(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...I have been discussing the matter of contradictions in the Bible and the question of why they matter. My overarching point is that they matter NOT simply so we can say “Aha! There are contradictions!” They matter for other things.
The one point I’ve made so far is that they matter for anyone who is committed to the authority of Scripture. I need to say that I think the point I was trying to make in that post has possibly been misunderstood. When I asked how the Bible could be authoritative if there are contradictions, I did not mean it to be a rhetorical question, with the obvious answer being: It can’t be authoritative! Some readers clearly took the question that way, but in fact I had a different intention.
My intention was …
To read the rest of this post you will need to belong to the blog. Joining is very fast and relatively cheap. And every nickel goes to charity. So why not join?
Hi Bart, out of interest, what views that are more radical than yours does Dale hold?
Among other things, he thinks that Jesus wanted to start a violent revolution to overthrow the Romans.
That is precisely the view of Hyam Maccoby (Revolution in Judaea / Jesus and the Jewish Resistance).
But I should qualify that. Maccoby writes that Jesus was a mystic (according to Maccoby). He sought to bring about a spiritual transformation of the entire world. He attempted to fulfill the prophecies of Zechariah and Joel 3, “The Day of the Lord.”
Jesus attempted to do this via a miracle — like Moses’ miracles — where the miracle is set off by something a human does, and then God does the rest of the miracle. For example, Moses bangs on the rock; THEN the miracle of water occurs. Moses dips the rod into the Nile; THEN God does the rest and turn it red.
In Jesus’ case he sought a physical confrontation with the Temple authorities. That was why he brought TWO swords (Luke 22) to the Garden. NOT “many” swords, but not “no swords,” either. Two swords, as Jesus himself said (Luke 22) would be enough — IF God would then do the REST of the miracle.
According to Maccoby, Jesus DID seek to commit violence in the Garden. But only TOKEN violence. Jesus was no King David. He sought only token, initial violence, Just Enough to invoke God to do the rest of the heavy lifting.
According to Maccoby, Jesus did indeed seek to throw out the Romans. But only as a first step to uniting the entire world, including Rome, under the banner of God’s Messiah.
Jesus of Gamala with his mariners did want to start a violent revolution to overthrow the Romans. He swindled horses from Vespasian but latter lost the battle of Galilee on the Sea of Galilee against Vespasian. Yes, there was a Jesus in Galilee who wanted to start/continue a violent revolution to overthrow the Romans. Either the historical events of the Biblical Jesus actually happened 40 years later or the legacy of the biblical Jesus manifested 40 years later at the Battle of Galilee.
Did Dale put his sentiment that Jesus wanted to start a violent revolution to overthrow the Romans in a book?
With Dale thinking that and with Jesus seeing the defeat of Jerusalem in its violent revolt against Rome, how does Dale, post-Gandhi, post-Martin Luther King, Jr., post-Mandela see Jesus’ desire for violent Jewish Revolt against Rome as holy and as “God will take care of you” given the outcome?
Jesus’ theocracy did not have a place for Rome to be over it, unless, like Paul, slaves submit to masters and respect those God has put over you to govern you.
No, I don’t think it’s in any of his books. He wrote on article on it.
Was the belief in an innerant sacred text common in religions before Christianity?
No, prior to Christianity the only religion that focused on written texts was Judaism. Nothing like it in the Greek or Roman worlds, e.g.
Did Jews in Jesus’ time or earlier have groups equivalent to Christian fundamentalists? I ask because I am wondering if the idea of an inerrant sacred text appears to be a Jewish or Christian invention. And in any case, what is it about Judaism or Christianity that would make them unique in that regard? Christianity seems to be uniquely concerned about believing the right thing, so that is a possible explanation. I’m sure there are others though.
There certainly were Jews who believed the Scriptures were literally true in their every word.
It’s important to distinguish what kind of documents we’re talking about and what we mean by “literally true”. For instance, Jews believed that the writings of the Hebrew prophets were “literally” the words of God (spoken through the prophets) which is definitely NOT something unique to Judaism. The Greeks, in the same vain, believed the recorded oracles of the Pythia at Delphi were “literally” the words of the god Apollo, so that should give you an idea of what the ancient world considered a “literally true” document.
What made the Jews stand out in the ancient world (and eventually the Christians as well) was that they believe their prophetic scriptures — and *only* their prophetic scriptures! — were the words of God. For the Jews, all other “scripture” was, therefore, false or fraudulent or, even worse, the product of evil forces, such as demons or Satan himself.
Pagans, on the other hand, didn’t think that way about the prophets and prophecies of other cultures. Greeks would seek prophecies from Egyptian oracles. Persians would seek prophecies from Greek oracles (such as Delphi). And so on and so forth. The pagan world’s cosmopolitan ecumenicalism didn’t just stop at seeing other people’s gods as being the same gods by other names. They also saw all scripture as essentially the same words from the same gods as well. If an Egyptian document said the goddess Isis says such-and-such, the Greeks would interpet that as Aphrodite (for example) having said such-and-such.
The Jews, on the other hand, did not see it that way. For Jews, only Jewish scripture was the true word of the true God. All other writings were false and deceptive. And that’s what made the Jews stick out. If an Egyptian oracle said something, the Jews couldn’t care less about it.
As to other religions focusing on written texts, what about the Vedas in Hinduism?
I’m speaking only of the Western tradition, out of which both Christianity came.
The two most populated nations on earth (China and India) only have Abrahamic minorities (Christians, Jews, Muslims), and they’re slowly taking over the world. So, as far as I can tell, the Bible is eventually going to outlive it’s usefulness and go the way of the Illiad anyhow, contradictions or not.
I’ll second Dr. Ehrman’s recommendation that those interested in Biblical authority read Dale Martin’s “Biblical Truths: The Meaning of Scripture in the 21st Century.” I describe myself as a “live and let live atheist,” and I truly respect Dr. Martin’s deeply thoughtful and honest exploration of the texts. Pete Enns’ “The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It” also addresses the concern, but in a manner perhaps more accessible to someone just beginning to read in the area.
