(2 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...Warning. This is a long post. I am editing the first chapter of my Bible Introduction. At its end, I give an excursus that explains that we will be approaching the Bible from a literary and historical perspective, not a confessional perspective. It’s a very tricky and touchy topic, as this is meant for 19 and 20 year olds, most of whom know the Bible, if they do at all, only from church and Sunday school – believing perspectives. I give this kind of excursus in my New Testament textbook, and most teachers like it. But I’ve altered it for this book, to stress that the emphasis is both literary and historical. I would like some feedback: do you think this works, is sensitive to students, yet is clear about what the book will be doing and why? Let me know, if you feel so inclined.
Excursus
Most of the people who are deeply interested in the Bible in modern American culture are committed Jews or Christians who have been taught that this is a book of sacred texts unlike other books. For many of these people – especially many Christian believers – the Bible is the inspired word of God. In communities of faith that hold such views, the Biblical books are usually studied not from a literary perspective that takes seriously their discrepancies and inconsistencies, and even less from a historical perspective that asks whether they may contain historical difficulties and mistakes. You yourself may find these literary and historical approaches to stand at odds with what you have been taught to believe. If so, then it is for you in particular that I want to provide these brief additional reflections in this excursus.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, WILL YA???
Our Literary Approach
There are a great number of ways that one can approach any text – including the texts of the Bible – as literary works. In our approach we will be taking the Biblical writings seriously as pieces of ancient literature. We will look for such matters as the structure of the texts and their overarching literary themes, trying to determine how each writing can be understood through a careful reading that takes into account the flow of the narrative, the recurrence of important motifs, and the possibility that earlier sources have been used by an author in producing his account. In particular we will be keen to situate the various parts of the Bible in relationship to their appropriate literary genre, on the assumption that without knowing how a particular genre “works,” it is impossible to know how a particular writing in that genre can be interpreted. We will need to learn, for example, about Hebrew poetry, and proverbs, legends, myths, Gospels, and apocalypses.
Such literary approaches may strike readers as novel – as when we discuss some of the narratives of Genesis as “legends,” or try to interpret the book of Revelation as a clear instance of an ancient “apocalypse.” But we will see that such approaches can significantly illuminate the writings in question.
On a literary level we will also be stressing that each book (or part of a book) needs to be read for what it, itself, is saying. One of the key things we will notice is that there are many, many differences among the different parts of the Bible – and indeed, sometimes there are key differences even within a single book of the Bible. In some instances these differences represent tensions, discrepancies, and even contradictions. The reason to point out the contradictions between one author and another, or one book and another, or even one passage and another is not simply so the student can come away from the course saying, “See! The Bible is full of contradictions!” Quite the contrary, the discrepancies and contradictions in such a big book as the Bible alert us to the fact that the Bible is not a single book, but is lots and lots of books, written by many different authors, at different times, in different places, for different purposes, to different audiences, in different contexts, even in different languages.
This kind of literary approach stresses that each writing needs to be read on its own terms, to be allowed to say what it has to say, without assuming that what one author, one book, or one part of book is saying is exactly (or even approximately) the same as what some other is saying. As we will see, rather than hindering our study of these various writings that eventually became the Bible, these literary conclusions open up the possibility of new and exciting interpretations that would otherwise be impossible, if we were to assume that every author, and every book, of the Bible was basically saying the same thing.
Our Historical Approach
In addition to a literary approach to the Bible we will be taking a historical approach. On one hand, we will want to establish the historical context of the writings of the Bible, to the best of our ability, determining when each writing was produced, and within what context. These historical judgments will affect how we read and understand these texts, since if we take a text out if its own historical context, we change its meaning (just as someone does when they takeyour words out of context). Without knowing that the book of Jeremiah was written in the sixth century BCE during a time of national crisis, or that the Gospel of John was probably written in the last decade of the first century CE, some sixty years after the events it narrates, we simply cannot understand them as the historical documents they are.
Our historical approach to the Bible will also involve asking how we can use literary works of the Bible to determine what really happened in the past – for example, in the history of ancient Israel, or in the life of Jesus, or in the experiences of the early church. This kind of historical question is made necessary, in part at least, by the literary fact I have just mentioned, that we have so many accounts that to appear to have discrepancies among themselves. To determine which, if any, of the biblical sources is historically accurate in what it says, we will look to see if there are other, external sources that can verify or call into question the accounts of the Bible – for example, as they describe the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt or the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus. And we will certainly want to consider what the findings of archaeology can tell us.
