Is the Issue Religion vs. Atheism?

How much an issue, really, is religion vs. atheism? Or similarly, “true faith” vs. secularism or humanism? (For “true faith” most Americans would insert Christianity or “relationship with Christ”.) Or do the real issues which concern people in any of the categories one might call “non-religious” revolve mainly around immature or fanatical religion?

In the latter case, maybe people like the “New Atheists,” or anyone opposing religion in general and accusing all religion of promoting evil, holding back society in various ways, misplace their attacks.   What do you think?

I’ve studied this and related issues in depth and think it is clear religion is a complex mixture of beneficial and detrimental.  That I mean both for individuals and for society.  Now, this raises another set of questions about whether and how we might increase the beneficial and diminish the detrimental.  It’s not time for those questions now.

If you don’t even agree with the “mixed bag” concept, why not? If you do, what leads you to belive that?  

If you have religious faith, how has the nature of your faith changed to create more benefit to you, or greater maturity? And are you convinced that what is personal benefit in your beliefs and practices of faith is also likely to benefit most people around you or in your society? (For example, you feel it’s made you more compassionate and likely to do good to others, made you more accepting, etc.)

The Real Jesus: The Real Paul?

Isn’t it mind-boggling that for over 250 years Christians have maintained significant focus on who Jesus really was, discussing it in many venues? Not that Christians hadn’t before, especially in the first 250-300 years!

It’s also quite interesting that much discussion of who Paul really was is much more recent… understandable but interesting.   Is Paul more the founder of Christianity as we now know it than is Jesus? The wide-spread (and still spreading?) idea that Paul indeed is, has been an inevitable outcome of critical Jesus (and the Gospels) studies of modern times.   The in-depth look at Jesus as presented in the Gospels–virtually our only source of information, plus a little, indirect, in Paul and the rest of the New Testament–has reasserted Jesus’ “Jewishness” and the fully Jewish context of his life and teachings.

Now, further attention to the “real Paul” is raising important questions that have been largely passed over until recently: Was Paul really a Pharisee? What did that really mean? What kind of Pharisee? What was the extent of Greek (Hellenistic) influence on his brand of Judaism, and subsequently on his creative new theology? The list could go on and on.

There are a series of questions that challenge both the “critical” (analytical/historical) scholar and the Bible student.  This includes the bulk of preaching pastors, who accept traditional linkages and the supposed smooth continuity between Jesus, the twelve Apostles, and Paul.  I will sometime later explore these more in depth here.  For now suffice it to say that there is no shortage of puzzling things about Paul, from his real upbringing and education to his inner being to his theology.  These have been long recognized by what I’m calling the traditional crowd, as well as others.

Since that general group (recognizing there are significant variations within it) is the largest and most lively aspect of American Christianity and of much of the developing world, these Paul issues I expect to become more and more important.  The discussions of who Jesus was gradually expanded to include new looks at key issues of “end times” and prophesy.  This broke out over a century ago with Albert Schweitzers’ book, “The Quest of the Historical Jesus” (not an easy read by any means, but influential as its observations “filtered down” toward the pew).  Tied up with his Jewish Apocalyptic emphasis are questions about what the Kingdom of God is, as Jesus envisioned it.  This has gotten massive attention in the last century and right up to now.  Christians want not only a “relationship with God” through Jesus, but a clear understanding and implementation of the Kingdom of God (either by us as inspired by Jesus and God, or as it is expected, by millions, to soon be supernaturally instituted).

So one of the major aspects of such a focus inevitably involves Paul.  Was Paul’s expectation of the soon-return of Jesus part-and-parcel of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God (or Heaven)? Was Paul’s vision of the uniting of Jews and Gentiles, not to mention gender and social “classes,” a natural extension of what the Jerusalem followers of Jesus under Peter, James, and John conceived and began? The writer of Acts would certainly lead us toward that conclusion. But is that the way it really was?

What of the numerous clear and substantial differences between Acts’ and Paul’s accounts of crucial things like his “Damascus Road” experience, the Jerusalem Council, his mission to the Gentiles, etc.?

There are fascinating and important insights being advanced even just now, nearly 2000 years later, about these and more theologically central issues.  Are they being looked at, taken seriously by the bulk of Christians? It doesn’t appear so.  They may think these are “merely academic” issues.  Perhaps the issues require too much thinking or sustained attention.  (Actually, they do require much attention).

But also, and more importantly I believe, they threaten to upset the apple cart. For example, the vast majority of biblical scholars have agreed for decades that only seven or so of the 13 New Testament books attributed to Paul in the texts or tradition were actually written by him or a close associate of his.  Yet this is nearly completely ignored by Evangelicals and most conservative Christians.  Why? Well, to seriously engage this question, let alone to accept the majority consensus, would be to open at least a No. 10 size can of worms.  Never mind that properly relegating the Pastoral Epistles to a later period could simplify a lot of things and greatly help the egalitarian-gender-roles faction among Evangelicals.  Things more to the core of a world-view and construction of spiritual meaning are at stake.  I get that.