Someday I will read Martin’s book, but I wonder if he offers any insights that are not already in the works of a Marcus Borg, or John Shelby Spong. As someone who left Christianity when I lost the belief in the Bible’s ability to tell me reliable info about who Jesus was, or if God really interacted with our world, I never found Borg or Spong helpful. I kept thinking while reading they just didn’t have the courage to leave a religion they discovered to be false. Perhaps they couldn’t face the scariness of a new life without a church they’d known since childhood. It was tough for me, but I felt I had to leave if I wanted to maintain my integrity if I wanted to keep calling myself a seeker for truth. Yeah, I know, what is truth.
Oh, his views are nothing like those of Borg or Spong.
“Truth can be hard, but it is better to know the truth than to live a lie.”
Then note what I said about Paul. Paul never said: “Jesus ho Christos”. Paul did not consider Jesus as Christ. This is part of the truth. The truth is simple.
Dear Professor!
Let me explain, please. I read yours book about Judas. The truth is in it.
In 1Cor11:23 Paul said: God handed Jesus to death, on that night, when he took the bread, true?
The question is: IF God handed Jesus to death on that night, then what way, then how did he (Jesus) die on the cross? IF the previous night God gave him death already? Please consider!
Of course this is not the uppercase truth. This is the truth of Paul only.
Not sure about that. He calls him Jesus Christ all the time.
With great respect: It’s true, that Paul calls him Jesus Christ all the time. Yes, Paul made a personal name from the title, but Paul never said: “Jesus ho Christos”. So with great respect, Paul did not consider Jesus as Christ. Because if according to Paul God handed Jesus to death on that night, when he took the bread, then Jesus could not die on the cross. Paul never says: cross of Jesus. He always talks about the cross of Christ. It is absolutely clear.
Last comment: In Philippians 3:10 Paul wants to be the likeness of Jesus’ death. What way, how does Paul want to be like, (becoming like him) the death of Jesus? He want to die on the cross? I do not think so. Paul wanted to be dead, (as Jesus by God, in 1Cor11:23), to qualify for the resurrection of the dead. So: dead Jesus equal with the Christ, at the Paul. Therefore no one speaking Jesus be cursed (1Cor12:3).
With big respect!
My view is that he wouldn’t call him Christ if he didn’t think he was Christ.
My view is he:
1. to name the resurrected Christ: Jesus Christ, or Lord Jesus Christ. (In union of Jesus and Christ)
2. Paul calls Jesus the Son of God in every case. (The Son of God, Son in the likeness of sinful flesh in Rom8:3 and Fil2:7)
3. dead Jesus (the Son of God by God handed to death) equal with the Christ.
For example:
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,”
(preexistence as an Angel?),
“but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (as Jesus, Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh)
“And being found in human form (as Christ, the Son of God by God handed to death)
“he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (cross of Christ).”
Three names used in three ways. My view.
Dear Professor! I know, I have only two comment, but this is very important because of the truth. It’s enough if you read it.
What was Paul’s gospel exactly? The Gospel of the Son of God true? Paul did not proclaim the Gospel of Christ.
Christ has no gospel at the Paul. Therefore the Rome1:16 is fals. Its unmasks the Rome 17. Gospel of the Son of God, this for in it the righteousness of God is revealed FROM FAITH FOR FAITH. Not only simple faith: just FROM FAITH FOR FAITH.
What kind from faith, what kind for faith? From Christ- faith, for the Son of God faith. Without Christ- faith, isn’t faith of Son of God, according to Paul! Therefore he proclaimed the Christ. He did not proclaim Jesus as Christ (the Son of God as Crist). No, and no. He only proclaimed the Christ. Christ as dead and damned, to send to lesteners for the faith of Son of God. For this reason the Jews beat him many times. They did not beat him, because he proclaimed Jesus as Christ. Then they would have asked him where Jesus was and who he is?
But they would’nt beaten it!
Please consider!
It is worth asking if Jesus is not the Christ according to Paul, then who is the Christ according to Paul??
Not a certain person, that’s for sure. Christ is a universal redeemer. Anyone can see him, who were baptized into the Christ 🙂 Then will only need a mirror for that person. Indeed! Let’s read it:
“We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise.” (2Cor10:12)
or:
“You are judging by appearances! If anyone is confident that they belong to Christ, they should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as they do.” (2Cor10:7)
So this mean, when Paul looked into the mirror, he did not see himself in the mirror, but Christ, because of his faith in Christ. Himself “by mirror” only darkly, or vaguely or obscurely.
“For we see now through a dim window obscurely.” (1Cor23:12)
Dear Bart!
All of this comes from your translation! I read in your book. I not know the Greek language. I believed your translation, because I think you were the expert. You say that 1 Cor 11:23, not speak about Judas. If this is so, I’m sorry, but I’m right, I’m think well.
For your translation, for me understandable Paul. Thanks.
I’ve come to see any authority the Bible has is that which people give for in and of itself it has no authority. However, I do agree that it is a paramount book in that it helped shape the course of Western Civilization and needs to be viewed and understood in its proper historical context.
In our lifetime do you view society as being less religious than say 50 years ago or more and if so is the Bible less authoritative in our culture than it once was?
Yes, and yes. But for those for whom it *is* authoritative it is *really* authoritative.
I appreciate you making this post, Bart. I can’t stand when I hear people make quick refutations of the most wooden and literalistic readings of the Bible and then act as though they’ve toppled the 2000 year tradition. If they could only sit across from someone like Moltmann, Barth, or Tillich! Even the more traditionalist ancient and Reformation theologians like Augustine, Calvin, and Luther had views of scripture which are far more nuanced than American fundamentalism. Whether Christianity is true or not, it doesn’t stand or fall on verbal inspiration of scripture. I hope you continue to make this point in the future. Once again, thanks!
And this is why I buy your books, and why I thank you for writing them.
