Loading...Most of my textbook approaches the New Testament from a historical and traditional literary point of view. But there are many other approaches that one can take to the Bible or any other writing. In recent decades other theoretical forms of analysis have developed and fruitfully employed by scholars.
I decided to say something about these theoretical approaches in my book so students would be informed about them, even though I do not employ them in the book itself. Since critical theory is not my long suit, I asked my then graduate student and now Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Virginia Tech, Shaily Patel (who is deeply familiar with various kinds of theoretical discourse) to write up a short summary for me.
Here is the Excursus she produced, now in the textbook.
******************************
Methods of Ideological Criticism
By Shaily Patel
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!
A good job, Dr. Patel.
Hi Dr. Ehrman, I was wondering if you’ve ever come across any analysis of Biblical stories by literary Darwinists, i.e. analysis of text in light of evolutionary understanding about kin selection, mate choice, etc? Brian Boyd, Joseph Carroll, Jonathan Gottschall, David Sloan Wilson, Ellen Dissanayake, and Michelle Scalise Sugiyama are the best-known academics in this area. I’ve read several books and articles by literary Darwinists but I don’t recall any mention of the Bible, even though it would seem to be ripe for this sort of analysis.
I’m familiar with kin selection, etc, the various aspects of evolutionary biology (nad think Wilson in particular is a terrific scholar/author). But I’m not familiar with attemts to connect it to the Bible.
Appreciate the bibliographies. I’m fascinated by these approaches. My only concern is that at first blush it seems as if these methodologies might be particularly susceptible to anachronism, reading modern concerns back into fundamentally different ways of thinking. I’m interested in how these points of view both acknowledge and protect themselves from that impulse.
Subject: Question About Biblical Studies Academy Courses
Dr. Ehrman,
I would like to ask a question regarding the Biblical Studies Academy courses. I understand that the introduction to the New Testament with Hugh Mendes is about to begin. I recall reading in an email or possibly on your website that there might be some kind of certificate awarded at the end of the course. Could you please clarify this for me.
I don’t believe we’ve been giving certificates yet, but we have certainly talked about it. You may want to check out the website that talks about our courses at http://www.bartehrman.com
Will do, thank you!
Indirectly related to the post; this has always boggled me, Dr. Ehrman – where did Peter and James operate out of & work? Regardless of if this was in Galilee or Jerusalem – I’m more concerned about their day to day setting (is this an office? Out of their home? Communal spaces?) Considering they have been fishermen & other trades, and after Jesus’ death devoted themselves to the church – how were they able to support themselves financially?
And in late 40s / early 50s Tarsus, how did Paul know where to find them? Did he meet them in Judea, or in Antioch first? Interesting to think why Peter and James would have even travelled outside of Judea, considering they were non-Gentile evangelizing Jewish Christians. Do you believe the incident at Antioch actually even occurred?
Also… how did Paul (or anyone else interested in Jesus for that matter) even identify or find Peter & James? It’s always boggled me how in the underground era of Christianity, especially in antiquity – Paul would be able to hear about, seek out and meet with Peter & James.
This had always fascinated me. Anxiously awaiting to hear your thoughts.
It appears they were in Jerusalem; it is debated why, but one interesting theory is that they went there when they came to believe Jesus was raised from the dead because they expected him to return there soon from heaven. Paul knew they were there probably because he met up with others who told him. I do think the Antioch event with Peter happened. One good reason for thinking so is that when Paul reports the argument, he never indicates that he won everyone’s or even anyone’s support; many scholars think that in the general opinion Peter must have gotten the better of him.
Dr. Ehrman,
#1 Are you disappointed that Jerome (producer of the Vulgate) found the sight of pregnant women distasteful? Does his position on pregnant women warp/disqualify his intelligence?
“Church Father Jerome, who valued asceticism, expressed distaste for the sight of pregnant women. In his letters, he refers with aversion to ‘tumor uteri,’ a term describing the swelling of the womb during pregnancy.”
#2 I think you said you were on the Speech & Debate team either in high school or college (like I was).
Who do you think won the debate between Celsus Platonicus (author of True Word/Teaching) and Origen (author of Against Celsus) –Celsus’ criticism of Christianity and Origen’s refutation year later?
How do people “flow” the debate. What points of Celsus survived as winning points and what points of Origen were winning points?
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Blog Member since 2012
1. No more than I’m disappointed by everyone who lives in a different age and simply accepts widespread views that I think are completely unacceptable.
2. Depends whom you ask. Already when I was in grad school when I read Origen’s refutatoins of Celsus I thought Celsus on the whole had the stronger argument.