This kind of historical approach to the Bible is very different from a confessional approach that accepts everything the Bible says at face value and maintains that all of the historical events that it narrates actually happened in the way they are described. To expand a bit on the important difference between a historical and a confessional approach, I need to talk about what historians do and how they use sources – such as the books of the Bible – in their work.
Historians deal with past events that are matters of the public record. The public record consists of human actions and world events – things that anyone can see or experience. Historians try to reconstruct what probably happened in the past on the basis of data that can be examined and evaluated by every interested observer of every persuasion. Access to these data does not depend on presuppositions or beliefs about God. This means that historians, as historians, have no privileged access to what happens in the supernatural realm; they have access only to what happens in this, our natural world. The historian’s conclusions should, in theory, be accessible and acceptable to everyone, whether the person is a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, an atheist, a pagan, or anything else. Unlike a confessional approach that simply accepts the biblical accounts as describing what God did among the Israelites or in the lives of the early Christians, the historical approach asks what we can establish as probably happening without appealing to particular beliefs in God.
I can illustrate the point by considering some specific instances, first from outside the Bible. Historians can tell you the similarities and differences between the worldview of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., but they cannot use their historical knowledge to tell you that Gandhi’s belief in God was wrong or that Martin Luther King’s was right. This judgment is not part of the public record and depends on theological assumptions and personal beliefs that are not shared by everyone conducting the investigation. Historians can describe to you what happened during the conflicts between Catholics and Lutherans in sixteenth-century Germany, but they cannot use their historical knowledge to tell you which side God was on. Likewise – moving to stories within the Bible—historians can tell you what may well have happened when Israel entered into the Promised Land, but they cannot tell you that God empowered them to destroy their enemies. So too, historians can explain what probably happened at Jesus’ crucifixion, but they cannot use their historical knowledge to tell you that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
Does that mean historians cannot be believers? No, it means that if historians tell you that Martin Luther King Jr. had a better theology than Gandhi, or that God was on the side of the Protestants instead of the Catholics, or that God destroyed the walls of Jericho, or that Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, they are telling you this not in their capacity as historians but in their capacity as believers. Believers are interested in knowing about God, about how to behave, about what to believe, about the ultimate meaning of life. The historical disciplines cannot supply them with this kind of information. Historians who work within the constraints of this discipline are limited to describing, to the best of their abilities, what probably happened in the past.
Many such historians, including a large number of those mentioned in the bibliographies scattered throughout this book, find historical research to be completely compatible with – even crucial for – traditional theological belief; others find it to be incompatible. This is an issue that you yourself may want to deal with, as you grapple intelligently with how the historical approach to the Bible affects your faith commitments positively, negatively, or not at all. I should be clear at the outset, though, that as the author of this book, I will neither tell you how to resolve this issue nor urge you to adopt any particular set of religious convictions. My approach instead will be literary and historical, trying to understanding the Bible as a set of literary texts that can be studied like all great literature, and from the perspective of history, which uses whatever evidence happens to survive in order to reconstruct what probably happened in the past.
That is to say, I am not going to convince you either to believe or to disbelieve the faith claims of the Bible; I will describe what these claims are and how they came into existence. I am not going to persuade you that Isaiah really did or did not have a vision of God, or that Jesus really was or was not the Son of God. I will try to establish what they both said based on the historical data that are available. I am not going to discuss whether the Bible is or is not the inspired word of God. I will show how we got this collection of books and indicate what these books say and reflect on how scholars have interpreted them. This kind of information may well be of some use for the reader who happens to be a believer; but it will certainly be useful to one – believer or not –who is interested in literature and history, especially the literature and history of ancient Israel and of early Christianity.
I would expand on what you mean by words like “legends” and “myth,” or avoid reference to the genres here without explanation of what they mean. This is because many if not most non-scholars tend to understand “legend” and “myth” pejoratively and do not know that scholars have non-pejorative meanings in mind when they use these words. So using those words without explanation may be off-putting to readers who do not know what scholars mean when they talk about these genres, and may lead them to conclude that the literary approach somehow “looks down on” the texts it studies.
Other than that, the excursus is quite good.