These are huge questions, of course. But, in view of the recent rules, I’ll try to make a couple comments as briefly as possible.
1] I think it’s possible to suggest that a/the primary problem here is the underlying assumption that these are historical or scientific works. They are not, and any attempt to engage them on a literalist basis is doomed to failure. But to be clear, this works both ways: in such a view it is as inappropriate to read, say, Gen 1-2 as a factual account of the creation of the universe as it is to insist that factual contradictions, in and of themselves, render the entire texts invalid, or otherwise devoid of meaning. To do either, this line of reasoning would suggest, is to badly misunderstand what the texts are about.
Or to state this another way, perhaps it comes down to the definition of “authoritative”. Any religion is –as are the texts that might underly them– ultimately human-made constructs. We can still ask whether it is possible for there to be a meaningful religion which is guided by such texts.
Consider the creation story of Genesis and compare it to other Creation myths of the time. You’ve got Greco-Roman myths of Titans holding up the world. You have Norse myths of the Yggisdral Tree, the world-encompassing Serpent, and the world being formed from icy mist.
From the Iroquois Indians, you have the myth of Skywoman who descended to earth while pregnant, to a water world with no land, settling on the back of a turtle, with a muskrat diving to find mud to put on the turtle’s back, and from this all the land was formed.
Then look at the Genesis version. In a ROUGH, GENERAL way, it anticipates modern Evolutionary theory. It has a progression of life, from lowly forms through higher forms, and finally Man.
I hold that the Genesis Creation story is thousands of years ahead of its time. I know of no other Creation myth remotely like Genesis in character.
You might be interested in reading about some of the other creation stories from the Ancient Near East (e.g. Mesopotamian, Canannite, etc.). They are quite strikingly similar to Hebrew Creation myth(s).
In fact, I think it’s safe to say many scholars hold that these myths are more or less all variants of the same underlying mythology (or, at the very least, the various myths had a strong mutual influence on each other.)
“[a nameless Muslim scholar of the Koran] is a thorough skeptic when it comes to the historicity and accuracy of the Koran. But he is also a deeply committed Muslim who thinks that the Koran can and should guide our thinking about God. I’ve tried to get him to write some posts on the blog to explain it all, but his view is that you can’t put something this complicated into a couple of thousand-word posts, and he thinks that if you really want to see how it can be done, you need to read his book.”
One could substitute in the brackets above a liberal Hindu scholar, a liberal Mormon scholar, etc., and the result is the same. If one wants to find relevance in a superstition, one can always do so.
Well maybe so. But I’d suggest you read his work before shunting it off as superstition. (By the way, one of his other books is called “The Invention of Superstition”!! It deals with the ancient world, of course)
Totally off the current topic, but I’ll be brief.
What is the sense of the word “evangelist” when used within the text of the NT?
For example in Acts 21.8: “…the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven..”
(”evangelist” appears in most modern translations, e.g. NRSV, KJV, as well as the Greek).
Should we read “evangelist” in the “modern” sense? I.e. is the author of Acts suggesting he believes that Philip wrote a Gospel? (Or, in this case, does it simply underscore that Philip, as one of “the Seven”, is carrying “the good news” out into the world? Or….)
An evangelist is anyone who proclaims the good news (= euangelion) When used of someone like Philip, it would mean something like “missionary”
Dale Martin/Biblical Truths kindle version acquired. Good book!
Absolutely. Except you can’t offer people truth. You can only offer them facts, and some of them contradict each other as well.
You’ve pissed off theists and atheists alike, because you want them to drop their preconceptions–one side thinks the Bible is Received Truth, and wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if they had to acknowledge how poorly they understand some aspects of it.
The other thinks it’s superstitious nonsense that has retarded the development of our species, and should be tossed in the trash and forgotten. You know Dawkins and others have said that religion was a wrong turn, a faulty ‘meme’ that never had to happen at all, and you know, it’s hard for me to see how somebody who studies evolution for a living could conceive something that stupid, but never mind that now.
I’m afraid a large percentage of humanity doesn’t want to think. It wants to KNOW. But nobody knows. Knowledge is unstable ground, constantly shifting beneath us. Hard-won, and easily lost. And we do need to believe things we can’t prove in order to function as sapient beings. The really crucial thing is to understand that knowing and believing both have their place, and we shouldn’t confuse the two. Nobody owns The Truth. But the fundamentalist mindset–which can afflict people with no religious beliefs at all–insists that isn’t true.
You’ve made me question things I’ve believed, reexamine my ideas, ask new questions, and I’m grateful for that. But I’m weird. 🙂
Why do readers (and moviegoers) enjoy fiction ? Reading the bible as one would read Aesop’s Fables, or Bullfinch’s Mythology or a classic Steinbeck novel can still teach you valuable lessons about human nature, behavior good and bad, and its consequences. My empty-nester parents moved to Wheaton, IL, and my Dad joined the Theosophical Society, which was headquartered there. In a nutshell (if you skip over the more woo woo, esoteric aspects), its approach welcomes and respects wisdom and insight from ALL sources, stresses our commonality rather than our divisive, cultic specialness. And you don’t have to undergo any rituals or swear or forswear allegiance to any particular deity or authority, sacred or otherwise.
> Truth can be hard, but it is better to know the truth than to live a lie.
As a provisional atheistic agnostic, materialistic reductionist and secular humanist(*), I adhere to the “better to know the truth than to live a lie” position. But life is hard and often horrible, and it’s undeniable that religious conviction can bring comfort in difficult circumstances, illusory though it might be. Of course, it can also bring needless distress in other circumstances, so there’s a choice to be made.
(*) Roughly. Those labels will do for the moment.
Your last sentence reminds me of what a great theologian once told me about your work, that it was a step on the way to truth.
More than the book itself, I am interested in how it has been historically used to justify everything from the rule of kings, the justification of slavery to separating immigrant children from their parents.
“Surely understanding what the Bible really is cannot be a BAD thing. It can only be good. Truth can be hard, but it is better to know the truth than to live a lie.”
For me anyway, to realize that people then, just much like me today, who were just trying “to figure it all out” then. Just like me. They meant no harm. It’s just human to want ANSWERS damit! Even if they are wrong!
I no longer see the Bible as, *A pack of lies!* I just see humans being human. It can send shivers down my spine. It can be a wonderful and beautiful realization. It bonds me to the writers of the Bible. I see me in them. It is incredibly freeing and. it brings a sense of equanimity to all who passed before me and all that will pass in the future. I get to be here for such a short time between dirt naps! Amazing! It is just incredibly incredible to me. I get to, I am honored to, be able to enjoy this trip and do my best to throw all I am able back in it.
Makes me laugh as well.. Mostly at myself. Remember rule 62………. “Never take yourself too God Damned seriously.
Signed,
The Nihilistic Ecclesiastican
“It is almost certainly because they both want to be able to claim that his birth was in Bethlehem, even though both of them know for a fact he did not come from Bethlehem, but from Nazareth.” Bart
You almost attribute evil motives to these writers even though you cannot and don’t know the facts, motives that make them liars. Why would they lie according to Bart? “based on the Old Testament prophet Micah 5:2 — that’s where the messiah had to come from.” So, they concocted different and false accounts unbeknownst to the other, in order to satisfy Michah 5.2. Why didn’t they just omit mention of His birthplace? Were they under the impression that they had to refer to His place of birth to validate His identity to others? Who? Weren’t they also guilty of padding their stories with O.T. prophecies that had not been previously recognized as related to the Messiah? Then why bother with Micah?
Oh, don’t forget, they created this bull because they were hoping to be flogged, at a minimum. Indeed, as the disciples were whipped because they wanted to promulgate a lie they themselves created, so the writers of these “gospels” were hoping they too would have their bodies torn to shreds. Makes sense. After all, there was a pot of gold waiting for each of them as soon as they were done being tortured. (What they fail to mention is the deal they struck with Jesus. He was going to give them positions of power after the resurrection.)
“Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned…” 39 stripes was lethal for many men. Paul was promised Secretary of the Treasury
Pete and the boys were going to be killed but Gamaliel talked them out of it. 40 After summoning the emissaries and flogging them, they commanded them not to speak in the name of Yeshua, and let them go. 41 The emissaries left the Sanhedrin overjoyed at having been considered worthy of suffering disgrace on account of him.
Have you been flogged? Nothing to it. Floggings were administered with a whip made of calfskin on the bare upper body of the offender – one third of the lashes being given on the breast and the other two thirds on the back.
I never have, never will, and never would call them liars. Not sure where you’re getting that from.
“1`It is almost certainly because they both want to be able to claim that his birth was in Bethlehem, even though both of them know for a fact he did not come from Bethlehem, but from Nazareth.” Bart
“I never have, never will, and never would call them liars. Not sure where you’re getting that from.”
If they create stories to make it appear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, when they know He didn’t, that’s called lying. Why wouldn’t you call them liars?
BTW, I did not make 3 comments on this forum in the last 24 hours but I was allotted just 2 comment opportunities.
These guys fabricated much of the N.T. They forged titles, they made up the story about His burial and Nicodemus. They made up a ton of stuff. They concocted the woman caught in adultery.
As you might imagine, there is a considerable literature on the concept of what a “lie” is. You might be interested in Paul Griffith’s book on Augustine’s understanding of the lie. Short story: a lie is a statement that the speaker states to be true while believing it to be false. I don’t think the Gospel writers knew/thought that what they said was false.
“I want to know what happened. And if our primary source if filled with contradictions, that’s a problem. (I’ll illustrate the problem in a later post.)” B
“What book could be more important to understand? But if it is full of contradictions, how are we supposed to understand it?” B.
You already know that it’s filled with contradictions! You take a big step when you insist on contradictions that don’t exist, too. I am not implying there are 0 contradictions, but you see some that aren’t real.
What you fail to recognize, is how your resentment that grew out of a root of bitterness influences your interpretations of scripture. You have ventured into terribly biased, distorted thinking in the bulk of your analysis.
You’ve endured devastating pain. I don’t understand how you didn’t break. It was absolutely horrible and it dragged on and on. Obviously, I don’t know what happened, but I do discern its impact. This led to the depths of error to which you’ve succumbed.
Jesus was not mistaken when He promised that some of those standing there would not die before He returned. BTW, why would the writers include such a statement if they had to modify the rest of the N.T. for such an error? He also said, “whoever lives by believing in me will never die.” You don’t think He meant that literally? “Out of His inner most being shall flow rivers of living water.” That can’t be taken literally.
Do you know what would happen if you prayed to Him now? If you told Him you wanted to start fresh with Him, do you think He’d reject you? Or, that He doesn’t exist so there’s no point in praying? I knew nothing about God when I sought Him with all my heart, with all the strength I had. I did not believe He existed, but I prayed anyway. I was out of options. I prayed and prayed over and over with the most earnest fervor, knowing He wasn’t listening. But I kept it up. Old timers call it, “praying through.” Didn’t know that. Didn’t know anything. Raised by Harvard and Radcliffe summa cum laude intellectuals who despised religion and church, the most evil influences in the world.
Just so folks know, I address responses to my comments mostly in the forum you don’t moderate.
I’m not so sure you can psychoanalyze me without knowing me!
Throughout the Scriptures we are told that we are to try the spirits to see if they be of God.
“As Paul is listing the various manifestations and gifts of the Spirit for us, in 1 Corinthians 12:10. He tells us, “To another discerning of spirits.” There is a spirit world that is just as real as the material world in which we live.
Oh, I’m sure I can’t psychoanalyze you. Wouldn’t begin to try. Have no training, don’t know you and have no desire to. What I see isn’t a function of any sort of psychological/psychiatric expertise. The N.T. informs us that God gifts His own as He chooses. One “gift” is called “discernment”. It gives a Christian the ability to “see” into the spirit world. Our battles are not of flesh and blood. When you found a greater connection to the universe that you described as very powerful, I bet you realized it contains more than just stars, that it is alive with intelligence.
