Since reading some of Bart Ehrman’s works, I find myself reading any of the Christian Bible critically, asking myself what were the intentions of the writers – what did they hope to accomplish?
Are there any parts of the Bible that we can accept as simply a historical account of an extraordinary fully human (as divine as any of us) person of strong convictions, who had a particular message of love that he wanted to convey to improve people’s lives? Is any of it reliably reflective of what the historical Jesus said and did?
The Christian Bible has endured for so long, even though its messages have certainly been often used as a tool to advance hatred instead of love.
Is any of it useful at all?
the best (imo) for a non-scholar is probably Ehrman’s Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium if you haven’t already read it
But of course there are many others which would investigate much deeper and complicated topics; I am now reading John Meier’s work A Marginal Jew but boy are there tons of differing views and I guess books
Robert said
Think of the texts of the New Testament that lend themselves to anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic interpretations, for example, 1 Thes 2,14-16 Mt 27,25 Jn 8,44, etc …
There are, of course, better ways to interpret these texts, but are you really unaware of the anti-Semitic uses of these and other biblical texts throughout history?
The evil of anti-Semitism wasn’t fueled by a few random verses, but I see your point. I’m not aware of any verses that are routinely quoted by anti-Semites to justify their hatred.
Any others?
Yes “anti-Semitism” is a Christian invention. (Which is why it is ludicrous that some blame the Holocaust on atheism. Nazi race “theory” was a rancid bloom on a vine that stretched back two thousand years.)
If by “Any others?” you mean something besides anti-Semitism, how about centuries of justifications of misogyny and slavery based on the Pauline material?
What about Christian exclusivism? (Just the other day it was reported that an American megachurch pastor warned his congregation against the practice of Yoga because it is derived from Hinduism and Hinduism is “demonic”. )
What about general opposition to developments in science and medicine and technology that happened to contradict some church doctrine?
Last and far from least, what about telling people stuff that just isn’t true?
Robert said
On the contrary, you are now aware of three NT passages that have indeed been routinely used against the Jewish people, but if you’re only interested in additional individual verses (eg, the synagogue of Satan Rev 2,9 3,9), you’ll miss the larger story of how anti-Semitism was fueled by Christian interpretations of scripture and bad theology. I’m sure there are many good books you can find that cover this, but if you want to go back to original sources, you could start with Justin Martyr’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
You didn’t cite passages, but scattered verses. I realize anti-Semitism has existed for some while, but the scriptural basis for it isn’t there. All the early Christians were Jews, and the evolution of the theology placed the newcomers at odds with the establishment. The anti-Semitism that has persisted through centuries is a result of human failings, not of the New Testament.
The verses you cite in Revelation refer to people who aren’t Jews. That you would stoop to citing anything from Revelation in furtherance of your assertion is somewhat of a revelation in itself. But I appreciate the thought and effort, and I did google them.
Stephen said
anti-Semitism, misogyny, slavery, exclusivism, anti-science, anti-medicine, anti-technology, and stuff that just isn’t true
That’s just a bunch of liberal clap-trap. Some of those things you can’t even find in the New Testament.
One of the most surprising things about the New Testament is how much of it is true and how much of it remains relevant — after 2000 years — do unto others — turn the other cheek — blessed are the nice folks.
Robert said
Matt2239 said
You didn’t cite passages, but scattered verses. I realize anti-Semitism has existed for some while, but the scriptural basis for it isn’t there. All the early Christians were Jews, and the evolution of the theology placed the newcomers at odds with the establishment. The anti-Semitism that has persisted through centuries is a result of human failings, not of the New Testament.
The verses you cite in Revelation refer to people who aren’t Jews. That you would stoop to citing anything from Revelation in furtherance of your assertion is somewhat of a revelation in itself. But I appreciate the thought and effort, and I did google them.
You said you were “not aware of any verses that are routinely quoted by anti-Semites,” I gave you several. Now you complain that I gave you verses but not ‘passages’. Are you not able to read verses in context?
You asked for parts of the Bible that “have been used to advance hatred” and verses “routinely quoted by anti-Semites to justify their hatred.” Now you seem to want to defend the New Testament only against misinterpretation. I already said there were better interpretations than the anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic use of these and other scriptures by Christians and others for many centuries.
Many Christians are able to have an intellectually honest discussion about the reality, various causes, and horrible consequences of Christian anti-Semitism. Those who cannot give Christians a bad name. Try to be the former rather than the latter.
Honestly, there isn’t much there. It’s not so much a matter of interpretation as it is a matter of just plain words. Relative to the amount of conflict that would have existed been between early Christians and their contemporaries in Judaism, there’s almost nothing. Anti-Semitism is a creation of humans in the centuries after the New Testament was settled, and it’s certainly not a theme or message in any part of the New Testament.
