Loading...Yesterday I started describing a trade book that I’m thinking about writing, tentatively called (in my head) “The Battle for the Bible.” Here is the next part of my self-reflections:
********************************************
A major part of my book will deal with one of the great puzzles in the history of religion: Why does the Christian Bible even have an Old Testament? And how did the early Christians, most of them gentiles, manage – in their own minds — to wrest it from the Jews by and for whom it was originally written? If Christians chose not to keep the biblical laws and follow its customs, why did they retain the book?
In my experience, many Christians still wonder about that. I frequently hear Christians claim there are essential differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament and the religions based on them: Jews have a religion of laws and judgment, but Christians have a gospel of grace and mercy; Jews think they have to earn their way into heaven on their own merits, but Christians meekly accept the salvation of God as a gift; Jews are condemned for their disobedience, but Christians are saved by their faith. And then the most frequent claim of all: the Old Testament portrays a God of wrath; the New Testament a God of love.
These stereotypes can easily be shown to be wrong, just from the Bible itself. Anyone who wants to see a God of wrath need simply read the final book of the New Testament, the Revelation of John.
Why then do Christians assume a dichotomy between their faith (with their God) and the Jewish religion (and theirs)? The short answer is that …
To read the rest of this post you will need to belong to the blog. If you don’t belong, you literally don’t know what you’re missing! Why not join? Won’t cost much; every nickel goes to charity; and you can read about matters of importance to your heart’s content.
Doctor E, I very much look forward to what scholarship has to say about this topic. I always thought that the Old Testament was included as a way of inserting an incumbent theology that gave way–read: lost out–to the new theology, aka the New Testament. Just as an incumbent Egypt was in a sense defeated by Moses, just to cite one of numerous examples, the New Testament was thought to “shine” more if it had something to shine against. So the old standby “My god is greater than your god” thought process carried over into a “My Testament is greater than your Testament” sentiment.
As modern elections tend to illustrate, it is quite difficult to defeat a political incumbent. It just is. BUT, when you do, you are said to have a mandate. The New Testament could be seen as the new mandate if the old mandate/testament was included in its canon.
Furthermore, as even those in antiquity gave credence to “”old things”, including the Old Testament was a way for the new mandate to attach and associate itself with something already ancient, thereby leveraging instant just-add-water credibility to their agenda.
This isn’t to suggest that the teachings of the Old Testament were to be wholesale dismissed. Quite bogglingly, including the Old Testament seems to allow this new mandate movement to simultaneously claim, “See, we’re ancient. We’ve included ancient texts. And by the way, our new mandate is by definition better.”
That book is going to be a barn-burner. It zeros in on the basic contradiction of Christianity:
Matthew 5:17-20 King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Theologians and Christian apologists of every stripe have tied themselves in knots for two millennia trying t o reconcile these words with their peculiar beliefs about the nature of the OT. We are not talking about theological concepts that are logically inexplicable (virgin births of humans, human resurrections, the Trinity, etc). These words of Matthew are as plain as can be–don’t mess with the OT. Every word in it is “gospel”, including all the filth (passing of guilt from parent to child to grandchild and more, slavery, genocide, child abuse, denigration of women who are treated as chattel, hysterical male fear of anything remotely connected with reproduction and normal female physical processes, ritual cleansing of women after child birth, etc). Including every gross and filthy admonition in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and 1st and 2nd Samuel.
I hope you’re wearing your best protective armor since I think there will be a storm of negative reaction to your book. Which is the best thing that could happen to start a meaningful conversation.
I remember hearing Sam Harris say that “anti-Semitism was manufactured, stem to stern, by Christianity.” He was heavily criticized for this, with mentions of other times Jews had been persecuted (e.g., the Maccabean revolt or the Bar Kochba rebellion). What is your view of the matter?
Jews weren’t being persecuted in teh Macccabean Revolt or the Bar Kochba rebellion for being Jewish. For political and military reasons the (some of the) Jews in Palestine engaged in an uprising against the Romans, who then went on the attack and wiped the opposition out. These were not religious persecutions per se. The question of whether they were caused by political pressures on Jews to stop practicing Judaism is a fair question though (although the opposition was completely localized).
It is staggering to see how verses were cherry picked from the Old Testament, taken totally out of context, and used to affirm a desired reality.