I wasn’t looking for anything. No effort on my part at all, but in an instant I realized why you view scripture as you do and it all revolves around terrible, terrible, crushing, crippling pain that you experienced once upon a time, and it persisted and persisted, on and on. I don’t mean to be presumptuous, all I know is that it could have killed you, emotionally, psychologically. That it didn’t is a clear statement about your resiliency, toughness, almost superhuman strength. (You know what I’m talking about Bart). I am truly amazed that you survived in one piece. Whatever it was, and you know what it was, would have practically killed me and almost everyone I know. That’s the truth. At the same time, that pain did shove a root of bitterness down deep inside you and it manifests itself in a tainted view of scripture and of God.
This is as plain as day to me and frankly, I have no doubt that you know all about that pain. What you haven’t come to understand is how it changed your heart and attitudes towards your model of self-giving Love. I really don’t know how to communicate this info to you. It’s none of my business. Yet, you are a man absolutely determined to find and to examine truth.
Well, when you try to explain someone’s views based on their alleged mental states, that’s pretty close to armchair psychoanalysis! My view is that it is better, instead, to deal with arguments than emotional predilections and disturbances.
prestonp: Let me suggest that, whatever you think you understand, is not God, or you do not understand it as you think you do. Constructs of our own devising to which we then ascribe divinity are what I understand to be idols. Peace.
How many young, healthy Muslim men, with potential decades ahead of them willingly blow themselves apart for the glorious promise of 24-hour coitus? Quicker, and less painful than flogging, but I’m convinced they’ve all been cruelly duped.
Hi Bart, how do we explain this?
Albert Einstein
“When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.”
Henry David Thoreau
“In the morning I bathe my intellect in the stupendous and cosmogonal philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita, in comparison with which our modern world and its literature seem puny and trivial.”
Herman Hesse
“The marvel of the Bhagavad-Gita is its truly beautiful revelation of life’s wisdom which enables philosophy to blossom into religion.”
Dr. Albert Schweitzer
“The Bhagavad-Gita has a profound influence on the spirit of mankind by its devotion to God which is manifested by actions.”
Carl Jung
“The idea that man is like unto an inverted tree seems to have been current in by gone ages. The link with Vedic conceptions is provided by Plato in his Timaeus in which it states…” behold we are not an earthly but a heavenly plant.” This correlation can be discerned by what Krishna expresses in chapter 15 of Bhagavad-Gita.”
Aldous Huxley
“The Bhagavad-Gita is the most systematic statement of spiritual evolution of endowing value to mankind. It is one of the most clear and comprehensive summaries of perennial philosophy ever revealed; hence its enduring value is subject not only to India but to all of humanity.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
“I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad-gita. It was the first of books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy, but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us.”
Rudolph Steiner
“In order to approach a creation as sublime as the Bhagavad-Gita with full understanding it is necessary to attune our soul to it.”
This Hindu book is not in OUR history — the above voices are OUR towering intellectuals. What’s the deal?
How do I explain why one of the great books of human civilization has been widely appreciated? Not sure what you’re asking.
Sorry, Bart,
The Bhagavad-Gita is most interesting when compared to the Christian Bible because Western scholars tend to say the Gita is a book of fiction. The creator of the world — God himself — probably was not Arjuna’s charioteer and probably did not give a lesson in self-awareness to Arjuna at the center of a great battle that was about to take place. But scholars don’t ask what in this book is believable and what is not. They know: the teachings are legitimate and the facts of the narrative don’t much matter, if at all.
But for Christians it is important to know what really happened and what didn’t. More than one Christian have told me that “if there is no Crucifixion there is no Christianity”, for example. It is the uniquely Christian idea that we find salvation through, and only through, the “acts” Jesus did, that make the facts of the historical Bible so important. This however does not come from the Master, it is a narrative created by the Christian church.
As for Jesus, his words do match Krishna, Buddha, and others — we are one body, thus love others, even your enemies, just as Arjuna is to feel no animosity toward those he is going to war against. But I think Jesus’ greater message of wisdom-knowledge is entirely lost.
I see an underlying flaw in Christianity that is not being corrected. Wisdom-knowledge remains an heretical teaching, replaced by a generally false narrative. Just wondering if you have any thoughts or want to shed any illumination, or maybe disagree?
As someone who has read and studied the Bhagavad Gita (along with the Mahabharata, Upanishads and other vedanta) all I can say is, I must fail to understand the appeal. Sure, it’s an excellent, though broad outline of ancient Hindu philosophy (Krishna’s adumbration of the fundamental elements of nature is reminiscent of Plato) circa whenever-it-was-composed (5th century BCE? Scholars seem to think the Mahabharata was literally built around the Bhagavad Gita).
But “stupendous”? “Sublime”? I don’t know about that. I recommend reading Sam Harris’ book Waking Up, in which he moves past the ancient mumbo jumbo of eastern philosophy/religion and explores the useful bits, such as the benefits of meditation and mindfulness.
My main point is the Bhagavad-Gita is most probably fiction yet our scholars agree it is one of the world’s greatest works. Christianity, however, centers on a Crucifixion story that makes no logical sense, only saved by the “spin” the church puts on it.
The big deal with the Gita is its powerful lesson on non-attachment, demonstrating that even under the worst of situations (necessarily fighting in a great battle) a practicing of self-awareness is obtainable and enlightenment within reach.
Christianity, even Buddhism, cannot deal with the issue of violence as pertaining to the average man. “Violence is always wrong” is impractical for most of us, particularly when we are protecting family and community. The Gita demonstrates an alternate, very workable and practical, pathway. I think this is the real beauty of this book.
