(19 votes, average: 4.26 out of 5)
Loading...I am thinking about ending my book with a kind of Paean to Memory. I expect that some people will find it a bit controversial or even off-putting. Or maybe not! Here is what a draft of the kind of thing I’m thinking about saying. Let me know what you think. (It’s longer than my typical post.)
*******************************************************************************
Like most authors, I get a lot of email from people who have read my books. I find one of the comments I repeatedly receive somewhat puzzling and even disheartening. To explain it, I need to provide a bit of background.
When I discuss historical understandings of the New Testament and of the historical Jesus, I frequently refer to the problems of our sources. The Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death by people who were not eyewitnesses and had probably never laid eyes on an eyewitness. They are filled with discrepancies and contradictions. They represent different perspectives on what Jesus said and did. For that reason, to know what actually happened in the life of Jesus we have to apply rigorous historical criteria to these sources to establish what he really said and did.
I present these views because at heart I am a historian, interested in seeing what we can know about the past. I have presented some such views here, in this book. But my focus in the book has been on memory, including, of course, “distorted” memories of Jesus’ life, but also memories that I think are closely related to history, for example, some of the “gist” memories found throughout the Gospels. Memory is not only faulty: at times, probably most of the time, it’s pretty good. So too with the memories of Jesus. We can know a good deal about Jesus’ historical life based on what our sources say.
Moreover, I have tried to emphasize that the study of memory is not at all limited to what comes to be distorted over time. It is possible to engage in memory-history (what Jan Assmann calls mnemohistory) to see how recollections of Jesus can help us understand the people who were remembering him in one way or the other, why Mark, or John, or Thomas recalled Jesus the way he did.
The comment that I sometimes get from readers that I find puzzling or disheartening is…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It doesn’t cost much, and there are huge benefits!
Two comments
1) Keep this kind of reflection up! A book or collection of personal reflections/essays like this one, would be of interest to many, I’m sure. It shows a important alternative way of reading and reflecting on the Bible, and allowing it to affect us in a different, yet powerful, way.
2) I would someone mention in this book your blog. Even if it is indirectly on the back cover or inside cover, such as “If you are interested in discussing the book in an online forum and connecting with the author, please visit ehrmanblog.org.”
Interesting idea.
That actually almost made me cry.
Dr. Ehrman,
This is the very best of the best things you’ve ever written that I’ve read and that’s saying something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While reading it, I could not help thinking about the robot in Blade Runner as he shuts down: ..all his amazing memories would be like tears in rain.
Judy
Beautiful and serene. Logical and tangible. Wouldn’t change a word.
Excellent analysis, although listing your critics or naysayers in this regard as readers of your books may be better stipulated as “some with fundamentalist beliefs” or “those who insist on reading the New Testament through a fundamentalist lense.” After all, the problem, and I think it is a problem, extends beyond your readers, and the problem does indeed have a source. Framing the issue as that you are frustrated by a few emails seems to miss the bigger point.
P. S.
Does it matter if Jesus was simply a man gifted spiritually at the level of such geniuses as Einstein, Plato and Darwin in understanding how our flawed humanity could be ennobled by His teachings as to how to evolve into fuller human beings? And have there not been many who’ve tried – and many still trying – to live that way?
Yes indeed!
The French Dominican biblical scholar and archaeologist Roland de Vaux noted that “if the historical faith of Israel is not founded in history, such faith is erroneous, and therefore, our faith is also.”
The historical faith of Israel is not founded in accurate history.
The 23rd Psalm with rod and staff comfort me is Egyptian.
In the valley of the shadow of death, one finds Egyptian royals with what over a sarcophagus?
Answer: a rod and staff (flail and crook, an Osirian icon; hence, David’s famous psalm is about Osiris.
In fact, as I imply in my book, The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy: Insights on the Exodus, King David, The 23rd Psalm, Jesus and Paul, First Edition, the 23rd Psalm suggests an amduat.
Second, the Star of David / City of David actually refers to Tanis, Egypt if one wants to speak of a great kingdom during the time of the biblical King David. Look at the cartouche of the pharaoh (Psusennes) of Tanis and you will find a star. The star of David is the star of the pharaoh, or, it honors (or dishonors) that pharaoh.
You have written a rather wonderful conclusion to your book and I appreciate the passion of your thoughts on the matter of memory and its importance to, well, everything.
While you have explored the subject of memories of Jesus in the pre-gospel world (30’s – 60 CE), your themes are, in my view, universal. I have often pondered the thought of taking up the challenge to write my own book, provisionally titled, “The Past in the Present”. I shan’t dwell on it save to note that current public discourse on any issue you care to name that has a link to some past event, which is most, almost always misinterprets or misunderstands that past event. Sometimes that misinterpretation is made deliberately with the cynic’s eye, but often it is a simple national myth, or accepted understanding, that bears little relation to what happened from the historian’s perspective.
