiots in my work, “Michael, don’t be upset by the assholes you find in the company. God has liberally sprinkled them everywhere so you’ll always meet them.” Later It stuck me that I’m often one of them!
That said, I’m not sure how commenting that every narrative requires a prior commitment is tantamount the ‘annoying’ claim we are all biased. Not one doubts the latter. Folks often won’t concede the former.
Michael,
Please know that I mean none of my comments to be taken personally; I don’t presume to think that anybody would actually care about what my thoughts were about such things if I had them.
About your last paragraph: your thought simply happens to be very close to a semiotic debate in which the “high ground,” or superior position is often claimed by a person (Deconstructionist, say) who begins and ends with the note that there is no authorial authority–that all statements are simply a reflection of the underlying cultural structures that privilege a view as being “The” view, when it can’t be that. Language, then (in this view) can never be “simply” referential, since signs are constructs and are not sanctioned by something that is not a construct. So–when you mentioned that all narrative requires a prior commitment, I applied it to that context. And to make a very long story short: I think there are mode of communication that may be sanctioned by an honest agreement to note in advance that the terms are fluid.
Daryl,
Two thoughts. First, when you say “don’t we logically encounter the prospect that only one great mind will hit upon the single Right reading–making only that person a real Christian?” you’re proposing that being a “real Christian” is about having the “right thoughts”. I can hardly blame you since so much of Christendom talks like this is the case. But another perspective is that Christianity is not about right thinking but about right relationship. To be a Christian is be a follower of, and therefore in relationship with Jesus. (This assumes, of course, that he is alive since following a dead person would not imply a relationship.)
In terms of reading more NT Wright, it is understandable that you wouldn’t want to start with his big books” but you’re quote “Real honesty requires one to begin with the thought that the answers one finds and regards as Truth may not fall right into line with one’s existing hopes. It might, in fact, not support such views and hopes at all.” reminds me so much of something NT Wright writes, himself that I suspect you will like his other works more than you think. His book “The Challenge of Jesus” is much smaller and more approachable than the other books and might be of interest to you.
Peace,
Bob
Thank you, Bob. Your kind words reveal a fine heart.
One last note, prompted by your comment, Bob, which set me to thinking. With respect to your view that “Christianity is not about right thinking but about right relationship,” I’m not sure that thinking and relationship may be so clearly separated. Surely none of us can speak with authority of another person’s private spiritual beliefs, but once those beliefs are presented, with an aim of persuading others, they become linked to the missions of various churches–and are then judged as to how they seem to help or hinder those aims. Hence the many books written by N. T. Wright, who clearly believes that it is worth his time to try to correct very widely held “misunderstandings” about Christianity, and things such as the Catholic Church’s use of excommunication against those who often continue to think of themselves as believers.
When I was about ten years old–and being raised among Christians–I asked a question that seemed to make many around me uncomfortable: What is the difference between saying that you believe something, and actually believeing it? Is it enough to say “I want to believe it, or does that not count? This came in the context of many people trying to quickly “save” a lot of people, and thus they had reduced the requirement to: “all you have to do is ask Jesus into your heart and you are saved.” But I wonder: say this is the only thing a person knows about Jesus, except that Jesus seems to be associated with the power of love–and love is good, so, sure, okay–I’ll go with that. Or suppose such a person adds Jesus to a number of other figures from other religions, and believes generally that all of that is “cool.” Is this a “real” relationship with Jesus or just general thoughts about him? And what of all of the small towns in the American South in the early decades of the 20th century, in which mobs of people–comprised almost entirely of citizens who would instantly refer to themselves as Christians–got together and lynched people as a way of doing God’s work of maintaining the Bible sanctioned social order? Is there no pattern of deeds a Christian might do that would render him or her unworthy of being regarded as a Christian–whatever his or her inner beliefs might be? Some might say this is an extreme case, but what about those who call for the annihialation of whole peoples who are cast as enemies of God? What of those who have so twisted the words of Jesus, in a “gospel of prosperity,” to make it seem that the poor are clearly not being favored by God–probably due to some terrible sin for which they should be reviled–while those who prosper are surely just the sort God wants to reward further. May a peron do the opposite of what the Bible says, and still claim a relationship with Jesus? The problem is that for Christians everybody stands in relation to Jesus, and many people say they belive this and that, when they don’t actually have an actively thoughtful belief in anything.
So: Is it possible for a person to believe that he or she has a “relationship” with Jesus–when that is not the case? And if the range of behavior that a professed Christian might engage in and justify is as broad as the range found in everybody else–what really is the difference between one who believes and one who doesn’t besides a very simple claim that may have substance or may not?
Looks like I am going to have to own up to our little agreement and finally pick up the Erhdman book sitting in my room (it will be a pleasure, I’m sure).
There is some good discussion here, so good I see no need to add…and I had had the time to engage it.
Do expect some thoughs on the Erhdman book in the future.
I’ve sorry I’ve come to this discussion so late in the process, but I thought I might provide an interesting link that others might find useful.
First, I would recommend the apologist James White at aomin.org to you. He will be engaging Erhman in moderated debate about the topic of the bible misquoting Jesus early in ‘09. He usually makes the mp3s available for a small ($5ish) cost shortly after.
There is also a radio discussion with White about the Christian understanding of suffering at this address: http://mp3.sharpens.org/20080430ISI.mp3