I think it’s a great introduction! Just one things occurs to me right now: If I was a 19 or 20 and just read encountering all this for the first time, I would probably very much like to know where you stand on the issues! I mean, are you a believer, atheist, agnostic, etc (suppose people reading it don’t know your life story, and, of course, majority will not)? I understand you strongly imply you don’t want this stated explicitly as you said:
“I should be clear at the outset, though, that as the author of this book, I will neither tell you how to resolve this issue nor urge you to adopt any particular set of religious convictions,”
but I would be, as a very young student (now I’m only a young student), very eager to know where you stand. Not stating this would hopefully spark my curiosity to explore what you have to say, but I think students will ask this nevertheless (well, ok, if they’re smart, they can easily google this up). I can recall, for instance, A.-J. Levine admitting her Jewish perspective or John Meier in the Marginal Jew saying he’s “working out of a Catholic context”. I guess the students might be interested in where you’re coming from. I personally very much like the way you wrote it in the above-mentioned section. Just my two cents.
This is very fine writing, Bart, and an appropriate start for students. It’s the sort of soft beginning you want — I think.
I have read a few of your books now so I am familiar with a lot of what you are saying above. I think it all sounds really well though, especially if this is the first thing a reader would come across. This is coming from someone that does not know the first thing about writing a book now. Then again the historical approach of interpreting the text has radically changed my life. The approach is very interesting and exciting, and in my opinion the only way to interpret the text. In fact my theology is based on what it tells me. I will never be able to look at the text any other way now. Long story short, no matter what the excursus is, I believe they are in for a pleasant surprise. Most people that I come across, they want no part of it. I guess they find out their faith is not as strong as they thought it was.
Sounds good to me.
This is exactly what the world needs….truth…not dogma. It is wonderful that you are dedicating yourself and your talents and knowledge to this task.
From my read through, your excursus is both well written (as are your books) and gentle. It seems to consciously take into account potential sensitivities arising from the church background that many of the incoming students will likely have.
Although not that important, I wonder if it might be helpful to add an additional sentence along the lines that historical context may sometimes introduce tension because context is often overlooked in the confessional approach (i.e. students can/should anticipate some clashes between the historical and confessional approach over context). I know that is what you say in the paragraph where you contrast these approaches, however I’m wondering if it might be helpful to stress this more than once (reinforcement) based on the religious background that many of the students will be coming from. As this course is not in my area of expertise and if this suggestion sounds dumb, please disregard it.
Also if it was me, I would subliminally introduce the suggestion that “tithing to the instructor” is a helpful ritual for getting better blessings (marks), but hey that’s just me (and it might break a few University conduct codes).
I like the overall tone of the introduction, and the positive spin “possibility of new and exciting interpretations”. Perhaps you can mention examples of such exciting interpretations in the introduction and throughout the textbook, so that the students can feel finding tensions between biblical texts can be illuminating and exciting rather than depressing and threatening. It is best to minimise using the word “contradiction”. The readers can draw their own conclusion whether these amount to outright contradictions, when you lay out the conflicting accounts.
Will the entire textbook cover only conclusions reached via the historical method? It might be interesting to add textboxes that covers the more traditional readings of the popular stories – just to illustrate the confessional approach, without endorsing them. It would also be interesting to cover a little about the influential and popular readings of certain biblical stories through the course of Church history (e.g. how the snake in the garden was identified in church history as Satan).
Will you only cover the historical-critical interpretations, or also cover to some extent what NT authors thought the OT meant (e.g. canonical criticism)? For example, comparing what Isaiah intended to convey in Isaiah 53 with what NT authors thought it conveyed is informative.
“The historian’s conclusions should, in theory, be accessible and acceptable to everyone, whether the person is a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, an atheist, a pagan, or anything else…the historical approach asks what we can establish as probably happening without appealing to particular beliefs in God.”
I suppose some of the historian’s conclusions on the Bible would never be acceptable to certain types of people.
Would it be more accurate to say the principles and methods the historian employs to reach historical conclusions should be accessible and acceptable to everyone, rather than the conclusions per se? Does the historian work on the basis of methodological agnosticism or methodological naturalism when evaluating accounts in the Bible involving supernatural agency? If former, then the conclusions would lean towards minimalism – in order to avoid anything that is unacceptable to the religious worldview of all the religious groups mentioned. If latter, then there is a conscious effort to reconstruct what happened by excluding supernatural agency e.g. when the Bible describes the walls of Jericho collapsed, or the sun stood still, it is necessary to reconstruct what might have happened by deliberately sidelining the supernatural causes identified by the biblical author and find a naturalistic cause (assuming that the historian treats such accounts as carrying a historical core, rather than being mythology).
Thanks. Good suggestions all. the BIG problem is that I’m severely limited in what I can to, because the textbook is necessarily long and complex, even not doing too much!!
Excellent divagation that, to me, works very well, respects the sensitivities of the reader (students or not), and is clear about what the book will be doing and why?
May I suggest one minor change? You wrote: “My approach instead will be literary and historical, trying to understanding the Bible as a set of literary texts ….”. You might want to change “understanding” to UNDERSTAND (lowercase).
Regards!
Typppo. Thanks!
It seems fair and balanced to me. However, pointing out the discrepancies and contradictions between different books of the Bible and authors would seem to suggest that the Bible is not the “inspired word of God” as you have pointed out in several of your books. So while you may not explicitly “discuss whether the Bible is or is not the inspired word of God,” it does seem like the evidence you provide may imply a position on this issue. That being said, I still think what you have written is clear about what the book will be doing and why.
In this sentence, I would change it to this:
In some instances, these differences represent tensions, discrepancies, and even contradictions. The reason to point out the contradictions between one author and another, or one book and another, or even one passage and another in such a big book as the Bible is to alert us to the fact that the Bible is not a single book, but it is lots and lots of books, written by many different authors at different times, in different places, for different purposes, to different audiences, in different contexts, even in different languages.
I presume the book has not been edited yet? (Speaking of commas.)
No,pe!
Prof. Ehrman, I think it works. It is sensitive and very clear what the aim of your book is. It is definitely not polemical. I do wonder how a Christian student who have been ‘indoctrinated’ with the idea that critical scholarship is a ‘slippery slope’ – accepting one critical issue leads to moving away bit by bit from faith – react to it? I can only speak from a personal point of view on this, to engage the Bible critically illuminated it and felt more honest. While it might change certain of your perspectives, critical scholarship can also lead to ‘growth’ in faith as you are more in dialogue with your traditional ‘faith’ background than before. I would think of critical scholarship as a sort of ‘incentive’ or ‘reward.’ It also helps you to deal and realise your own presuppositions and helps you to be more open and honest about it.
That’s great, Bart. I particularly like how in four words, “especially many Christian believers”, you point out that Jewish views on the authority of the Bible might be just a little different.
Very clear. It’s not too lengthy. You needed to say all of this, and I believe it is important you did. You prepared them for what is to come. You are introducing them to a clearer and more focused picture of the world behind the text (historical), and the world of the text (literary).
I have no suggestions.
I can identify with a lot of students who read your book and take the class. I was appalled, angry, frightened, and incredulous when I had my first “Old Testament” class at Chowan College. Taught as history, it was a significant difference between what I had been taught and the historical perspective. I survived. I think the introduction does a good job of stressing the historical information.
Also, I heard a professor say, “Put what I believe on the test and you can believe anything you want when you walk out of the room!”
This is a balanced (and necessary!) explanation. It’s sensitive and respectful to readers who are conservative Christians, yet fully committed to a literary and historical approach. I think most will appreciate the approach of the book…since the approach of Sunday school is boring for many (esp. when you’re in your early 20s!).
Though in this excursus you are primary addressing those in communities of faith, I think it will be equally valuable for those on the other side of the spectrum (young people who are put off by religion, or who are angry toward it, or who think the entire Bible is not worth taking seriously or who think the Bible teaches the same thing as the other major religious books…we can’t forget there are LOTS of those people to these days).
Barna Group describes in their article “New Research Explores How Different Generations View and Use the Bible” how young people in America view the Bible, as well as their attitude toward it.
-Less Sacred – While most Americans of all ages identify the Bible as sacred, the drop-off among the youngest adults is striking: 9 out of 10 Boomers and Elders described the Bible as sacred, which compares to 8 out of 10 Busters (81%) and just 2 out of 3 Mosaics (67%).
-Less Accurate – Young adults are significantly less likely than older adults to strongly agree that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches. Just 30% of Mosaics and 39% of Busters firmly embraced this view, compared with 46% of Boomers and 58% of Elders.
-More Universalism – Among Mosaics, a majority (56%) believes the Bible teaches the same spiritual truths as other sacred texts, which compares with 4 out of 10 Busters and Boomers, and one-third of Elders.