Hence ‘revisionism’, I suppose.
I’m not optimistic that I will have the time to get into this potential project, having to toil for my daily bread in other fields, but it niggles away at the back of my mind. Your recent string of posts have brought the thought of the project to the front of my mind. It is a fascinating, to me, issue and a book’s worth of reflection would be of some value surely.
This may seem not very relevant at first, but reading this post I was reminded of a review of the Wes Anderson film, The Grand Budapest Hotel. The film critic Matt Zoller Seitz suggests that the main theme of the the film is, “Life destroys. Art preserves.” In his review, he writes, “The Grand Budapest Hotel treats storytelling itself as an inheritance bequeathed to anyone who’s willing to listen, feel, and remember, then repeat the story, with whatever embellishments are necessary to personalize it and make it mean something to the teller.” So in this sense, art (literature), even if it is not historically accurate, can preserve truths about life and what makes it meaningful. I think this line of thinking can also be applied to memories and stories about Jesus.
Here is the link to the full review:
http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/the-wes-anderson-collection-chapter-8-the-grand-budapest-hotel
Wow! This is so passionate, so clear, so powerful, and so well written. Thanks for sharing it. This summary is an amazing argument for reading the Bible as “literature” and not just as “history.” I think this argument makes a great deal of sense. You essentially make the same argument, as you state above, in a very powerful way, in “How Jesus Became God.”
On the other hand, I understand why people throw out the baby (the literature) with the bath water (history). It is very disappointing to discover that all one has been taught about Jesus is not really historically accurate. So, whether Jesus was God or was a man in a story about someone being made into a god, whether heaven really exists or is just a story, and whether a Resurrection occurred or is just a story is, I am sure you would agree, quite important. In essence, without a historical base, the ethics lose much of their energy. Also without a historical foundation to quote, much of Christianity can be used to promote slavery, oppose gay rights, subordinate women, etc. So advocating the theology, despite it being based on a weak history is, in some ways, more aggravating than advocating much of the same theology because the Bible is inerrant.
I do think your point that very few humans actually know much about the historical issues concerning Jesus is thought provoking. I also find that many, many Christians have almost no interest in studying the historical Jesus yet something about Jesus continues to have an enormous effect on their lives. I once had a discussion with a good man about the historical Jesus only to have him say “I no longer drink and that Is because of Jesus and that is all I need to know about Him.”
For a variety of historical reasons, I have thought many times that Jesus did not actually preach a Sermon on the Mount, but then wondered who then were these incredible people who made up this sermon? Where did they come form? Where did they get their ideas?
Anyway, thanks for your amazing contributions to my education. Keep thinking and writing.
A very minor point: If this is the working draft, then in the fifth paragraph after the red ink: “trustworthy” should be one word, not two words.
I think your words in this post are beautiful.
What I was looking for from the bible was explained and clarified by you through your teaching. Therefore I no longer needed dozen’s of books about a huge variety of different perspectives. Thank goodness (and you). But I still own a bible.
When investigating a car accident, we look for what we can see, the physical. Skid marks, damage, weather conditions at the time, road conditions etc. etc. etc. But what evidence is not there is just as important. Where was there No damage to the vehicle? What other vehicles were not known and now gone that were in fact involved in the accident. Maybe they cut out in front of the car? This is very simplified but it is what I thought of while reading about the “brutal” facts you mentioned. The History of the accident was not the end of the accident. The injuries, impacts on everyone involved, repairs if possible, expense and probably a permanent trauma of someone and maybe there lifelong trauma implications which affects actions (life long) in the future.
If I now understand where and how the bible came to be, does that mean I no longer believe in caring for others? Of course not. People who are looking at it that way do not seem to consider what is not available in the accident.
I don’t wish to sound disrespectful but I am frequently amazed at the fragility of Evangelical faith. Many of these folks will twist themselves into logical knots as though their entire faith depends upon harmonizing the most trivial of discrepancies. When I was a believing Christian, it didn’t bother me one bit that the Bible was not inerrant because I always viewed it as man’s attempt to capture the infinite in human terms. The fact that memories of Jesus differed from group to group doesn’t create the confusion that fundamentalist fear; it enhances the richness of the human attempt to comprehend the divine.
Well reasoned and well said. Thank you!
OT but is there a way to enlarge the star ratings icons or perhaps let one edit them? I frequently seem to hit either too many or too few because my finger obscures the view of which ones I am actually touching. For instance, I tried to give this post a five star rating (it would be ten star if I could) but apparently I hit the fourth star instead of the fifth. A minor housekeeping point.
We started out with 10 stars, but I thought 5 would be simpler.
I may have more thoughts later, but I’ll submit these now…
I think you should probably try to be more concise. And acknowledge that not everyone will agree with you.