As for giving Christians a bad name, that is the least of my worries.
Stephen said
As for giving Christians a bad name, that is the least of my worries.Yeah I guess it would be way too late to worry about that now wouldn’t it?
Stephen I haven’t stated a religious affiliation here, or even if I have any religious affiliation. It’s difficult to find a conversation on religion that doesn’t devolve into some variant of, “well I believe…”
Why would I worry about Christians getting a bad name?
Robert said
Matt2239 said
Stephen I haven’t stated a religious affiliation here, or even if I have any religious affiliation. …I too thought some of your comments, if not here perhaps on some of Bart’s blog posts, made it pretty clear that you were a fairly traditional Christian. Were we mistaken?
I have two years of formal, weekly 1-hour classes in private high school, first in the Old Testament and then the New Testament. All students, including Muslims and Buddhists, were required to attend and they were scholarly classes, not Sunday school. I have an additional six semester hours of public university education in the Old Testament and the Writings of Paul. My class presentation in the Writings of Paul was notable for its review of articles on the role of women as described in Paul’s letters. The papers were written by someone whose name I didn’t recognize at the time — Karol Wojtyla.
Are there any parts of the Bible that we can accept as simply a historical account of an extraordinary fully human (as divine as any of us) person of strong convictions, who had a particular message of love that he wanted to convey to improve people’s lives? Is any of it reliably reflective of what the historical Jesus said and did?
Reading Mark, one might get glimpses of a historic Jesus, and possibly also in Matthew. But the message does not appear to be as simple as ‘love’.
Mark appears to have access to some early traditions about Jesus. Miracle stories are to be expected to evolve over time but need not be taken seriously. Spawning of multiple versions of miracle stories such as calming the seas, feeding the multitudes, healing by touching the garment of Jesus, show that these are indeed stories that evolved over time. We need not even get into debating the possibility of miracles to discount them. The miracle stories are only relevant in that they point to them being something Mark received rather than invented himself.
Of greater relevance are the narratives about Jesus and his clashes with the Pharisees. Some of these, e.g., the quarrel about the Oral Torah versus the Written Torah would be head scratchers for later Christians, especially since Jesus comes down solidly on the side of the Written Torah. The environment Mark describes is quite credible – Pontius Pilate as governor (26-36 CE), negligible friction with the Roman authorities (prior to 40 CE), domination of religious discussion by rule-obsessive Pharisees of the House of Shammai. Again, there is the strong suggestion the Mark is relating some early traditions about Jesus, but this time being much more credible.
The upshot is that there is a good chance that Mark received some legitimate stories about a real historic Jesus. What message does this Jesus present? Return to the Written Torah and practice not just the letter of the law but its spirit as well. Notice that when Mark’s Jesus tells people how to act, he uses Torah quotes and references. There is the suggestion that Jesus believed this was the way to bring about the messianic age, as various prophets seemed to indicate, but that may be a later accretion.
Matthew is clearly a Jewish Christian talking to a Jewish Christian community. In the Antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphasizes that the letter of the Law is insufficient, the spirit is equally important. Whether Matthew presents elements like this because they were present in Jewish Christianity since the days of a living Jesus, or whether Matthew is expanding on the ideas in Mark (we know Matthew read Mark) is not something that could be settled today. But it clearly fit in with Matthew’s take on Christianity.
As far as ‘love’ goes, consider the story told about what Hillel the Elder, who lived not long before the putative time of Jesus, said: “That which is hateful unto you do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary. Go forth and study.” Not just love, love within the context of the Torah.
OldDogNewTricks said
Mark appears to have access to some early traditions about Jesus. Miracle stories are to be expected to evolve over time but need not be taken seriously. Spawning of multiple versions of miracle stories such as calming the seas, feeding the multitudes, healing by touching the garment of Jesus, show that these are indeed stories that evolved over time. We need not even get into debating the possibility of miracles to discount them. The miracle stories are only relevant in that they point to them being something Mark received rather than invented himself.
There is more evidence for the miracles than against them. There are several written descriptions of miracles performed by Jesus which were committed to paper just a few short years after they happened. Even today, we have no scientific explanation for how these things happened. They called them miracles 2000 years ago. We cannot explain them today either. That would seem to indicate that they are now what they were then: miracles.
You can’t say a miracle didn’t happen simply because you can’t explain it. Its inexplicability is captured in the meaning of the word “miracle” already. You can only say you don’t believe.
Who you gonna believe — those who wrote “do unto others,” “turn the other cheek,” “blessed are the nice people,” or Richard Carrier? Who’s afraid of that debate?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert