I must admit many of the controversies hereabouts begin to pall so I thought I would spend some time reviewing books.
Prof Walsh’s book, now issued in an affordable paperback, has created quite a stir since it was originally published in 2021. Prof Ehrman has called it brilliant even though it seriously critiques many of the ideas he shares about the composition and development of the gospels taught by previous generations of scholars.
Rather than just read the book and give a short description and evaluation, I thought it might be interesting to serially review it. To discuss Prof Walsh’s views and discuss the questions they raise.
I enthusiastically invite comments and responses, especially by anyone else who has actually read or is reading the book. The subjects discussed are all fair game because they involve many core assumptions made by scholars for decades. I would ask only, PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC. (I know I know. I freely acknowledge a certain degree of hypocrisy here. I have chased rabbits in other threads as flagrantly as anyone. At any rate I have no moderator powers whatsoever. Just a friendly request.)
I inherited my method of reading this kind of thing from school. I read. Then I reread, highlighting and making notes. The I reread, jotting down my questions. I will do this chapter by chapter. I add this just to make the obvious comment that I won’t be done in a week.
A teaser: Prof Walsh calls into question the idea that the gospels are products of traditions going back to communities of Christians subsequently captured by literate spokespersons for those communities. Rather, she sees the gospels are products of a community of educated, literate elites, some of whom may not have actually been Christians. Walsh traces the older view of the gospels to historical cultural developments in the West. She points out that we know much more about these literate elites than we do about spurious oral traditions and contexts derived solely from the texts themselves. She regrets a divide that took place in the nineteenth century between classicists and Bible scholars and wonders why the texts of the NT are treated differently from other ancient texts?
ps: If you don’t have time to read the book right now Prof Walsh has a strong presence on YouTube. She’s given several interesting interviews.
Ok, then…
It so happened that I started reading this book the day the author received the package with the author’s copies. I was full of hope that a biblical scholar unknown to me had freed himself from the cognitive tunnel of badly organized education. Unfortunately, I bought it at the original price issued by CUP – a pure rip because the book is very short.
Walsh won me over by using the student work of Slawomir Poloczek, who has a unique talent for historical cross-cutting issues. But I guess that’s it.
The fact that the NT was written by professionals is not a new thesis, with which I agree. The fact that they were ghostwriters writing on commission and using techniques typical of their profession: copy-paste-cut-suplement-redact somehow escaped the author.
The author also missed the answer to the question of what was behind this comic development of the figure of Jesus – first the Resurrected Jesus, then the Historical Jesus at the peak of his mission, going back to Nativity Story. A very professional character development path – the same as in the case of Superheroes.
What was the purpose of this development? Unfortunately, we don’t get an answer to that from the book. Maybe commercial – great and attractive subplots that Paul didn’t even think of – Mother, Virgin, Bethlehem, Egypt, stable.. Who knows..
I’m impressed with Professor Walsh.
She is great to listen to and watch. But not much of it remains. As I said – it’s a short book.
“. . . . , some of whom may not have actually been Christians”
Okay, this piques my interest. Why would anyone who is not a Christian (in some meaningful sense) have written something that looks anything like the canonical gospels?
Damn it, Stephen, now I have to read the book.
What surprised me the most was the declaration of political correctness. A kind of protection against something I don’t understand. The author wrote that in her work she used the works of other authors who were anti-Semites and supporters of Nazism. And that she did it only for substantive reasons and only to the extent scientifically necessary. And that she does not share or promote their political views. Why write something like that?
There is a fundamental difference between writing down the traditions of specific Christian communities and creating and releasing competing works that benefit from the achievements of competitors to the extent that is seen in the synoptic gospels.
In fact, Paul was too educated and elitist to see that these alleged eyewitness stories of the historical Jesus wandering around Galilee would be accepted and become a blockbuster narrative. He was too conservative because he chose the classical path of personal revelation. He knew little about the audience he allegedly worked with for over 20 years. Somehow he didn’t realize that his clients were excited about the earthly biography of Jesus. Instead of using this curiosity of the faithful, contrary to logic, he dealt with aesthetic surgery, wrote about the law he did not follow, about women and diet. Consistently throughout the entire period of alleged writing and missionary activity.
And the most interesting thing is that everyone believes it.