I’m in partial agreement. I’ll never be able to appreciate any part of the Bible as “literature,” or find anything in it “inspiring.” All my reactions to it are negative. (And I wish Christianity had never come into existence. I think that if it hadn’t, all theistic religions would have died out by now.)
Specific terms that have caused a problem, which you didn’t actually use in this post: Can something that isn’t “historically true” be “theologically true”? In my humble opinion, it can’t. But it can “contain valuable symbolism,” if you’re willing to accept that language. I only see use of symbolism as desirable, however, if all the believers in a religion understand that the doctrines or practices in question are symbolic rather than literal.
Where I agree with you: I certainly think the Bible and other Christian texts are worthy of study, because Christianity has played such a large part in our history. And the more we can learn about what different people in the past really thought, the better!
I suspect that the truth of the statement regarding Jesus not transforming the world directly, but his memory having done so will be rejected and attacked by fundamentalist Christians; which is only evidence of the power of that statement. It is yet another way of looking at things that I am personally greatful for having read. Thank you!
As a Christian who has some training in psychology, philosophy, biblical criticism, and theology, I like this. It makes sense and has a message that I think many skeptics need to hear. Skepticism can be a very valuable thing (I certainly think so), but it is a tool, certainly not the only tool, used in the service of various tasks. [can you tell I’m a fan of Neo-Pragmatism and the latter Wittgenstein?] I don’t think we should fall in love with our favorite tool to the point that we forget what it was originally used for.
On the other side, I think many Christians, particularly more conservative Christians with no training or minimal training in philosophy, would be put off by this. Our society as a whole values “facts” so much that anything else is often deemed to be of little importance by comparison. Nevertheless it is something they NEED to hear. Well done!
Well said Dr. Ehrman…the Gospels aren’t an either/or proposition; either they are true and relevant, or untrue and irrelevant. To experience the bible require thoughtful interaction on the part of the reader, as does all great literature for that matter (huh, go figure). The new atheists and the Fundamentalist Christians see themselves at polar-opposites, but I find them equally off-putting, as they seem to hold the shared-perspective that the bible is an all or nothing proposition. They both also love to lob hand grenades at the liberal theologian and the biblical historian for many of the same reasons. If we treated the bible the exact same way we treat other important literature, we would all be the better for it.
Simon the Pharisee is not Simon peter is he bart or is he ?0
Or simon the leper
Most people don’t know of
Book of Enoch ch 7: 7and
Genesis 6:4 either
No, different guy. Three different guys.
Interesting post Bart. But its a problem when historians like yourself move into a different sphere into what seems to philosophical discourse, ethics and morality. You said David Copperfield was fiction and quite right but nobody would suggest it was a template for a list of mandatory obligation. IF the bible was treated as fiction in the same way as I think it should then millions would not have died. How many people died fighting for Dickens or Shakespeare? Don’t you see the problem? The Church used the NT as a way of power and control over the people, including Kings and Queens using heaven and hell and ex communication and still does today. Catholics can’t get remarried in church because that Jesus guy said its committing adultery and yet he also said its the only way to get a divorce! Go figure! So thousands of women over the centuries had to out up with cruel drunken abusive husbands because of the LACK of common sense in the OT and NT. Gays and Adulterers are still being murdered by religious groups just because its in the bible.
Bart. I may be off base here but I really think its all because of your friends and family who are still believers and you don’t want to really say what you really think of all this crap and please, I use that word with the respect or contempt it deserves. Religion has done and is doing enormous damage to the human pysche and indoctrination of children who will never ever get over it is the worst thing. Original sin and making people seek redemption otherwise they will go to hell is about as bad as anything in this whole wild world and you and others think its a glorious moral guide?
Surely its time for the human race to move on using the single principle of the golden rule that each of us should treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves was probably within the human pysche from the beginning and way before Jesus and biblical text. I’m not sure the world can move on while billions think its the word of God until people start to use their reason and own sense of right and wrong and not rely on pagan rituals and Mosaic laws in a by gone age. It wasn’t the Church or religion that gave equal rights to men and women or sexual equality and gay rights nor even the right to vote and hold office. Religion opposed most of that.
Bart, people are quite right to criticize your attempt to ride two horses. Stick to the historical research and leave the rest to the dreamers and myth makers. I don’t believe you can though as that indoctrination you received way back is still very much in evidence when reading your posts, in my humble opion anyway my friend. All the best and thanks for sharing your thoughts on the blog.
AMEN
DR Ehrman:
YOUR COMMENT
The Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death by people who were not eyewitnesses and had probably never laid eyes on an eyewitness.
MY COMMENT
I believe John was written by an eyewitness. This is clearly stated in the gospel of John. The disciple whom Jesus loved testified and WROTE the words in John. How can you be sure that this is an interpolation?