In the meantime, the other cultures must struggle with the question of violence, the source, I think, of Emerson’s statement: “… the voice of an old intelligence which in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same questions which exercise us.
talmooe,
I felt Sam Harris, in his book “The End of Faith” was, should I say deceitful, or perhaps just lazy, in his development of ideas.
First, he fails to define “religion” and its historical relationship to government. Particularly, that tribal leaders depended upon a spiritual connection with their ancestors for survival. Resulting governments typically were religious states. Harris takes a broad brush claiming all the wars were caused by religion. But in most, or at least many, cases wars were probably most about survival and acquiring land.
Now, when true “atheist” states come about and make war, (USSR, PRC, etc.) Harris dismisses them saying they don’t count because they don’t harbor the same values as he does. But the West’s “secular” values came out of Christian and other religions. It is patently dishonest that he dismisses the atheist states as not applicable. But not doing show would collapse his whole argument and he would have no book.
Then when all is said an done, Harris announces that the Bible (the West’s only book recognizing there is life beyond death) is no good, yet he presumes there may indeed be such a thing as life after death. At this point I got the feeling he was just trying to build his word count to make the book publishable. I have since heard him on YouTube debates and do find he seems sincere, however.
You could easily find equivalent quotes from eastern intellectuals, such as Gandhi, about the the Old and New Testaments. Gandhi was particularly taken with the Sermon on the Mount.
Intellectuals spend their lives looking for ideas. They often find them in books. A true intellectual isn’t going to confine him or herself to just books written in one part of the world, in one language (intellectuals often learn more than one language, though something tells me few if any of those men you quoted knew Sanskrit (probably a fair few read Greek.)
Although the Bhagavid Gita (just one small part of the Mahabarata) is one of the most influential and magnificent books ever written, I think you’d have to say that the Old and New Testaments as a whole have been read by a lot more people, all over the world.
However, it would be fair to say that part of the reason for that influence is that Europe became Christianized, and Europe, over the course of millennia, colonized a good part of the world, including America. You can see western influence literally everywhere you go, and you can find Christians (and small but influential communities of Jews) almost everywhere you go, and of course there would be no Islam without Muhammad having been influenced by Jewish and Christian scriptures.
Even when you’re reading somebody like (let’s say) Bertrand Russell or Nietszche, saying that Christianity is no longer relevant–they’re reacting to Christianity. Essentially, nobody is ignoring it. Nobody can afford to.
So to me, Bart’s statement is incontestable. And not meant in any way to denigrate the power or significance of other works. If I said “The Beatles are the most influential pop band of the second half of the 20th century” that wouldn’t be me saying that the Beach Boys sucked.
godspell,
In the West, yes of course. and Bart has done a lot in showing the many problems with Christianity. The inconsistencies cast doubt on the credibility of the New Testament, but this does not and cannot happen with the Gita, excepting for those who don’t understand it. It is because the Gita is about real knowledge, wisdom-knowledge, whereas Christianity’s focus is “belief”.
When you find that something you believed is not really true, as Bart and many others found, you tend to lose your faith. But wisdom-knowledge is unshakable, like building your house on a “rock”, as said by Jesus. But the Church has located a sand dune and is calling it a rock.
Hi, Telling.
The Einstein quote is not authentic, by the way.
Robert,
Looks like he did say it. Note these responses, typical of nearly all net sources, the last paragraph Einstein indicating the phrase was misrepresented, not that he didn’t say it:
Answer: Yup. Numerous reputable sources attribute that exact quote to Einstein
Answer: Yes… but that was said in praise of the depth and beauty of the Bhagavad Gita, rather than as a commentary on God. Einstein was an atheist. The following quote more accurately reflects his views on God:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world (universe) so far as our science can reveal it.” ~ Albert Einstein
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A2KLfSaijD9bV48ArABXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–?qid=20060929114855AAxseoE&p=einstein%20bhagavad%20gita%20fraud
“… the last paragraph Einstein indicating the phrase was misrepresented, not that he didn’t say it”
Hi, Telling.
You seem to be assuming that words you quoted here, which are from a letter of Einstein of March 24, 1954 to an Italian immigrant in the United States, were in fact referring to the alleged quote of Einstein about the Bhagavad-Gita.
What is your basis for that assumption? Have you read the correspondence in question? Parts of this correspondence are described and quoted in [i]Albert Einstein, The Human Side: Glimpses from His Archives[/i], (pp 42-43), edited by his secretary Helen Dukas and colleague Banesh Hoffmann in 1979, but they do not associate this quote with anything Einstein said about the Bhagavad-Vita. Have you had fuller access to this correspondence or is this merely an assumption on your part?
As for the “numerous reputable sources [that] attribute that exact quote [about the Bhagavad-Vita] to Einstein,” can you name any of these reputable sources? A reputable source should be able to cite a specific text of Einstein or, if it is alleged to be a verbal quotation, it should be able to provide the circumstances of the verbal quote. When and to
whom did Einstein say this? Who attests to the validity of this quote?
I’m not trying to be hyper-skeptical, but as you probably know by now many people have said they have tried unsuccessfully to authenticate this particular quote.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=2fswAAAAQBAJ&rdid=book-2fswAAAAQBAJ&rdot=1&source=gbs_vpt_read&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_viewport
Hi Robert,
There are very numerous web sites, and some magazines and books quoting the questioned Einstein phrase. But you are correct I am unable to find a source for it. This seems to be true with other quotes too, many appear to be unsourced.
Some say Einstein read the Gita almost every day, others question whether he read it at all. I was unable to quickly locate a source for any of his supposed Gita quotes.
With this available evidence I’m inclined to think you are right.
Did the first audience for the gospels think the writing of them were divinely inspired? (As opposed to reporting on the deeds of a divinely inspired person.)
Definitely not, I’d say.