And why did they write it in that funny language? I always say, “if English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for you!”
This is definitely a topic I have interest in, given that I have ties to both evangelical Christians and to messianic Jews. I look forward to future posts, as well as to even a book about this.
“I should say at the outset that the vast majority of Christians today have never thought about it that way and, without seeing the evidence, would flat out deny it — especially the millions of good and decent Christians who pride themselves on being decidedly not anti-Jewish and who oppose all forms of anti-Semitism”
Let’s say that only 1% of Christians are anti-Semitic. Let’s also say that only 0.0000001% of the American population is capable of committing mass murder. The facts are these: the Holocaust happened, and mass murders happen. Worse, the world has experienced 2,000 years of anti-Semitism, largely the result of Christians blaming Jews for the killing of Jesus, with the attendant murder of many millions of Jews. We can’t just brush these facts off by saying that there are a few bad apples.
Christians retain the Hebrew Bible out of tradition, if nothing else. I believe they’re also morbidly attracted to the authoritarian aspects of a wrathful God, as harsh as they may be.
First the Afterlife, then Revelation, and now, adding insult to injury, we must steel ourselves for another long wait until a trade book containing your treatment of this fascinating topic hits the stands? You ask too much of us mere mortals, sir…
Relatedly, have you read J. Carroll’s Constantine’s Sword? I’ve been curious whether you had views on it (both historically as well as sociologically). In what seems like an embarrassment of riches, your proposed book would capture that and so much more.
NB – The book list above is not even counting the 7th edition of your NT textbook. Any insight as to when that’ll be available for purchase?
Yes, I think it’s a terrific book! As to the 7th edition: I’m not sure. I imagine by the end of the summer? It’s in press now as we speak.
Have you ever asked people who want the ten commandments followed which set they mean? Exodus 34 contains what is supposed to be the replacement set moses came back with after breaking the Exodus 20 set. Yet 34 is almost completely different (and very boring). Nevertheless, 20 was rendered obsolete by 34.
I think when dealing with these stereotypes of the Old and New Testaments, an important point that shouldn’t be lost in the discussion is that, at least to our modern sensibilities, there *are* problematic parts all throughout the Bible. I don’t think we should be afraid of pointing out that many places in the Bible portray a wrathful, even what we could call a ‘primitive’, deity. Whether it is Christ returning in blood-covered robes, or God wiping out (almost) the entire human race in the Flood, one could be forgiven for wondering whether this ‘holy’ book has caused more harm than good through the centuries.
I am very interested in the “except for the Ten Commandments” issue. I’ve encountered only a few theologians who consider Jesus to have invalidated the Commandments and I don’t understand the theological basis of thinking otherwise.
I would also be very interested to see a discussion of all the Old Testament prophecies of the messiah. In particular, I’d be interested to know if the Jews considered them prophecies and, if they did, what they considered them prophecies of. While we’re at it, were there any prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament that Jesus didn’t fulfill?
Really? Do these theologians think that Jesus taught that it was OK to commit murder and adultery? Interesting theologians!
Wow! Quite interesting! Keep going!
For decades, I have been an avid reader of opinion articles. Indeed, I have read thousands of them. Today, I had the good fortune to read what may well be the best of these articles. It is entitled “Grief Without God” by Amber Scorah. She wrote it following the unexpected, unexplained death of her 4-month-old son. It appeared in the 6/2/19 addition of “Sunday Review” in “The New York Times.” Few there are who can write like she writes. Here are two key examples from the article:
1. “I am not saying there is no God, but I am saying no God would do this to someone.”
2. “If belief were a choice, I might choose it. But it’s not. I don’t trade in certainty anymore.”
Readers of this blog might have an interest in reading this article.
That’s a great idea for a book and I would buy it. Currently my wife is at a bible study at her church and they’re still neverendlingly wading through the OT !!!
Excellent idea. This book is needed as a popular work.
I know some [certainly not all] Christians who see in the Old Testament a record of God’s providential history with his people Israel, a history that contains crucial lessons for Christians as new “new Israel.” God’s heart toward his people is particularly evident in the prophetic warnings concerning the consequences of not adhering to the Covenant. For Christians, God’s expectation for his people is not based on the Torah per se, but on is the “new covenant” of Jer. 31 — “I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Unfortunately this often leads to a supercessionist theology in which the Jews are left out, but I think it need not do this. At its best, the theology of the Christian “new covenant” sees the church as the Bride just as the prophets saw Israel a the wife of Yahweh. But both Christians and Jews are God’s people, and can read the “old” Testament not as someone else’s history but as their own.