John 21:24.This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
IT MATTERS IF MEMORIES WERE DELIBERATELY FALSIFIED!
It matters to me whether Jesus really said, or didn’t say, that there wouldn’t be any marriage in His kingdom. I personally don’t believe that Jesus said there wouldn’t be any marriage in his eternal kingdom and that we would be like angels. (Matt 22:30) I don’t believe it because I consider Matthew an apocryphal Gospel. I don’t rely on Matthew’s account. I don’t believe that Jesus said, that John the Baptist was Elijah- (Matt 11:14)- I don’t believe Joseph took Jesus to Egypt. (Matt 2:14) These are not memories but cleverly and maliciously devised tales to purposely deceive the intended readers…
Why was Matthew written? Why did the author write it? Who authorized Him to write his book… Did God commission him?
I think the author of Matthew intentionally mixed truth with lies and added fairy tales to his account to cause controversy and confusion. His record memories were mostly fabricated!
No, the author explicitly does *not* claim to be the Beloved Disciple. The disciple wrote these things and ‘WE’ know his testimony is true. The author is differentiating himself from the person who wrote down what he is now recording
You’re saying exactly what I’m trying to point out… that the person who chronicled the gospel of John was not the author of John, but was documenting the testimony and writings of the disciple Jesus loved, who Himself was an eyewitness. This is why I stated that I believe John was written by an ‘eyewitness’ …
This person also makes a very intriguing statement at the end of V:24….i.e. “and we know that his testimony is true”….What does this person mean? How does this person know? I think this person knew John..Perhaps that’s why this person uses the present tense when saying,”This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things” How does the greek read DR Ehrman?
John 21:20-24
20-Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”
21-So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”
22J-esus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”
23-Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”
24-This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
I like it. I don’t know why I find it unsettling to read the Gospels described as works of art though-probably in my case because of how they’ve been used to hurt and oppress for millennia. It’s a bit like describing an ancient Gladius or compedes as a work of art. You can make the argument but it doesn’t seem right and it’s certainly not what the maker had in mind.
It is, of course, accurate to say that Christian memory transformed our world and continues to influence billions of lives today, but it should not be left unsaid that such transformation and influence has all too often been negative and detrimental.
Sounds fair to me. I’d like to hear the reasons some people would think it’s controversial, or off-putting, or even wrong.
Looks like a great ending. Would also work as a beginning, as it really peaked my interest. I have to admit that my interest in your upcoming book has ebbed and flowed (or more accurately flowed and ebbed), as some of the previews sounded like speculation on memory based on perceived truisms, disguised as science. That is not intended as a critique but as a suggestion of a hurdle could be encountered before one invests the time to read the book. This post has greatly increased my interest in reading the finished product. It provides great context for the entire project.
Well, now that I have slept on it and reread your blog, I think, in essence your “Paean to Memory” is an eloquent and clear way of saying that even if the “historical Jesus” is not that “historical,” how Jesus has been “remembered” and “misremembered” through the centuries has dramatically changed the course of human history and, as a result, how and why this has happened is a matter of considerable importance and worthy of historical investigation.
I think, for me, the “literary” interpretation of scripture gets associated with a group of Christians who promote a theology (the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Atonement, Heaven, a Personal Relationship with Jesus) based on “literary stories” illustrating this theology despite there being little historical basis for this theology. So, in many respects, such an approach is as aggravating to me as basing a theology on an inerrant Bible. Both seem to be theologies where people use “confirmation bias” to find any supporting evidence for their particular theology that they can find. But you are not writing about “theology.” You are writing about “history.”
So, I suggest you end the book just as you have written above. It’s a terrific and clear ending if us readers don’t mess it up..
Dr. Ehrman writes, ” Without that memory of Jesus, the faith founded on him would never have taken off, the Roman Empire would not have abandoned paganism, and history as we know it would never have transpired.[1]”
I think it may be better to say that history as we know it would have unfolded differently, perhaps strikingly so. My reasoning is that however influential Christianity was and became, Christianity was by no means the only variable in play. To privilege Christianity’s influence too much strikes me as too deterministic. We just cannot know what may have happened absent Christianity; there is no “historical regression analysis” to parse the variables and evaluate their particular influence. History presents such a terribly complex stew of chance and contingency.
I always come back to thinking that the study of history is an invitation to humility. There is actually rather little that we truly know. Rather, we draw conclusions as best we can, based on the best evidence and methods we think are pertinent. But we may be wrong. In many cases we likely are wrong, and we can never be truly certain.
I am not a Christian, but if I were I do not think this would bother me at all. If I were a Christian, my belief would be rooted in faith, not the results of deep, academic epistemology. That early Christians understood their Savior through collective memories just seems, well, sort of obvious (no reflection on your work!). How else would they? They were, of course, human as well as Christian.
Hi – thanks, interesting!