Steefen and I have had this conversation on the forum, but since this is public, I want to respond here:
Jerome never said that he ” found the sight of pregnant women distasteful”.
Yes, there are scholars who have alleged he did, but, if we consult the cited passage (Ep. 107,11) they have plainly–and I would make bold to add, dishonestly–ignored and suppressed the context, particularly that the sentence in question starts with him saying “I know certain ones have admonished . . .”.: what follows in the sentence is manifestly not presented as his own opinion.
But I suppose he is a dead, white, male, orthodox Christian, so no need to read him honestly, let alone charitably.
In fairness, I do have trouble with his attitude towards sexuality, but this isn’t the quotation to prove that point.
Interesting. Thanks for the clarificatoin. I should have looked it up myself!
Just to be clear: I did not mean the sarcastic bit at the end–about not needing to be fair to him–to be directed to you, but to the scholars I mentioned and branded as dishonest earlier in my comment.
Hi Bart,
Chat GPT:
Here’s the Latin passage from Letter 107 (To Laeta) that includes the mention of pregnant women:
Scio praecepisse quosdam, ne virgo Christi cum eunuchis lavet, ne cum maritis feminis, quia alii non deponant animos virorum, aliae tumentibus uteris praeferant foeditatem.
Translation into English:
“I know that some have given instructions that a virgin of Christ should not bathe with eunuchs, nor with married women, because the former do not suppress the passions of men, and the latter display the ugliness of their swelling wombs.”
This passage specifically critiques the practice of bathing with others, focusing on both eunuchs and married women. The phrase “tumentibus uteris” (swelling wombs) is Jerome’s reference to pregnant women, which he describes as presenting a “foeditatem” (ugliness).
Porphyry says Jerome was saying others old that view.
I say Jerome does not correct that view. He says young virgins of Christ are beautiful but he does not correct the original view by others by saying: pregnancy without sin is also beautiful.
1 Ammon Hillman
2. The Christian History Institute in “Paula: A Portrait of 4th Century Piety” by Nancy A. Hardesty, 1988
3. Jane Barr in the book After Eve, edited by Janet Martin Soskicegot
and
4. AI
are not calumniating Jerome.
This another example of the direction the blog appears to be heading. Its a journey I don’t care to take. Over the years I have enjoyed to participate but its time to sign off. I am cancelling my membership.
I’m sorry to see you go, but I’m not sure what you’re objecting to. This post was not pushing anyone to adopt any of these theoretical approaches; but they do exist, many scholars think they are important, and they are at least worth knowing about. Especially if for anyone who doesn’t think they are suitable, useful, or beneficial, since it doesn’t make any sense for us to reject something we don’t know about. In any event, I’ve never employed any of these methods myself in my work, let alone here on the blog.
His true feelings are also vividly expressed when he says, ‘Women with child present a revolting spectacle.’
1 of 2 sources for his sentiment:
“The Influence of Saint Jerome on Medieval Attitudes to Women” by Jane Barr
First published as Ch. 6, in After Eve,
edited by Janet Martin Soskice.
Collins Marshall Pickering 1990
Reproduced on our website with the necessary permissions
I suppose it’s kinda like objecting to every ancient author we have because they thought slavery was natural and acceptable. They did. We don’t. And we find it repulsive. I’d say it’s hard to single one ancient author out and put a lot of blame on just him. (the vast majority of them are hims, of course)
Bart wrote: “Most of my textbook approaches the New Testament from a historical and traditional literary point of view. But there are many other approaches that one can take to the Bible or any other writing.”
One approach I haven’t heard mentioned is the political approach, yet it certainly seems that politics provided a major contribution. For example, if theology had been the major concern, the head of Christianity would have been the Bishop of Jerusalem. If philosophy (love of wisdom) had been the major concern, the head of Christianity would probably have been the Bishop of Alexandria. Instead, the head of western Christianity was the bishop of the western capital, Rome; and the head of eastern Christianity was the bishop of the eastern capital, Constantinople. Also, I have read that the Roman families that provided the Republic with senators became the families that provided the Empire and later with bishops. The most likely explanation for these would seem to be politics.
So, assuming there was a strong political undercurrent, I have wondered how much this might have contributed to the discussions of which sects were heretical and which were not.
I’d say that socio-historical approaches deal at great lenghts with political issues when approaching early Chritianity.