This is all correct, but I think begging the question a bit–does any culture or religion ‘own’ a book it produces? The Old Testament isn’t even what Jews call it, right? Because they don’t recognize the new one.
Muslims hold both the OT and NT sacred. Should Jews and Christians revile them for that? Shouldn’t it be a uniting factor? Yes, I know, it usually isn’t.
In the meantime, aren’t at least some of the stories in the OT actually based on stories told by pagans before the OT was written?
Buddhism came out of Hinduism (and there’s been antipathy there as well). Sikhs borrowed from Hinduism and Islam.
It is fairly unique that the three Abrahamanic faiths are a process of accretion–each absorbing the texts of the one that came before. But in what sense does Muslims respecting the NT detract from Christianity? (Fascinating to realize that some Muslim scholars believe there are passages in the gospels where Jesus prophesies Muhammad).
The fact that the majority in each religion are not well-informed about the beliefs of the other two is hardly surprising (many are ill-informed about their own religion as well). Each is determined to be the ONLY faith, and yet each is dependent for its existence on faiths that came before it–and looking nervously at those that came after it.
That’s why Jews prefer not to call it the Old Testament, of course.
I am telling myself that most of the students you are referring to are Protestants or poorly-instructed Catholics.
I grew up Quaker. As my intellectual curiosity grew with maturity, I researched all religions for a year. Didnt know any Catholics or Jews, for that matter except in passing.
For me, there are only two faiths that make any historical sense….Orthodox Judaism or Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy. It took prayer and reflection to decide on becoming Catholic but this decision was only made because it was obvious to me that the Catholic Church was what the people of the God of the Old Testament would look like if Jesus was indeed the Messiah.
Studying the Hebraic roots of Catholic Christianity has only confirmed these beliefs for me.
Just my 2 cents.
>> Controversy over the correct understanding of these Scriptures
>> led to serious opposition;
>> opposition led to rejection;
>> rejection led to hatred;
>> hatred led to violence; and
>> violence eventually led to the entire history of
>> Christian anti-Semitism.
but possibly more eloquently put
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnFr-DOPf8
Have you seek this Lewis Black bit on the Old Testament?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC-nz71kmWE
Ha! No, I”m afraid I haven’t!
If it were not for Paul’s ministry to the gentiles would it had been likely that there would ever have been a NT or for that matter would there have been a Christian Church? I may be overstating it but it is difficult to imagine that the early followers of Jesus would not have simply been subsumed into Judaism as just another sect and likely would have not lasted very long as a distinct group.
It’s hard to imagine what it would be like, that’s for sure. Possibly just a sect within Judaism….
Perhaps similar to Baha’ism in Islam. Or [less well known] the followers of Shabbatai Sevi in the 17th century. Large numbers of Jews accepted his messianic claim, and a few survive in Turkey today. Unfortunately he himself converted to Islam when the Sultan made him an offer he couldn’t refuse instead of letting him rule the Holy Land as his followers hoped.
I think that the reaon why the Jewish religious authorities did not accept Jesus of Nazareth as a fullfilment of their scriptures is the same reason that many Bible scholars and even new testament scholars 🙂 don’t accept it today! The reason, I think, is that the Messianic secret of the Lamb of Isaiah 53 – the true nature and mission of Jesus was deliberately obfuscated – ‘his glory was veiled’. Isaiah 53 can indeed be seen to refer to Israel / Jacob, but is clearly also referring to a man – a man of sorrows, despised and rejected by men. We can quibble for example, about Matthew’s use of OT scripture, but you only need one clear fulfillment of OT prophecy to be convinced of Jesus’s destiny. Isaiah 53 of course ‘starts’ in Isaiah 52, but it begins in verse 1 with a tantalizing question: ‘Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?’. I see this as analagous to the question that Jesus asked his disciples ‘who do you say that I am?’ In fact, I see Isaiah 53 as a kind of prophetic key which can open the door (if we are willing) to the glory of who Jesus really was. I think this is also what Paul was talking about in 2Co 3:15-16: ‘But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away’. I think this can apply eqaully to Bible scholars today. If you believe in the Messianic secret, I don’t think there is a huge problem is seeing as natural the inclusion of the OT in the Christian Bible. As for the Markian Messianic secret being opposed to the Johanine Messianic revealation, I have posted a possible reconciliation on the historical Jesus section of the members blog.