So it seems I misunderstood the synopsis. I believe her argument is not that the gospel authors weren’t Christians, but that the gospel authors wrote for their fellow literary elites, some of whom may well not have been Christian.
That seems much more plausible, although much less interesting.
Porphyry it seems your original perception – and mine – was correct. Walsh is going to consider the possibility that at least some of the writers of the gospels were not writing out of personal belief.
Jarek, you may consider Walsh overly “politically correct” by acknowledging the dodgy views of some early 20th century NT scholars but this is hardly a new concern in academia. Martin Heidegger, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, was antisemitic and a member of the Nazi party until the end of the war. To consider his philosophical thought without also considering his ideological outlook would be rather myopic, don’t you think?
As a preview here are the chapter titles of Walsh’s book.
1. The Myth of Christian Origins
2.The Romantic “Big Bang”: German Romanticism and Inherited Methodology
3.Authorship in Antiquity: Specialization and Social Formations
4.Redescribing Early Christian Literature: The Gospels, the Satyrica,, and Anonymous Sources
5.The Gospels as Subversive Biography
In her conclusion Walsh is going to outline what she considers future lines of inquiry.
[..]
I cite scholars within this monograph who have been accused of or charged with crimes and other serious offenses, or who have known ties to prejudiced organizations (e.g., the National Socialist Party in Germany). It is my strong preference not to offer these individuals professional acknowledgment given the nature of their actions and associations. That said, it would be intellectually misleading for me to omit entirely reference to certain works and persons, particularly as it pertains to my critique of German Romanticism and its legacies of anti-Semitism and racism. Therefore, I have endeavored only to cite such individuals when absolutely necessary to my argument and the conventions of the field.
Walsh, Robyn Faith. The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture (p. xx). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
Such formulas were used in Poland during the communist era to avoid serious accusations from the oppressive authorities. They were a shield against potential denunciations or reprisals.
Why such formulas are used in a free country is completely incomprehensible to me. I get the feeling you don’t know what you’re doing. You knock on hell and you drive yourself there. We were controlled by the regime and you censor yourself? The next step is self-criticism on your knees, in a pointed hat, and a public promise to improve.
The author can have any views and it is her private matter and not the subject of public evaluation as part of a research project. Who cares if she is fascinated by Heideger or despises him?
[…]To consider his philosophical thought without also considering his ideological outlook would be rather myopic, don’t you think?
It is short-sighted to care about the author’s political and ideological views because feelings do not help in understanding the author’s work.
Werner Heisenberg was building the A-bomb for Hitler, and it was him that Oppenheimer and Einstein feared. Nobody cares about this fact when teaching Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in high schools
Anti-Semitism is related to anti-goism. It is interesting that the history of the concept of anti-Semitism is related to the discussion of two German historians, Heinrich Graetz and Heinrich von Treitschke.
The author of the History of the Jews, Graetz, warned his brothers to treat gentiles as their neighbors, to treat them fairly, not to take advantage of their shortcomings in trade. In general, that the Jews should not abuse the patience of the societies in which they live.
The History of the Jews was a typical publication of the historical policy necessary to educate young people. For 100 years, it was the most popular bar mitzvah gift.
In the cited quotes from pages 133-134, we can see that the author is afraid to call things by their names and describe them in a simple and legible way.
I am honestly surprised that CUP approved her book because these are such personal digressions as we often find in Bart’s books of “popular biblical studies” published by Harper One.
Anonymous Authors were professionals and prepared products for the existing market of recipients of Christian content.
Could it be simpler?
Na.. I re-read the passages you quoted. It’s the usual Shygun Tech. I want to say something fundamentally new and revolutionary, but I’m afraid of offending society. Anyway, this is in a funny contradiction to her online appearances, when this charming biblical scholar associates the stories of the empty tomb and resurrection with the Ephesian Tale using the word “banging” for the account of the soldier and the widow. Championship!
I still hope to convince you that pesher is a brazen literary ploy by the author to add authority to his own inventions.
And that it’s worth betting on fringe theories.
The question of ideological presumptions becomes especially central in chapter 2. That would be an excellent place to deal with these issues, some of which I agree are relevant. However I think we should resist the urge to speculate about Prof Walsh’s possible motives. I prefer to respond to her actual claims and the implications that arise from them.
Sooo…
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)