-Skepticism of Origins – Another generational difference is that young adults are more likely to express skepticism about the original manuscripts of the Bible than is true of older adults.
-Less Engagement – While many young adults are active users of the Bible, the pattern shows a clear generational drop-off – the younger the person, the less likely then are to read the Bible. In particular, Busters and Mosaics are less likely than average to have spent time alone in the last week praying and reading the Bible for at least 15 minutes. Interestingly, none of the four generations were particularly likely to say they aspired to read the Bible more as a means of improving their spiritual lives.
-Bible Appetite – Despite the generational decline in many Bible metrics, one departure from the typical pattern is the fact that younger adults, especially Mosaics (19%), express a slightly above-average interest in gaining additional Bible knowledge. This compares with 12% of Boomers and 9% of Elders.
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/317-new-research-explores-how-different-generations-view-and-use-the-bible
Interesting!
Interesting, yes; but highly suspect. The Barna group is a for-profit outfit (not that I’m opposed to making money, mind you) doing business for the American Bible Society. Other than their built-in biases and questionable findings I agree with Adam’s opening paragraph. The intro is well balanced and sensitive. Just don’t get too sensitive, if you know what I mean. Also, I don’t know how anyone, especially a historian, can approach the Bible without considering the historical consequences brought about true believers over the centuries. Christian missionaries and other proselytizing fanatics have used their sacred book, both to obstruct human progress and to promote religious and racial and gender intolerance. Will any of these facts be included in your textbook? I hope so. Perhaps in the conclusion?
Dear Dr Ehrman
I think it is shows respect for people of faith. It would be interesting to have this book in Swedish. Perhaps you could contact a swedish publisher.
/Jonas
What are your thoughts on the early fragment of Romans found? Is it real?
CNN report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs6PmAvzQj0
Looks like it is indeed an old papyrus, and the person he quotes is indeed reliable; but other experts will need to examine it. How this little scrap shows that “the Bible can be trusted” is absolutely beyond me!!
Thanks for sharing this and for asking for our comments.
I agree that it is “very tricky.”
Line 5 of the second paragraph under the history section should omit “to” before “appear.”
I am curious about the use of the word “confessional.” I don’t think I have seen you use this term in your other writings where you sometimes use the word “devotional” reading.
I really do think that what one concludes about what is or is not historical really, really affects one’s beliefs and/or theology. The history is not so easily and cleanly separated from the theology. For example, whether or not one thinks that the Resurrection of Jesus was a historical event makes a huge difference.
I really like the idea that the Bible is not one book, but a group of books written by different authors who sometimes say different things and even contradict each other.
I also really like the idea that taking a scripture out of its historical context can markedly change that scripture. I might suggest using some example where a scripture is taken out of context today changing the ancient meaning. Maybe Paul was saying something about the role of women in a specific congregation that was not really meant to apply to all of us forever.
Good work. You have a gift for explaining this stuff so we can understand it and for discussing stuff that other people won’t touch with a ten-foot pole.
Prof Ehrman
if I were you I would urge them to read the bible, pretty much like you do in your openers, (the da vinci book analogy)
truth is truth and not because they are only 19 or 20 then we should dilute it.
remember these will be teaching the same thing in the future.
You cover the necessary issues with great clarity and accuracy, and in away that is minimally frightening to believers. I believe that it will help them keep an open mind during the class.
I think this works although it seems maybe a little wordy. It made me reflect on the problem I face as a high school World History teacher who assigns texts from different religious traditions to my honors seminar sophomores. I grapple with how to introduce assignments and discussions, how to open minds without putting kids on the defensive. We’re a socioeconomically mixed, Northwest town, infamously counter cultural/liberal but with a percentage of conservative Christians. At least with the more advanced kids, it seems to go over okay if I just say we’re approaching all of the selections as historians looking for insights into these people and cultures, religion being a key element. Usually about the time we start discussing Genesis with the same degree of detachment as we discussed the gods’ actions in Gilgamesh, one of the more conservative kids will ask me about whether or not I, personally, have a religion. I’ve found it usually works if I duck the question and say that my goal is to approach all of the religious material on an even-handed basis, that I want to treat all religions as equally valid expressions of human needs within the context of their societies, whether or not the religion still has adherents or not. I wonder how well this would work if I lived somewhere else . . .
I think it is fine as is.