(continued)
My biggest question about this is how much politics may have influenced the adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity. There seems to be little theological justification, and likewise little logical justification, for any such doctrine, and it certainly bears the appearance of a political compromise. If Gnosticism had originated in Rome instead of in Alexandria, would it have been more acceptable? If Marcion had been born in Rome instead of in Sinope, would Marcionism have been more acceptable? I can easily imagine “The Powers That Be” in Rome and Constantinople deciding, for theological, logical, or political reasons, that “Jesus was a man who became a god” was a heresy. Likewise, “Jesus was a god who became a man”, “Jesus was a man possessed by a god”, and all the rest. Each time they eliminated a plausible alternative, they reduced the pool of alternatives until, by a process of elimination, only the Trinity remained. My question is: Were these alternatives eliminated for theological reasons? Or for logical reasons? Or for political reasons?
Well, yes, yes, and yes!
Sorry but I don’t find Shaily Patel’s contributions particularly helpful. Most of these viewpoints were not significant during the contemporaneous culture in which the NT was written, therefore I have to reject their application.
Second, another way of interpreting the NT writings, particularly the gospels, is not mentioned. One example is R.G. Price’s The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory. I’ve mentioned this on the blog previously. I would label this as an “Old Testament Extension Criticism” that is, the gospels certainly seem to extend OT themes that what god does is good versus people do what is right in their own eyes, which leads to punishment of conquest and exile. Also, the OT Jewish scribes wrote in secrecy and promoted through stories and songs themes that can only be known by true believers and those who follow Yahweh. Both Jesus and Paul reference things that can only be known by true believers and are shared in secret.
Consider that modern humans divide history into BCE and CE but the ancient people who wrote the NT did not. Certainly the NT authors could have considered their writings as extensions of Jewish culture and religious traditions.
Thoughts?
No need to be sorry — we all have our views about what matters! But I’m not sure that the fact there was no such thing as post-colonial theory at the time is a reason not to be interested in it. There also wasn’t an English Bible at the time or the kinds of historical critical approaches we use all the time on the blog or the post-Enlightenment concern for what actually happened in history established on non-supernatural grounds either! What we think of as biblical scholarship didn’t exist then, but it doesn’t stop me from doing it!
Ehhhhh. We can agree that a middle ground may exist but, a Marxist interpretation, for example, cannot be applied because Marxist economic theory did not exist at the time of the writings. Marxist thought can’t be inferred if the people of the time had no clue about it.
I do mention to people the humor that the King James edition used a very British vernacular to translate ‘grain’ as ‘corn’ when ‘maize/corn’ had not been brought from the new world at the time of the translation.
Ah, I think we disagree on that. Marxist theory is constantly being applied to texts and social situations prior to Marx. The use of a theory to explain a text does not presuppose that the author of the text knew about the theory. Marxist theory itself is meant to explain the history of capitalism, precisely among people who had never heard of Marx and would have hated him if they did know. It’s a bit like saying Einstein’s theory of relativity can be applied to astronomical events that transpired before Einstein.
Ah, a friendly disagreement. Listen to what you state “…Marxist theory itself is meant to explain the history of capitalism, precisely among people who had never heard of Marx…”
How could an explanation about the history of capitalism apply in a society that NEVER heard of or experienced capitalism? There is no frame of reference, except for those people who live NOW and want to apply current themes to ancient societies.
Your comparison of Einstein’s theory being applied to astronomical events that transpired before Einstein is not applicable. Einstein’s theory regards physics and the basic functions of the universe. It is intended to explain all physics, not just during certain time windows. Not at all an equitable comparison.
When we read a book from 2000 years ago to try to help yous understand how to behave in the modern world, we are applying a modern question to an ancient text that the author did not have and are drawing a conclusion that would never have occured to the author. If, e.g., we say that “love your neighbor as yourself” could mean that we should possible provide funds for disaster relieve in Los Angeles, that would be an interpretatoin of a text that was not available to the author of Leviticus. We have a way of reading that not only makes sense of texts but pulls out their “meaning” in a way that is “meaningful.” By it’s very nature, that is anachronistic. Our “common sense” way of doing that is unreflective; the use of critic theory is a way of doing it that is reflective (feminist theory, post-colonial theory, etc.)
“How could an explanation about the history of capitalism apply in a society that NEVER heard of or experienced capitalism? ”
The history of capitalism includes stages prior to the emergence of capitalism itself. Marxism is happy to theorize about, e.g., feudalism, as a prior stage of development. Those prior stages are all, per Marxism, part of a dialectic that leads to capitalism and eventually to communism.
If Marxism is correct, as a theory of human history and progress, it makes perfect sense to read texts of antiquity through that lens.
Thanks for the newer perspective: “subjects of these empires. They read the NT by viewing the 1st Christians as subjects of the Roman Empire. ”
This totally opens different ways to consider the Bible than in our monotone, noble voice!