Dr. Ehrman:
Most interesting. I look forward to reading chronological details of how/who/why the schism developed. I’m also surprised that so many college students seem to believe that there were people known as prophets who could accurately predict what would happen 8 centuries hence, in spite of the fact that what they were “predicting” (if you actually were to read the book of Isiah) were events in their own time and place.
Thanks for the blog.
It’s more likely that the problem was liturgical, not biblical. In 1963, the Roman Catholic Church revised its liturgy for the first time in about 500 years. It removed language that enabled anti-Semitic views among the faithful. While anti-Semitism may have made German citizens indifferent to what was happening, the real drivers of the Holocaust ascribed to a faith that first appeared in the late 19th century and was explicitly race-based. Attempting to link early conflict between Christians and Jews to the Holocaust will be granting the written word too much influence. After all, as you’ve said, people today work on Saturday despite the bible’s instruction to the contrary.
I hope you write it. I think it would be interesting and controversial but in a good and productive way.
Great topic. I’ve been dealing with the proselytizing my whole life, and it never ends. Legit case of cultural appropriation. Just had a good friend try that same line with me recently and how she supposedly convinced another Jewish friend how the Jewish Scriptures/OT “predicts that Jesus is/was coming.”
I’m guessing you’ll have a whole chapter devoted to Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho?
Don’t know yet! But I’ll certainly be devoting a chunk to it!
Once I started to see that the Old Testament was not historically possible it created the possibility that everything that followed could also be historically inaccurate. You pull the bottom brick out, the rest falls.
I’ve often wondered how many OT predictions were written into the Gospels vs. actually said or done by Jesus. In other words, the fulfillment was manufactured. I also wonder if a small sect of Jews had already written or discussed a Pesher type savior from the scriptures before Jesus was even born?
It doesn’t really matter as I think reading Jesus into the Prophets quickly became all the rage.
Another point I remember reading…besides the quotes from the OT put on Jesus’s lips, the early Christians needed the ancient authority of the OT to gain approval for Christianity being considered ancient rather than as a new religion which would have really driven much more persecution and outcasting by Rome?
Count me in as a preorder for the book! I’m somewhat patient. ????
Seems like it will be a very interesting book. I hope you treat the history of varying Christian answers as to which Old Testament laws are applicable to Christians. I also wonder whether it bothers most Jews today that Christians use the Old Testament.
Fredricksen writes of the cognitive dissonance brought by the crucifixion and no Kingdom. And the resurrection and no Kingdom. And the repeated sightings of the risen X and no Kingdom. All these caused the Jews that would have been the first generation of the Jesus Movement to go searching in their own scriptures for insight. Thoughts?
Yup, I should think that’s probably part of it. But even before then they had to find justification for thinking he was the messiah in the first place, if they knew he had been crucified.
Ah, you’re thinking not just the first generation, but the *root* of that first generation. Well then, I have cash burning a hole in my pocket waiting for the preorder.
I would say that the initial reaction of 99% of the world Jews to Jesus was indifference, and that for the leaders of the Jesus Movement this was worse than active opposition; it says they weren’t important enough to bother with. And of course all the reports of early Jewish opposition and violence to Jesus followers are from the Jesus Movement. But even there, there is evidence of Jewish indifference. In Acts (itself of questionable veracity), Stephen is stoned not for professing belief in Jesus but for disrespecting the Temple. And although the leaders of the Jesus Movement flee J’lem afterwards, they quickly come back and spend the next 40 years there, mostly undisturbed. The Temple leadership mostly didn’t care. (Josephus reports the high priest had James judicially murdered, but doesn’t say why, and also that the people objected and forced the priest’s removal.)
Please write this book! I will buy it as soon as it hits the shelves!
Having studied Paul, it looks that his theology was to abandon Jewish customs while linking Jewish prophesy to Christianity, all the while catering to a gentile audience. He even justifies the Crucifixion as a Passover event where Jesus is awarded the status of a lamb for the slaughter. Pharisee and Roman citizen, it appears that Christianity is entirely his baby.