If you were after feedback, then this would be mine:
1. Small typo: “to pick one just one of these examples…”
2. “Our lives are not spent establishing the past as it really happened. They are spent calling it back to mind.” I think I get what you mean (I was reading fast) but I had to read it three times.
3. “History was changed not because of the brute facts of history, but because of memory.” I am not sure that sits completely well with everything you are saying here, although it does sound quite hard-hitting and impressive. What you say about Christian memory being so important and transformative I think is right (and obviously we have not yet read everything else that precedes), but at the same time – as you are saying – memories can twist and change those “brute facts” – they are twisting…facts. You also concede elsewhere that although miracles are theoretically possible, they do not represent the most probably explanation. I think you would do better, therefore, to maintain the nuanced approach you adopt up until this point with something like: “History was changed not solely because…” it’s not so hard-hitting, but more in line with what I see as your position. It is good to remember also that even if there was a spectacular miracle – THAT TOO COULD BE REMEMBERED DIFFERENTLY AND DISTORTED. I am not sure that thought enters this line of reasoning.
Hope this is helpful.
J
Hi Bart, I completely agree that stories don’t have to be historically ‘true’ to be powerful, meaningful or moving. However, with almost all the stories regarding Jesus, the clergy, theologians, teachers etc never present them as allegory or metaphor but always as if they are historical, regardless of evidence to the contrary. I take exception to this particularly when children are taught that certain stories actually happened when the evidence from scholars say they did not. (sorry, not a question really)
I’m not so sure the gospels are simply the recording of naive and somewhat distorted memories. I suspect there are elements of lies, deceptions and propaganda within them as well. There’s a lot of smear going on – against “the Jews”, and against other competing Christian sects (e.g. the constant belittling of Peter). I think there’s a bit more going on here than “art”.
Dr. Ehrman. I have read most of your books and found them thought provoking and challenging. I have struggled over the past 20 years with the orthodox training received via 12 years of Catholic School education. the knowledge gained from your books, and my desire to figure things out, were satisfied by your thoughts in this post. Interestingly, your perspective permitted me to understand and feel ok about viewing what I was taught through a different lens- instead of feeling the fear of having any doubts about the truthfulness of what I was taught, I could accept the wisdom of the stories without the weight of the absolute veracity of the words. Thank you.
I loved your musings on memory and meaning. I think Marcel Proust would agree with your conclusions about the significance of memory: whether it is actual or simply believed to be accurate, its meaning to us is the same. Sorry in advance for what follows, but this is something I wrote concerning Jesus’ message and its evolution as the church developed around it. It is from the perspective of the 325 AD Nicaea council. If it’s too long, don’t bother, but I thought you might enjoy it:
Draw away from the Council. Move away from Nicaea, from New Rome and Antioch and Alexandria. Consider the years. Jesus was born at the apex of the Empire. Augustus was emperor. For all its economic and cultural advancements, the Roman Empire was built on force and fear as surely as infection thrives on fever and filth. The extractive economy built on conquest and suppression was designed to provide lavishly for the Roman estates and the palace courts scattered throughout the realm and to leave only subsistence scraps behind to be grappled over without concern as to who would wrangle enough to survive and who would perish into dust. Into this world Jesus came to preach salvation in exchange for deeds of kindness and succor shown to the “least among these.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Do as I do and I’ll see you in the hereafter. Simple. No theologian necessary.
By the time of Jesus’ death, Tiberius, a crueler, less competent Emperor had succeeded Augustus. In the three hundred years that followed, Rome was controlled by a digression of rulers, with few exceptions each more venal and less qualified than the last. Sustained only by the inertia resulting from the impossibility, even for its enemies, of imagining its absence and the occasional reclamation of fragmentary glory by a Trajan, an Aurelian or a Vespasian, Rome extracted an ever-greater portion of an ever-decreasing bounty from its conquered peoples. Waves of invaders swept in and either crawled out or were absorbed by the Roman morass. Traditions faded and were replaced. The ancient pantheon that bound the conquerors could not hold, as new gods, ordained by law, imposed by force, or adopted by faith, invaded and old gods slumped into the obscurity of neglect and disbelief. Life became harsher, crueler, and less coherent. Jesus’ message flourished.
At first there was no clergy. No church. His teaching spread first among the Jews, but there was nothing about it in any of its essentials that required either great, religious knowledge or restricted it to the circumcised. It spread among gentiles of every kind, requiring no particular training, no altar, no temple. Make life better for those you see suffering. Be kind. Offer food to the hungry, even from your own meager share. Bring water to those who thirst. Daub the brows of those who are ill. Comfort yourself with the knowledge that doing these things is the path to eternal and glorious life. In short, the way to Heaven is to make life better here, on Earth.