I guess the basic question is why the Bible, rather than some other book, has become so important? Outside of a few passages, like the Sermon on the Mount and the 13th chapter of First Corinthians, I no longer see it as such a wonderful set of books and the Bible is not even written clearly in lots of places. Maybe the better question is why have so many been so taken with it? Indoctrination? Being swayed by authoritarian influences? Being influenced by parents, priests, etc? People not really reading the whole Bible? People, with confirmation bias, seeing what they want to see? What? Maybe all of the above. I do know that large groups of people can become passionately convinced of stuff despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We see that even in the here and now, with various religious and political movements, so it most have also occurred in ancient times. Add to this situation, the fact that for centuries people did not really have access to reading the Bible and did not even have translations they could understand and its influence becomes even more puzzling.
RonaldTaska,
I personally believe, despite the Church distorting the message, that people generally have an inner sense of the greater reality that lies within us and on both ends of the world (before and after physical birth and death), and because the Bible is the only such book traditionally allowed by the Church, it becomes what it is today and through our Western history.
The more daring will seek out other material, of which there is plenty, but the Church’s traditional taboo and resulting stranglehold on this inner information disallows the traditional “law-abiding” citizen from straying outside the traditional fence.
For anyone on the blog who isn’t aware, Dale Martin’s NT lectures are available for free on YouTube from YaleCourses. They’re absolutely fantastic.
Question: I’ve read some scholars who say the transfiguration is a misplaced resurrection tradition. What’s your view on that?
I’m inclined to think so, but am not dogmatic about it.
Dr. E, you’ve said repeatedly that the Bible is the most significant book ever published, and it is no doubt hugely influential. But given the balance of adherents in the world, wouldn’t the Koran vie for title of most significant?
It’s up there, but not nearly as significant historically.
Bart – I have heard you reference John 8:48 in several debates when contrasting the Gospel of John with the other three gospels regarding Jesus’ divinity. I would like to offer my disagreement with your conclusion about Jesus’ statement “Before Abraham was I am (ego eimi)” – specifically, because you are a textual scholar and it seems you are just accepting the trinitarian explanation of ego eimi. The explanation in this link seems to make an excellent textual argument that Jesus was not identifying himself as Yahweh (ego eimi ho ōn): http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john8_58.html
I’m not sure how the Bible can be called ‘authoritative’ in this day and age (assuming I’m understanding that term correctly). I suppose for believers, they can see it as such, but as you say, even they interpret it in different ways, and non-fundamentalists probably give more authoritative weight to certain parts than others. I think the Bible (when we read it) is largely a mirror reflecting ourselves and our vision of the world (whether ancient or modern). Ideally, everyone would approach this ‘most important book the world has ever seen’ with a critical eye toward history and literature, but I don’t think that’s the way most people’s brains are wired. Most adults see the world firstly through a thick lens of preconceived notions, and unless they already approach the world with a critical eye and an interest in the history of their faith, they probably won’t ever get to a place where questioning their faith or their foundational book is an issue for them.
One other point I would make is that seeing any holy book (or person) as authoritative is even potentially dangerous, and history is replete with examples, as you noted. For some fundamentalist Christians and Jews, for example, God has a ‘chosen’ people who (still) have a divine right to exclusively occupy a certain piece of land, and for some fundamentalist Christians, the Jewish Temple even needs to be rebuilt on the same ground currently occupied by the Dome of the Rock before Jesus can make his ‘second coming’. Needless to say, there is more than a bit of potential contention here.
“Book by my friend Dale Martin, professor emeritus at Yale, Biblical Truths.”
Steefen
Let’s look at the description of this book at amazon:
“How can a modern person, informed by science and history, continue to recite the traditional creeds and confessions of the Christian church?”
My Reply
They shouldn’t. When the spiritual infrastructure has been examined and determined to be faulty, you risk not getting where you want to go and you risk personal danger in using that bridge (or piece of infrastructure). There is not only risk but risk realized.
Bart: On the literary level, there is no book in the history of the universe —
Steefen: in the history of books on Earth. Otherwise, it sounds like you’re speaking for other planets in our galaxy and other planets in the many galaxies and billions of solar systems other than our own–highly ethnocentric. Please see the documentary on youtube: “Thrive” to be more sensitive in overstating a sentiment.
Best regards,
Steefen
So might you agree that the Bible is like a gold mine–mountains of dross with a few gold nuggets that nurture spiritual experience? Or is it all dross?
I don’t think it’s dross at all. I think it’s the most important book in our civilization.
Actually, I have never really thought of it as having value in human civilization. I looked at it only through the eyes of my Christian experience–and, for me, there’s a lot of dross and only a few nuggets!
Why do agnostics and atheists pray and plead with God for His help when death is near? The N.T. didn’t change. The reasons they held for not being believers didn’t suddenly disappear. Truth is truth. Children are starving. People suffer from horrible diseases and hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, car accidents, all kinds of madness.
So, what changed in the moments between entrenched resistance and the all out desperate efforts to get God to intervene?
“We should like you, our brothers, to know something of what we went through in Asia. At that time we were completely overwhelmed, the burden was more than we could bear, in fact we told ourselves that this was the end. Yet we believe now that we had this experience of coming to the end of our tether that we might learn to trust, not in ourselves, but in God who can raise the dead.”
“Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.” God brings us to the end of ourselves to prove Himself in a way not possible without the trying circumstances, at least that is one reason. He sends His rain on the just and the unjust.
C.S. Lewis lost his beloved wife Joy due to the excruciating ravages of cancer. The big boob didn’t realize how much he loved her until she broke her leg in half and received the diagnosis. That’s when he decided to marry her. In the movie Shadowlands, (it was a play, too), it begins as the famous author and Oxford Don is lecturing on the problem of pain in front of a large audience. He has the answers, by golly. He knows this topic and he blasts his conclusions to the hushed audience, in awe of this great and honored celebrity among the intellectual elite.
Joy Davidman Gresham, a divorced, single mother, communist, and Christian is in the audience. He falls madly in love with her but is such an enormous boob he doesn’t realize it. Lost his mother as a child and can’t love so deeply ever again. At the end he’s shown with a student at Oxford who never fit in with the other students. Lewis is focused on him entirely as he begins to ask him for his opinions on the renaissance literature they were studying. Lewis sits and listens to him eagerly, intensely, patiently.
