Loading...Here are more intriguing topics in New Testament studies! This is part two of the writing assignments that I give to my undergraduate course, “Introduction to the New Testament.” Every week students write a two-page paper based on the instructions, and then in their small group discussions (recitations) they discuss their views, as guided by the graduate student Teaching Assistant.
So hey, go at it yourself! But, once again, I won’t be grading yours….
Note: every student is required to participate in one of the three debates, on a two-four person teacm arguing either the affirmative of negative side of the resolution. They are expected to prepare together individually and as a group, and everyone on the team is required to give a formal statement (opening statement of their teams position and arguments for it, rebuttal of the other team’s argument, or summary at the end)
(NTHI = my textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings)
Recitation Eight: The Bizarre Sayings of the Gospel of Thomas
Review your lecture notes and the textbook reading on the basic tenets of Gnosticism (NTHI, second half of chapter 11) and then read through the (Coptic) Gospel of Thomas carefully, several times. On the third or fourth time through, make a note of sayings that (a) strike you as very similar to ones you’ve read in the NT Gospels and (b) strike you as both unlike the sayings of the NT and as, well, pretty weird.
For your paper, choose three of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas that seem pretty bizarre to you, and give an interpretation of these sayings in light of the basic Gnostic beliefs from your reading and from what we’ve discussed in class. Then try to come up with a NON-Gnostic interpretation of the same sayings. Which interpretation seems more convincing to you?
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Recitation Nine: DEBATE ONE. Resolved: Jesus Believed in Hell
For those of you who are not involved in the debate: First, review your lecture notes and readings on the teachings of Jesus from NHTI Then read the the two discussions of Jesus’ view of hell in the readings on Sakai: one is a chapter from my book Heaven and Hell; the other is from an evangelical biblical scholar named Denny Burk. His article is not only on Jesus, but on Scripture more broadly; for this debate you will mainly be interested in what he says about the teachings of Jesus. As you will see, We take opposite positions on the issue.
You should also do some research on your own, reading discussions of both sides that you find in books, articles, and the Internet.
Your paper is not to summarize the reading but to stake out a position on the topic itself. In your considered judgment, did Jesus believe in hell? I am defining “hell” in this context as “eternal, conscious torment.” Did Jesus believe that was the fate of sinners, or not? Look at all the evidence and construct your argument.
Those of you who are involved in the debate, in your paper you are to argue for the position which you are opposing in the debate. That is to say, if you are debating on the affirmative side, you are to write a paper arguing in favor of the negative; if you are debating negative your paper is to advance the affirmative.
Recitation Ten: Did Paul and Jesus Have the Same Religion?
Review your notes and readings on the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul, and read the summary of the comparioson of their views in NTHI chap. 22. Then read the lively discussion of the famous playwright (and Nobel Prize winner) George Bernard Shaw, “The Monstrous Imposition on Jesus,” included on Sakai.
For your paper, you are to summarize and evaluate Shaw’s views of Paul and Jesus. In your opinion, is he right or wrong in his understanding of the differences between the two men? Did Paul and Jesus have the same religion? Did they both believe the same things? Did they both have the same answer to their ultimate question: What does a person have to do to be saved? What makes you convinced, one way or the other?
Recitation Eleven: DEBATE TWO. Resolved: Paul’s Views of Women Were Oppressive
Those of you who are not involved in the debate are to write a position paper based on your view of the resolution. To do so, reread the Pauline passages that deal with the role of women in the church (e.g., Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:10-15; and any others that you think pertain). Then answer the question: Do you think that Paul was opposed to women and/or sought to suppress their role in the church? How do you explain his views?
Those who are involved in the debate are to write a paper arguing for the position which you are opposing in the debate. That is to say, if you are debating on the affirmative side, you are to write a paper arguing in favor of the negative; if you are debating negative your paper is to advance the affirmative.
Recitation Twelve: DEBATE THREE. Resolved: The New Testament Condemns Homosexuality
Those of you who are not involved in the debate are to write a position paper based on your view of the resolution. To do so, reread the New Testament passages that are sometimes taken as dealing with homosexuality, esp. Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. Then answer the question: Do you think that Paul was opposed to homosexuality as we know it? Part of the complication behind this question is whether Paul understood homosexual activity the way modern people do (he obviously knew of people of the same gender having sex with one another, but did he think about that activity the same way modern people in Western culture do? Why was it a problem for him? What kind of assumptions does he make about it?) , and whether he thought of people as having a sexual “orientation” (Is this a modern notion that Paul couldn’t have had, that people are “oriented” one way or another sexually?) To help you begin dealing with the issues, you may want to read ahead in the textbook, especially the section on “ideologies of gender” in the ancient world in chap. 26. Other books have been placed on reserve for you to pursue these matters further.
Those who are involved in the debate are to write a paper arguing for the position which you are opposing in the debate. That is to say, if you are debating on the affirmative side, you are to write a paper arguing in favor of the negative; if you are debating negative your paper is to advance the affirmative.
Recitation Thirteen: Who Cares?