And so it was that Jesus’ most basic message, stripped of mystery, magic and the apocalypse, grew like an insurgency within the greatest political structure the world has ever known. Overflowed, in point of fact, that realm, into the largely unknown regions of the Hindi, the Mongols and the Hans, flourished at its most primal level and manifested itself in untold millions of acts of kindness and grace and goodness. Christianity in its primal essence was a balm and an opiate given to the eternally dying patient that is mankind.
This flourishing must be understood separate from the growth of the churches that claimed inheritance from Jesus and His apostles. The churches had their place, certainly. A million Christians independently obeying the teachings of Jesus had not the means necessary to protect themselves from the inevitable persecutions of individuals and the state alike. The Church was protection and solace for these Christians. A Church requires structure and structure hierarchy. Priests had to be qualified. Deacons had to be trained to instruct and anoint the priests. Bishops had to be appointed to oversee the flock and manage the economy of the growing congregations. Temples had to be built. Rules of succession and management had to be drawn. And what if some of the worshipers, the practicing Christians, were misinterpreting Jesus’ word, as handed down by tradition and eventually transcribed into gospels and epistles? What if they emphasized only part of His message at the expense of other parts? Shouldn’t they be properly instructed? Of course, and the church, consisting of the collective intelligence of the most studious and righteous of the faith, was the proper instructor. And what if the texts left some things out, some things that must have occurred or must have been said. Shouldn’t those things be added? Yes, again, and again it was the proper role of the learned and sacred church to oversee these changes and ordain what is proper to be taught to and believed by all Christians. And so the Church grew. Always in peril, always under attack from within and without, it grew. Its survival and growth proving that it flourished by the Grace of God.
All of these things were done with the purest of hearts by the purest of souls. All of these things were done for the good of all Christians. But it came to pass that Jesus’ most basic message, the instruction to make life in this world better for those who suffer, was diluted. It was not intended to be so, but with time, as the importance of each man’s post within the Church came to be defined and circumscribed, one became less likely to see His message in practice as one looked higher up the chain of the Church’s command. The bishop was less likely to embody this message of love than the deacon, the deacon than the priest, the priest than the parishioner and the parishioner than the new initiate who, having heard the words that Jesus spoke for the first time, ventured out in the world to follow them in practice. Seeing themselves as God’s representatives and interpreters on Earth, the clergy came to emphasize fealty to the Father over service to the suffering.
Now return through time to Nicaea. The Church has reached adulthood. It has been taken into the ruling family. Its place in the Empire is fixed. Here it is tempting to write, “and Jesus is dead,” and end the discussion. But Jesus’ naked message, stripped of the apocalyptic predictions that were the product of his time and place, is pure enough and strong enough to survive the tapestries of power and the veils of explanation. Out in the world in 325 AD, and before then, and after then, this message resonated and motivated millions who heard it or felt it and incorporated it into their hearts, and motivated countless acts of sacrifice and kindness that eased the boundless suffering in this decomposing world.
Great post.
Among many things, the Hebrew bible and new testament clearly are literature and can (should) be read as such. Influential? Without Matthew 10:29, there is no Hamlet Act V, Scene 2:219-224, etc. Without Christianity, there is no Bach (Soli Deo Gloria), Masaccio/Piero della Francesca, little (of) Giovanni Bellini/Andrea Mantegna, etc., significantly less Rembrandt, Mozart, Schubert, no Chartres cathedral, etc., much less Michelangelo, Donatello, Ghiberti, etc., etc., etc. Want a deeper understanding of most of Western Art? Read and try to understand your bible! Without Christianity, we wouldn’t have this terrific blog.
(All) religions are compilations of fairy tales, falsehoods, magic, power politics and hubris. Christianity (“Christian memory transformed our world”) is a particularly powerful and influential plague (Crusades [including those against other Christians],” 30 Years War, “Wars of Religion,” Inquisition, Blood Libel, Holocaust, the slaughter of thousands over whether transubstantiation is symbolic or literal, Innocent III/Gregory IX/Paul IV/Boniface VIII, etc., etc., etc., and on & on).
My Faustian bargain/burden: would I sacrifice (poor humor, that) Bach and Michelangelo and Shakespeare in service of retro-erasing Christianity?
I don’t know.
Your post prompted me to remember a comment by a National Park Service employee who worked at the Alamo. “It doesn’t matter how much we tell the history of the Alamo, what the people remember about the Alamo is what they saw in the movie.”
Great line!
Take this example of your writing:
“Does it matter if Jesus really delivered the Sermon on the Mount the way it is described in Matthew 5-7? It matters to me historically. But if Jesus didn’t deliver the sermon, would it be any less powerful? Not in the least. It is, and in my view deserves to be, one of the greatest accounts of ethical teaching in the history of the planet.