Hi Bart.
I am in the process of writing a book about Jehovah called Warts and All and have dedicated 14 pages to just this subject. Would you be willing to read my work and give me your opinion? Thanks, Bonnie Wilber
Send me an email about this please. Thanks,
I am REALLY looking forward to this book (wish it was the very next one you were writing).
Though I still like your original title idea “How Christians Stole the Bible”!
If I might make a suggestion for an avenue of investigation for this book (which I think will be another great one.) One significant perspective difference is that Jews trace their descent directly to people in the OT. (We call it Tenach.) This means that a Jew reading the Tenach does not see it as just a holy book (it is actually a collection of many books of different kinds) but a book about his ancestors. His ancestors went out of Egypt. Another example, those of priesty descent look at Aaron as a grandfather and Moses as an Uncle. This gives the text a personal nature that the non-Jewish Christians did not share. (Maybe that is why the NT speaks against genealogies?) The Christian allegorizing would be seen as an especially objective thing, and something Jews could never accept.
Great point. Thanks!
I got around obeying the 4th Commandment when I was an Evangelical by being taught the Sabbath was a shadow.
“There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience” (Hebrews 4:9–11).
Yup, it’s amazing how we rationalize!
Do you ever get frustrated with having to repeat the same thing to generation after generation of Christian youth who are being fed these theological lies about their religion? I commend you for your patience. Not sure I could do it.
Not yet! (I guess I see it as not their fault…)
I have SERIOUS problem to see that the OT is a Christian book, but the Christians needs it because of it’s references to the Hebrew scriptures (reference to the law, symbols and the Messiah and more). Reading it on “face value” (just one example) in a Christian context will require an acceptence of an ENORMOUS evolution of the concept of God,,from what he is potrayed in the Genisis to the concept of God given in the NT.
I suspect more and more that we “gentiles” haven’t understood the texts, their symbols the meaning of it. In my mind, many can read it without understanding it.
I was wondering are there any OT books that’re your personal favorites? If so which ones?
Definitely. Ecclesiastes.
In one blog about OT you suggested some introductory books. Please, send à list.
For a concise treatment see (the first half) of my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction. Also, the Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by John Collins and the Introduction to the OT by MIchael Coogan. THese two are world-class experts and are writing for undergrads.
1. When Jesus prayed “Our Father in heaven…”, who was that Father that he was referring to? Is his Father Yahweh or El? I have read books that Yahweh and El are two separate gods of the Old Testament.
2. Do you think Jesus advocated complete obedience to all of the Old Testament especially the Torah/Pentateuch? For example, do you think he might approved the killing of a man when found gathering sticks on a sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36, NRSV).
3. Is the morality of Jesus fundamentally different compared to his Father? If so, do you think that we do not have that so-called “objective morality” that apologists often claim?
1. He thought Yahweh and El were the same, as did most Jews. 2. I don’t know. But I”m pretty sure he would never have said teh law should not be broken. 3. Do you mean Joseph or God? And no, there’s no such thing as “objective morality.” I know what peole mean by that but I don’t know what it means. (I.e. I think it’s a non-sensical category). People who say that should study a bit of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology)
Follow up for question 1: Do you believe that Yahweh and El are two separate beings? Please recommend the best scholarly readings(s) about this.
Follow up for question 2: My question was “Do you think Jesus advocated complete obedience to all of the Old Testament especially the Torah/Pentateuch? You answered, “I’m pretty sure he would never have said the law should not be broken. Sorry, I’m a bit confused. What do you mean by your answer?
Follow up for question 3: I mean… Is the morality of Jesus fundamentally different compared to “God the Father”?
1. Do you mean do I personally believe that? I’m an atheist, so I don’t think either one exists. I do think though that they started out as different divinities that later came to be teh same. 2. I’m saying that he did not advocate disobedience to the law, which means he believed in obeying it. 3. I’m not sure what it means to talk about the morality of God the Father. Most people would say that he’s beyond morality.
I know your speciality isn’t the Old Testament, but do you think that the Bible’s early authors intended for their stories to be read literally (e.g., that the Earth is the center of the universe)?
Yup. And they certainly were *understood* as meaning to be literal, almost always until the modern age.