Not a dry eye in the theater
Paul’s teaching concerning the resurrection of believers in Romans is completely compatible with what we find in Ephesians and Colossians. Many of the teachings in the disputed letters of Paul that Ehrman regards as contradictory to the teachings in his undisputed letters are solved just as easily with a careful look at the texts in question. Unfortunately, because many of Ehrman’s readers will go no further than reading Forged, they will fall prey to some very poor arguments.
Given this caution in the early Church, my approach is this: before jettisoning belief in the traditional authorship of any of the 27 [New Testament books], the arguments against it must be reasonably stronger than the arguments for it and be able to withstand the counterarguments. Some like Ehrman appear to take a different approach, assuming that all of the 27 are guilty of false attribution until nearly unimpeachable evidence to the contrary can be presented. Evidence of this approach can be seen when the evidence for traditional authorship is dismissed too quickly or when arguments against the traditional authorship are strikingly weak.
Forged is an interesting read. Despite its shortcomings, it does a masterful job of raising the issue of traditional authorship in an accessible and entertaining manner to the general public. Ehrman’s treatment of Paul’s use of secretaries is both weak and problematic. If secretaries were involved with the traditional New Testament authors in the editing and composition of their letters, most of the arguments used against the traditional authorship of this literature lose their force and, as an old friend of mine would say, Ehrman is left with a firm grasp on an empty sack.
Mike Licona
I concur. Bart is a wonderful writer, absolutely incredible, amazing, and he’s sharp as a tack. His work ethic, his enthusiasm and dogged determination are reminiscent of Vince Lombardi. If he had pursued a career in the NFL, Sam Mills would have been out of a job.
Bart makes terrible mistakes as well, uncharacteristic of someone with his skills and will power. I’ve mentioned a few and Licona has, too. There are many, many, many more despite his brilliance
“Ehrman is correct that Paul thought of the resurrection of believers as a very real and physical event that would take place when Jesus returns…He appears unaware, however, that Paul also spoke of the resurrection of believers in a symbolic sense.
“Well, when you try to explain someone’s views based on their alleged mental states, that’s pretty close to armchair psychoanalysis! My view is that it is better, instead, to deal with arguments than emotional predilections and disturbances.” Bart
A couple of things. Seems that higher criticism engages in something akin to psychoanalysis often, even relying on it for important insights into the very construction of the N.T.
I was not and am not “trying” to do anything other than to explain accurately what happened that led to my certainty about your pain, that it was incredibly brutal, and that impacted your thinking, your outlook, your heart of hearts. “Trying” to analyze or “trying to figure it out” didn’t enter the picture. It was a flash, an instantaneous awareness that just happened, and I was quite surprised by it. One way that I assess such an experience is by stepping back to consider if it was the result of effort, a conscious deliberate process. It wasn’t and that is key. Truth is truth. Pain is pain. Emotional pain must go somewhere. We cope the best we can. I knew a professor who lost his young son in a drowning accident. He had to go deep into the woods so no one could hear him, where he would howl like a wild animal. So, it does make sense such pain touched you, too, deeply.
You don’t believe there is a God. I don’t believe in God either, sometimes. It is difficult to remain in a state of disbelief when I reflect on How He changed me, when I gaze at the stars, when my daughter calls to tell me about her beloved cat and says goodbye with an “I love you.” Be that as it may, if He does exist and if it’s true He gives gifts and He’s given me discernment, I’d say He’s reaching out to Bart Ehrman in love. He remembers the fellowship you two had and He misses it. He misses you. And He would do anything for you to come home. If you ever truly missed having a child around, you’ll understand.
Some things are more important than higher criticism. Some things are more important than research and books and analysis and debates. Love is greater. I could know everything and without love, I have zip.
Who wrote John? It is easy to claim John wasn’t written by John. But, if that is true, who did write it and about Whom was he writing?
Look at the message. Did the writer make up the words, the phrases for Him to say? Has anyone read similar claims made by others? “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” “He and I are one.” “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” “‘We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'” How did they come to that conclusion? They tried to stone Him He did such a good job conning them?
No one before or since has spoken like that, not even close. There is nothing else like it. It is the most unique set of statements ever written down. The Man uttering those words claims to be God almighty. He relates to His gang just like He is their Lord, their best friend, their teacher and their creator. Quote whoever sounds most like Him.
Who wrote down what He said? Can anyone see Jesus in their mind’s eye in the settings described? I can’t help but see Him. I can see His gestures and hear His voice when I get quiet enough. (I can picture Him being crucified, too, a fine mist of blood suspended in the space around His head. Peering into His eyes, I see the reflection of His mother, wailing, shrieking. She’s begging Him to come down. “Jesus stop this! Let Him go! He didn’t hurt anybody. No! No! Jesus, please don’t die. Please, my baby boy. Stop this now!”)
Who could have conceived of the phrases or the material Jesus used? “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.”
No one hears the ring of truth
As my brother the classicist says: Homer didn’t write the Iliad and the Odyseey. Someone *else* named Homer did.
Given that some of the New Testament was written by people who were not who/whom? they claimed to be, i.e. they were sometimes liars, do you think that should factor into any evaluation of their authoritativeness?
My view is that a liar could be factual accurate in what s/he says. (If someone claims, falsely, to be Barack Obama, but says that the Eiffel tower is in Paris, the fact he lied about his identity wouldn’t make his statement false) And an authority could lie about his name, e.g….
Bart, what do you think of Professor Dershowitz’s argument that Leviticus 18 shows evidence of editing, that the original rule was that gay sex was permitted, which is demonstrated by the original (lost) wording of Leviticus stating that sex with male relatives is prohibited, thereby proving by implication that gay sex is generally permissible (the exception proves the rule).
I don’t think that’s a plausible reading, even though I wish it were!