“Does it matter if Jesus really healed the sick, cast out demons, and raised the dead? Does it matter if he himself was raised from the dead? But if these stories are not historically accurate, does that rob them of their literary power? Not in my books. They are terrifically moving accounts. Understanding what they are trying to say means understanding some of the most uplifting and influential literature that the planet has ever seen.”
To me, this seems less a “Paean to Memory” than a “Paean to Christianity.” I think your subjective view of Christianity may be obscuring what I assume is meant to be the main point of the book: how different people’s memories influenced, and continue to influence, our perception of an undeniably *important* religion.
These are the most primal and moving words of yours which I have read so far. Thank you.
Great, vital musings.
For some of us former Christians/former fundies it is still sometimes tempting to make everything “all good” or “all bad”…the fundy psychological tendency still operative, just switching loyalties…
Once past the angry (atheist fundy) stage, we are perhaps free to look back, reflect and come to a more nuanced understanding.
Still, it seems that our brains have evolved to inherently treat “story” as truth. That’s why we can have such intense emotional response to fiction. Our brains are experiencing it as “truth”. And, I suggest, this is why people have such a hard time differentiating fact from fiction and why they resist applying critical thinking to cherished stories/memories, i.e., “virtual” truths perhaps…
Still, I love a good story. Game of Thrones, for instance…
I will comment on this post, by referring to your post from today’s (May 2) post in which you shared the video interview that I greatly enjoyed. It underlines a point, that I have tried, poorly so far, to make on your topic of memory. So my question is: “Do you feel that Dan Brown wrote the Da Vinci Code intending it to be perceived as fact/history or intending to be an entertaining story, artfully weaving historical tidbits or shadows of truth in with his creative fictional additions and liberties for distortions? As you state in your interview, those without a deep connection to historical facts tended to digest this novel and leave with altered conclusions of false facts/history (memory). Such as your comment on the Gnostic Gospels being found with the dead sea scrolls (which in Hillary’s words, “what difference at this point does that make”: Wasn’t the book of Enoch present? the presence of any non-canonical text would tend to discredit divine document control) So, again and probably poorly again, a textual critic reading Dan Brown’s novel 200 years from now, might not know that we ALL know it is a fiction and might categorize it incorrectly. So answering your question; YES, even after the discovery of the first fallacy, error, or incongruity, we should continue reading the Bible if we can shift to entertainment mode rather than history or fact mode. After all, we already missed our first clues such as walking on water, flying, floating, transubstantiation, transfiguring, resurrecting, etc. and not until comparing various aged copies or each of the synoptic gospels side by side did we first develop our doubts. So did you stop reading Mr. Brown’s novel when you ran into the first creative liberty exercised with facts or dates or did you say to yourself, “I know that is inaccurate, but damn it’s a good read”? Some are saying that even after the awareness of divine-less origins there are life’s lessons still contained within and you even ask whether it robs us of it’s literary power. While both of these concepts can be true, it can also distort and blind. And I can even extract a life’s lesson from the Mr. Brown fiction, but this post is too long already. We could argue at great length whether an apple fell on Mr. Newton’s head or nearby him inspiring him to understand more about gravity. We might find eyewitnesses or we might not. There may be records to support it or not. Hell there might even be an ancient tweet to support it. To me, it doesn’t matter whether it is true or not, it makes a nice story, but look at the math he left us. (Had to use an orb from the movie).
Dan Brown wanted obviously to write a work of fiction. But he explicitly claims that his historical information is fact (at the very beginning of the book.) As you may know, I wrote a book about his nove., so yes, I read the whole thing!
my point about the gospels.
Hate to say it, but I think it matters a great deal if what in the Bible is accurate and to be believed as a revelation from a god ( after all that is why most people read it). It mattered to me when I decided not to get a higher education because I believed the end of the world was near….or when my mother almost died for not taking a blood trasfusion. We cannot leave our few years of life to waste on the bad memories of Christians 2000 years ago. It almost sounds like an absolution…..but I still can’t wait to read the book.
What we hold sacred has to be of the highest quality. I can end my comment there.
Second, people have been tortured and killed for the contents of the gospels; and, people have subjected themselves to torture and death for the quality of the contents of the gospels.
As a corollary, people have tortured and killed other because they had a life bet on the accuracy of the gospels. People have diminished the lives of others because they held the “gospel truth” standard. Children! Children have committed suicide because they were outside of the community of the heaven-bound gospel standard. People have rejected lonely people who had higher standards of the rational as compared to the gospel truth standard. People have blamed the victim on their dying bed because they transgressed not only the gospel truth but God’s Word–remembered incorrectly or worse?
Do you think after being imprisoned for millennia people are not going to fly the coop? You’re the guard who says, “Stay.”
