Loading...In a previous post I pointed out that for over the past century modern evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity has been unusually focused on knowing the “objective” truths that can be “proved” about Christianity. In recent times, some have argued evangelical Christianity has become far more focused on social and cultural issues than theological doctrines (when someone says that this is not the evangelical Christianity your grandfather knew, they are apparently talking about me….). And I think that’s true. But even so, apologetics is still BIG in that tradition, and it is almost always based on objective evaluation of the truth.
One could argue that this evangelical obsession with religious truth was matched by the commitment to truth in the earliest years of Christianity. Historically, this is one of the features of Christianity that made it distinctive among the religions of antiquity.
Most people today don’t realize that ancient religions were almost never interested in “true beliefs.” Pagan religions – by which I mean the polytheistic religions of the vast majority of people in the ancient world, who were neither Jewish nor Christian – did not have
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
This view – the dominant view of antiquity — stands completely at odds with how most of us think about religion today, of course. In our view, if the Free-will Baptists are right, the Roman Catholics are wrong; if the Jews are right the Buddhists are wrong; if the Muslims are right, the Christians are wrong; and so on. But not in the ancient world. The worship of Zeus was no more “right” than the worship of Athena, or of Apollo, or of your city gods, or of your family gods.
Another key difference between religions today and in antiquity is that these ancient polytheistic religions were not overly concerned about the afterlife. They were concerned about the present life, how to survive in a hard and capricious world, and how to live well: how to make sure the rain came and the crops grew; how to survive illness or combat; how to get enough to eat and drink; how to lead productive and fruitful lives; how to make the boy or girl next door fall madly in love with you.
Among the many things that made Christianity different from the other religions of the Roman Empire, with the partial exception of Judaism, is that Christians insisted that it did matter what you believed, that believing the correct things could make you “right” and that believing the incorrect things made you “wrong,” and that if you were wrong, you would be punished eternally in the fires of hell. Christianity, unlike the other religions, was exclusivistic. It insisted that it held the Truth, and that every other religion was in Error. Moreover, this truth involved claims about God (there is only one, for example, and he created the world), about Christ (he was both divine and human), about salvation (it comes only by faith in Christ), about eternal life (everyone will be blessed or tormented for eternity), and so on.[1]
And so, the Christian religion came to be firmly rooted in truth claims, which were eventually embedded in highly ritualized formulations, such as the Nicene Creed. As a result, Christians from the very beginning needed to appeal to authorities for what they believed. Do you believe that this view is true instead of that one? What is your authority for saying so? The ultimate authority was God, of course. But the majority of Christians came to think that God did not speak the truth about what to believe directly to individuals. If he did, there would be enormous problems, as one person could claim divine authority for what he taught and someone else could claim divine authority for the completely opposite teaching. Thus most Christians did not stress personal revelation to living individuals. Instead they insisted that God had revealed his truth in earlier times through Christ to his apostles. The apostles at the beginning of the church were authorities that could be trusted. But when the apostles died out, where was one to go for an authority?
One could claim – and many in fact did – that the leaders of the churches who were appointed by the apostles could pass along their teachings, so that the leader of your church is an authority equal with God himself. God sent Jesus, who chose his apostles, who instructed their successors, who pass along the sacred teachings to you, the humble Christian.[2] Several problems with this view arose, however. For one thing, as churches multiplied, each of them could no longer claim to have as its leader someone who had known an apostle or even someone who knew someone who once knew an apostle. An even bigger problem was the fact that different leaders of churches, not to mention different Christians in their congregation could claim they taught the apostolic truths. But these “truths” stood at odds with what other leaders and teachers said were the teachings of the apostles.
How was one to get around these problems? The obvious answer presented itself early on in the Christian movement. One could know what the apostles taught because they left writings behind. These authoritative authors produced authoritative teachings. And so, the authoritative truth could be found in the apostolic writings.[3]
[1] I am outlining here just the “orthodox” views that ended up winning the early Christian battles over what to believe. There were lots of Christians who held other views, as we will see later in the book. For further reflections, see my book Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
[2] Thus for example the late second century church father Ireneaus, Against Heresies, 3, 2-4; 4, 26; see also Tertullian, Prescription against Heresies.
[3] This is why there is such a close connection in Christian antiquity between the content of a writing and its claim to authorship, as we will see. It was widely thought that if a writing promoted “false teachings” then it certainly could not have been produced by an established authority. In other words, the decision about who authored a work (an apostle?) was often made on the basis of whether the teachings in the work were acceptable. See the discussion of the Gospel of Peter on pp. xxx.
For traditional Christians who consider the Bible authoritative but who are not (necessarily) biblical literalists, what parts of OT theology and ethics are contradicted by the NT and not authoritative (ie, what parts of the OT can be ignored)? I assume this includes but is not necessarily limited to things related to Christ’s messiahship, the parts of the Law concerning things like circumcision and kosher food restrictions, and, following Paul, the importance of faith for salvation. But are there more?