You’re talking to someone about religion and, as sometimes happens, she turns on the steam. “Look,” she says, “the New Testament is full of contradictions, we can’t know what the man Jesus actually said and did, the apostle Paul turned Jesus’ simple preaching of the coming Kingdom into a complicated theological system of sin, judgment, and redemption, and most of the NT writers actually believed that the end was coming in their own lifetime. This book is misogynist and anti-semitic and homophobic and has been used to justify all sorts of horrendous acts of suppression over the ages: just listen to some of the pit-preachers! This is a dangerous book and people should not be encouraged to read it!
How do you respond?
One is always hearing about the influences of Judaism on Islam and Christianity, eg, that they to some degree grew out of Judaism. Was there a very ancient religion that Judaism grew out of or that very strongly influenced it very early in its history? I’d be especially interested in anything that had monotheistic or henotheistic tendencies.
Historical Judaism — the ancient religion of teh ancient Israelites — definitely developed out of religions in the context of ancient Israel, probably going back at least to the 11th or 12th c. BCE I should think. Mainly these would have been Canaanite religions, but there were others. That’s why you get things like similar creation stories, flood stories, law codes, and so on in other cultures — long *before* you find them in Israelite sources.
In Kings 22 and 23, King Josiah “discovered” the “Book of the Law” that had been lost or at at least fallen into disuse for a very long time. Not even the Passover had been celebrated since before the first King.
Quite a while ago I can recall reading something to the effect that this was actually/probably when the law was first composed/formalized and that the rediscovery was a “story” that was told to legitimize the law and give it ancient roots.
Is this accurate? Could this period be considered the “historical” origin of Judaism in a form (strongly monotheistic?) recognizable by us today—and even if it was influenced by many much older stories and practices?
But I also have the impression that the Babylonian Exile and it’s immediate aftermath was extremely influential in giving Judaism a form that is recognizable by us today.
My main question is when, historically, Judaism took on a form that is recognizable by us today.
The common scholarly view is that Josiah’s reform, based on the “discovery” of the “book of the law” by the priest Hilkiah, is related closely specifically to the book of Deuteronomy, and that what was discovered may have been teh book now incorporated into Deut 12-26, often called by scholars the Deuteronomic Code. That’s why the laws in Deuteronomy are in places different from those in the P source found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Not the same source.
“Resolved: The New Testament Condemns Homosexuality” Whenever someone tells me, “The Bible says…” or “The New Testament says…” I respond that the Bible and the NT contain writings from many people; it’s an anthology. And they don’t all say the same thing. Even if one author condemns something it doesn’t mean all the others do. It’s like taking one outrageous statement from a political candidate and saying “The Democratic (or Republican) party says…” In fact, I’m hard-pressed to think of any significant statement in the Bible that can’t be argued against from some other part of the Bible.
Yup! The challenge in the debate is to find ANY place in teh NT that condemns homosexuality. The negative side says it can’t be done. And I agree!
That very simple word, “say”, has caused enormous problems. According to one of Dale Martin’s Yale lectures on YT, the Bible doesn’t actually “say” anything (in jest he suggests holding it to your ear and listening closely). As with any text, it requires interpretation, which is not as easy it seems. I shudder when I think of all the people who pick up a Bible and start reading, and think you understand what you’re reading, because “it’s obvious” or some such. Both Dale Martin and Jeff Siker have written or edited books on the Bible and homosexuality, which are very good. Martin’s book Sex and The Single Savior is very good IMO.
At any rate, you probably know that reasoned arguments, nuance and knowledge count for little in these types of discussions. There’s far too many people for whom the Bible has ceased to be a text (i.e a collection of words in a particular order), and has become some kind of prop. They hold up the Bible, and it matters not whether the pages are blank or if they contain gibberish – what matters is the implied consensus understanding of what that prop means to their group.
With regards to “Recitation Ten,” is there a consensus about what Gospel writers were familiar with Paul’s letters? I know you and others have strongly argued against the idea that Paul ‘founded’ Christianity, but I don’t think that suggests that the Gospel writers were unfamiliar of his theology.
You have also shown us that most scholars believe the Gospels to be internal documents shared among early Christians. Is it conceivable to believe that some first 1st century Christians had access to both Paul’s letters and a Gospel or two?
Different scholars have different views, and it’s not something we get into directly in class (we talk aobut he relationship of Paul and Jesus, but not much about Paul and the Gospels). My view is that the Gospel writers — including Luke, ironically (since Paul is his hero in Acts) — did not know any of the letters of Paul that we have.
Just reading through this list of topics was thought-provoking. Fun stuff!
Professor Ehrman- I’m doing a study on Christian Nationalism. In order to fully understand the subject I’m visiting different churches every week and reading through the New Testament. I’ve invested 46 hours into the reading of the NT and I’m at 1Cor 14:34-35 and these passages just seem unusually cold and inconsistent with the flow of the epistle up to this point.
In which of your books do you deal with these passages and have you considered writing a commentary of the NT using textural criticism to drive the narrative? One more if I may- is there a commentary that you would recommend until yours is written?
Thank you in advance.
I”ve dealt with those verses on the blog before. Stricly speaking they are not a textual variation, since they are in all the surviving manuscripts. but I don’t think they are original. So I (and many others) think they are an “interpolation” made before the surviving manuscripts were created.