We stay for what Jesus deserves. We do not play hit and giggle tennis with the meanings of life, death, life after death, and life between lives. You’ve seen someone off at the airport. You know there is a substantial distance that will be covered and a substantial place of landing. That is the way it is when people see someone off on their death bed. The vehicle, the crossing over, and the landing are substantial engineering. This is real, not literature. And then, you have Paul building flaw on top of flaw: we are going to have a resurrection body like Jesus–a resurrected body that Mary Magdalene and the disciples didn’t even recognize. And, Jesus did not literally raise Lazarus on the fourth day and “God” did not literally raise Jesus on the third day (that’s more Hebrew literature, Hosea 6: 1-2).
I think that’s a very moving and nuanced view, and I largely agree with you. I have one comment though, on what we mean by ‘truth’. You say:
“The comment that I sometimes get from readers that I find puzzling or disheartening is when they tell me that if there is something in the Gospels that is not historical, then it cannot be true, and if it is not true, then it is not worth reading.”
Indeed, stories that aren’t true are no less worthwhile to read. The Bible most definitely is an important part of literature that should be read and studied (I wouldn’t want you to be out of work!). However, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the word ‘truth’. To me (and I am not a native English speaker so maybe this is a linguistical problem), truth has always meant something that corresponds to reality. If a story didn’t happen, I don’t see how it can be true. The very definition of a true story is that it happened. It can still be important, have significance in our lives, etc, but I don’t see how it can be called truth.
If you use a different sense of the word truth than me, I won’t argue with you. But I fear that most people do agree with me that truth means something that actually happened. That’s why I think it may be misleading for you as a trusted scholar to call something true when you don’t think it happened that way; simply because other people will interpret it more literally than I think you mean it. Even though you explain quite clearly in this particular case what you mean by the word, thus avoiding potential misunderstandings, I do think there are better words to use to convey what you mean here. Words that actually mean the same thing to all readers.
Anyway, I really appreciate your work, and I think you make really good points in the rest of the post 🙂
My view is that we tell true stories that didn’t happen all the time. Maybe I’ll post on this.
“We can know a good deal about Jesus’ historical life based on what our sources say.”
Could you discuss this some more? Your conclusion doesn’t seem to match your research. Each scholar applies historical criteria in different ways and for every saying or deed there is a wide range of thought. For each saying or deed there is a consensus but this consensus does not seem to reflect accuracy as much as scholarship drift at any given time. Just a few hundred years ago the consensus was that Jesus was God incarnate come to walk the earth. In another hundred years today’s scholarship will seem quaint and dated. The steady stream of books on Jesus (of which the gospels are just early examples) seem to show that we can’t know very much about the life of Jesus.
Yup, I deal with it in the book! But for a fuller treatment, see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
“My view is that we tell true stories that didn’t happen all the time. Maybe I’ll post on this.” (May 6, 2015, in response to pampelius’ belief that truth has to mean something that actually happened.) Please treat us to such a post.
I did today!
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
You should not become disheartened by people who only want those things that can be proven to be true and who are willing to disregard the rest. For these are people who do not want any “Gray” in their belief system. They only want black and white. Black and white does not require any thinking. It allows for a perfect yes/no, right/wrong, true/false system.
Other believers who are always trying to gain more understanding are fascinated by the “Gray” areas. For the gray areas can be pondered for years. And it is in fact this pondering that allows them to be open to (and to find) new ideas, new insights, new understanding. They are not afraid of new information, they crave it. For the new information does not damage or destroy their belief system, but rather often fills in some of the blanks.
A police detective wants nothing disturbed at the scene of the crime. But even if something has been disturbed and is not quite as it was originally, it can still add to the investigation even if it is understood that it has been disturb.
Some believers want just the facts and nothing but the facts. Some want anything that might help them gain a better understanding.
Dennis Keister
Bryan Sykes (geneticist, formerly of U. of Oxford – England) completed an extensive DNA study (Saxons, Vikings and Celts; The 7 Daughters of Eve). Besides his DNA findings he concluded that local folklore turned out to be accurate. The Aborigine storytellers of Australia travel the country yearly and in that year’s time they tell their origin story, that they came to the continent 40,000 years ago – borne out by archaeology and DNA. Another example of accuracy – Celtic storyteller scholars studied for 20 years and in order to graduate storytellers were required to recite exactly all the stories handed down through the ages.
To throw out the gospels because they may be propagandized by Titus, or because of the Synoptic Problem, would be, well, stupidity. One would have to wonder about the motive. I suspect (read Pistis Sophia, a version not in KJ lingo) that if we knew personally who Jesus is (not was), we would be washing his feet with our hair and beards past the end of time.
My opinion is that the gospels are piece to the puzzle of a time long past, and a representation of the ethereal, spiritual world.
I’m afraid neither DNA nor archaeology can demonstrate that a story that one person tells is the same story that another person told say, last week, or last year, or last century, or last millennium! The only way to know that is to have two printed versions of the story next to each other to compare.