Is there a rough consensus about this among the majority of traditional but non-literalist Christians? Is a short summary possible or are there books or authors you could recommend?
My sense is that most non-literalist Christians think that a number of the laws in the Torah were designed for people living in a differnet time and place with different circumstances, situations, and perspectives, and that moral laws are always specific to context. They would usually say that Paul shows that keeping the ritual requirements of the law are no longer necessary since Christ has provided salvation to all people, Jew and gentile, and that a numbrer of the social/cultural/personal laws are no longer applicable in the modern world (such as not being allow to harvest crops one year out of seven; not wearing garments made out of two kinds of fabric; taking your daughter back if the man you sold her to as a sex slave wasn’t satisfied with her. That kind of thing)
What about the nature of God, eg, commands concerning violence, often extreme, toward other peoples, eg, in the conquest of the Promised Land? Or how angry and punishing God can be, eg, the drowning of nearly everyone on earth? Do these form a part of the traditional Christian’s understanding of God.
I don’t want to argue that there aren’t multiple and not always consistent understandings of God—both “positive” and “negative”—in both the OT and the NT. Or that Jesus himself wasn’t a good Jew.
But it does seem that, overall, the NT leans toward a more consistently positive view of God. Are traditional but non-literalist Christians able to rule out the more extreme negative understandings of God in the OT—at least those that are not also firmly established in the NT? (I keep imagining what Amy Jill-Levine might respond.)
Would it be mostly wishful thinking for Christians to suppose that God gradually revealed his nature and will in the course of history and that in earlier times people misunderstood quite a few things.
It probalby seems like wishful thinking to peopel who don’t hold the view. And if it’s true that God’s nature is gradually revealed to show his softer side, then what does one make of the last book of the Bible? Revelation is FAR more violent than anything found in the Old Testament, and the violence is all initiated by God and Christ.
It probalby seems like wishful thinking to peopel who don’t hold the view. And if it’s true that God’s nature is gradually revealed to show his softer side, then what does one make of the last book of the Bible? Revelation is FAR more violent than anything found in the Old Testament, and the violence is all initiated by God and Christ.
Good reminder about Revelation.
” There are many gods, and many ways to worship the gods, not a single path to the divine.”
I am sure its a long explanation but what made Judaism say there was only one group of people chosen by one god that were right? I am guessing Christianity followed on the coattails of Judaism to claim one way and one god only.
I guess there are two questions. Why did Jews come to believe there was only one ultimate god? (Possilby for a similar reason that others did as well, Pharaoah Aknenaten, later Romans who were henotheistic, etc; there are theories about how it happens. One is that a person or group starts glorifying one God in particular as *the* most powerful, wise, loving, kind, etc — and decide Hey, why not just worship this one then?). And why did they believe they were specially chosen (Probably for the same reason others thought they were chosen by their gods of choice: e.g., the Romans and, well, lots of Americans)
What do you think Christianity would like if it focused primarily on practice and only minimally on belief and truth?
Christian ethics would be a major and obvious option for practice as opposed to belief.
I assume Christianity would become more tolerant and eclectic and assimilative of other religions. It wouldn’t be proclaimed as the one true faith and that Christ was the only way to salvation. Christians might say that Christianity worked for them without saying other religions were false, perhaps using the (Hindu?) idea that there are many paths to the same mountaintop or that we are all blindfolded and can only feel part of the elephant with our hands but not the whole animal
What interests me the most though are things like prayer, meditation, ritual, stories, myth, sacred art and music, holy days, saints, holy objects. I’m sure these all have multiple functions but they seem to “work” for many people. They can provide comfort, consolation, hope, strength, etc. They are often “self-validating” in these ways—but with no more than a nebulous connection to questions of objective truth.
Do you have any thoughts about whether this could be a fruitful direction for Christianity to go?
I’d say it has happened in lots of times and places. Even today, most notably, evangelical Christianity has become far less about doctine and far more about behavior, social policy, and cultural identity. Great book on this: “Jesus and John Wayne” — check it out.
seeker1952, I think that is a great question. I wondered that often,and not just Christians, but all people(world) if we practiced one common dialogue to follow? What would be the results? I think that was the message of Jesus. Sure,there are many practices today that help with some sort of healing and solace and work to a degree. But, they are isolated from the world. Their meditations take place in serene places(retreats),where worldly desires are abolished, and you need to stay in that environment to be effective/progress. Another words, to find harmony within, leave the world behind, because we(people) have a natural disposition to be, well, mean, for lack of a better word. Mark 7:20-23 ESV
And He said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person. Matt.5;8″ Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”. Belief is not important to me, but faith is the importance of hope needed. “History never repeats itself,man always does’,Voltaire.
I am reminded of one of Chrysostom’s (c. 390) attacks on the Jews, which sums up this view perfectly: “if theirs [i.e., the Jews’ ways] are hallowed and mighty, ours are false.”
I wonder whether the importance of “right belief” or “correct doctrine” in early Christianity sprang from an ealier pharisaic / essene emphasis on “truth” that one can perhaps discern in the dead sea scrolls eg “the spouter of lies” and in pharaisaic eschatology eg the final resurrection. The most widely accepted etymology of pharisee is “separated one”, but a contested altrnative etymology is Pharsee -“Persian”. The the term “father of lies” for Satan may derive from the Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu’s principal epithet Druj, “the Lie”, along with, many other pharisaic / essene / Christian ideas: the Christian concept of Satan himself, the dualism in 1 Enoch, the final showdown between the heavenly powers of good and evil, the 7 spirits of God, the sayoshant (saviour of the world); the saviour being born to a virgin (cf other recent posts on this), the concept of the soul staying in the earth for 3 days and 3 nights before rising to God (NB the sign of Jonah and the resurrection accounts), the Judgement of the soul and the teaching of Jesus that right thoughts are imporant as right actions and right words (the 3 core principles of Zoroastrianism).
Bart:
Does this report coincide with your perspective on these Old Testament events? Thanks, Ray
https://bigthink.com/the-past/earth-magnetic-field-biblical-stories-ancient-cities-destruction/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklynewsletter
You’ll need to summarize their views for me and then ask me again!
“Most people today don’t realize that ancient religions were almost never interested in “true beliefs.””
This assertion needs to be qualified by “most people in the Western world”. People familiar with contemporary Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, would realise holding true beliefs does not play a major role in the personal and communal life of those religious communities. Like ancient pagan religions, contemporary Eastern religions are more about practices and way of life. Religious beliefs do play a role implicitly – religious worshippers perform certain rituals because they believe their actions have some effect, either psychologically on oneself or on the deities they venerate.
Right, when I say “most people” I always always don’t mean “most people in the world” let alone “most peole who have ever lived”! I usually mean most of the people that we all know here in America or in the west. But you’re right, jsut about the ONLY people who believe in the importance of true beliefs are either Christian or Muslim. On the other hand, those two religions together do make up about half the world’s population!
“… if you were wrong, you would be punished eternally in the fires of hell.”
When did hellfire become a Christian teaching? Is it correct that Paul never teaches eternal burning it hell? I think Paul contrasts the choices of eternal life and death/destruction? And is it only in Matthew that Jesus refers to the Valley of Hinnom, but only metaphorically, like when someone warns about going to burnout in the bad side of town?
That’s the topic of my book Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife! I suggest it. 🙂 (Jesus and Paul did not believe in hell-fire or eternal torment; I show in my book that this view developed starting in the second Chrsitian century)
The truth of some idea or proposition is “objective” if it’s so compelling that all humans with normal intelligence should agree that it’s true. If that is the case, then no set of religious beliefs is “objective” since there’s no universal agreement on the truth of any religion. All religious belief is subjective fantasy.
I’m not quite sure that “consensus” means “objective” THere have been millions of things that at one time or another everyone agreed with that were not objectively true. (E.g., a geocentric universe)
As I understand it, some Christian apologetics assert that the existence of objective moral values can be ascertained independently of the apostolic writings, which in turn provides an argument for the truth of the apostolic writings. I believe that Dr. Craig took that position in one of your debates. I’ve never fully understood the reasoning (Sonny Franzese’s and Jimmy Carter’s understanding of moral values were certainly not the same.) Do you think these apologetics take the argument seriously, or is it only polemics?
I think the view is completely bogus, made up for the occasion. The only universally shared moral values are not objectively true but are evolutionarily determined. And there ain’t that many of them.
Thanks for this post Bart. I guess the current religion that comes closest to the polytheism of ancient religions is Hinduism.
Bart, may I ask an off topic question – do you have any opinion on the work / ideas of Jiddu Krishnamurti ? I find his ideas very compelling.
Thank you.
I’m afraid I don’t know his work.
Thank you Bart.
Do these findings coincide with your perspective on the OT Bart?
Archaeologists have long worked to figure out what happened to the ancient city of Gath, the city of Goliath. Recently, a team of scientists led by Yoav Vaknin of Tel Aviv University tried a new method to date archaeological digs like Gath: They used the Earth’s magnetic field. The history of changes in the magnetic field is recorded in rock. They tell the stories of how entire cities were destroyed, and Gath was one of these. The biblical account of still another ancient city, Tel Beth-Shemesh, suggests destruction at the hands of Jehoash, the King of Israel, and the team’s geomagnetic dating showed a timeline consistent with this interpretation. Piece by piece, the destruction of other sites has come into focus — some were leveled by the Babylonians, others by the Assyrians. Their method has allowed the team to trace the contours of the region’s chronology, suggesting the timeline of the falls of various parts of Judah and Jerusalem.
I”ve heard about this but haven’t looked into it. Sounds amazing.
Amen! Bart, I say this with both respect and love, *this* should be the topic of your next work. “How Christianity invented Thought-Crime,” not “How Christianity invented Charity,” which is an obvious absurdity.
OK, thanks. What makes it an obvious absurdity? I don’t know of the idea of giving one’s resources to anonymous people in need as a moral obligatoin in the Greek or Romans worlds *before* Christianity. What do you have in mind?