Still, I’m hoping some of the more courageous and dedicated explorers among traditional Christians, as well as more liberal ones, will begin engaging the conversation around deeper looks at Paul.  If they look around enough, they will see that there are good alternative ways to find spiritual meaning, a basis for morality, and the various things that concern us all.

An Incomplete History Narrated by the Bible? Part II

Part I of the post “An Incomplete History Narrated by the Bible?” makes the observation that all major Christian frameworks for understanding the Bible,  along the full range of conservative to liberal and including the rising “Narrative Theology” (NT), work from some pre-modern assumptions.  What are these? I will focus just on a single major one briefly introduced in Part I.

It is the assumption that human civilization is quite young–no more than several thousand years old.  Part I left off speaking about the fact that most of the scholars of the 16th through 18th centuries, including those we now consider scientists, were part of either the Roman Catholic Church or one of the more newly formed Protestant or Anglican Churches.

Indeed, while theology was still “queen,” most scientists were also well-educated theologically, and it was often they who helped lead the Enlightenment move to a “critical” (analytical, historical, etc.) study of the Bible.  Joseph Priestly is a good example in the latter stages of the Age of Reason, working first in England and then the U.S.  He was a big influence on the post-presidency thinking of both Adams and Jefferson, who discussed his theology in many later-life letters between them.  It was a key early part of their reconciliation after what was probably a more nasty, personal-attack presidential campaign (which then-vice-president Jefferson won) than any seen recently.

There are plenty of reasons to question or disallow the assumption of Narrative Theology (and all prominent Christian theologies) that the full history of human civilization is in view within the Bible, covering less than ten thousand years.  NT focuses on the “story” or “drama” of divine-human interaction in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as if it were the full story.  It assumes the Bible touches on all the major developmental points in Adam, Cain/Abel, Nimrod, etc. to Noah and then to Abraham and “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel).”

I won’t go into the various disciplines and many data points providing strong evidence to the contrary (partly because it is often buried or “forbidden” information even within those supposedly scientific or “objective” fields such as archaeology, and thus marginalized). Suffice it to say that there is a world of in-depth information available, and some decent beginnings of more explanatory and very helpful models that indicate a much longer (and quite complex, sometimes mysterious) story. Do a few Google searches, pursue books via Amazon (even the reviews can be very instructive), search academic databases, etc.

Pretty soon one realizes that the entire Western set of assumptions and boundaries, methodologies, etc. for not only the former queen of the sciences, but nearly every other discipline emerging in the Renaissance/Reformation/Enlightenment period has a strictly limited set of parameters. They are taken mainly from Greek, proto-orthodox Christian, Roman Catholic and Mediterranean/Persian-oriented thinking and traditions.

These parameters have blinded us to our much longer human history, at most just hinted at in the Bible.  This is over-simplification, yet it represents at least one main reason we still operate within this ridiculously recent (and wrong) time-line and related assumptions. And what it entails distorts the much broader and very important “story” within which the Bible is only one recent chapter — not the full story of God’s saving interactions with humanity.

Oh… a pretty important “by the way”… there is every likelihood, with this, that the “rapture,” Millennial Kingdom, literal physical re-creation of the world after destruction by fire, etc., are all humanly-generated, though nearly universal, symbols… Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and their millions of  Premillennial cohorts, Amillennialists, Postmillennialists, and all of us and our grandchildren will likely be gone before any of this happens (though earth catastrophes  do occasionally happen), so we’d best take all the care of our environment that we can…. Even if history is “linear,” as they claim, it started a lot earlier and will likely last a lot longer than is so commonly thought.)

What are your thoughts and observations?

An Incomplete History Narrated by the Bible? Part I

Some readers here may have an interest in developments in Christian thought that have real influence on education for lay people, books being written, or just general trends of expressions of  Christian faith (or “The Church”).  Most centrally, such developments generally revolve around two things: The Bible and Jesus.   (Sometimes thinkers step back further and reflect, reformulate, etc.  on things like the nature of God — as in the “Open Theism” discussions that have gone on for around a couple decades now. )

If you have barely made it to this sentence because you are not Christian, nor much interested in Christian beliefs and such, let me remind you of something.  What is being explored, taught, and discussed in the religious world of Christians quickly jumps those boundaries.  That is especially so when it comes to conservative Protestants  and/or “Evangelicals.”

As thinking “jumps,” it has vast influence on American culture (much more so than with European Christians on Europe).  It affects politics, international relations (especially the Middle East peace process) and much more.

Another factor I must inject here as part of my build-up because it is so, so far-reaching: A part this major-cultural-influence point is that the former “queen of the sciences,” theology, has had incredible influence on the development of virtually all academic disciplines related to humanities, social science, science, history, etc. Many of the assumptions carried over when these categories split into specializations are  still at play.   Michelangelo was suddenly able to sculpt David nude, but it was King David who dominated that transition to modernity (along with many other symbols of “Jude0-Christian” thought and culture).  We are not yet, despite over two more recent centuries of what might be called “deconstruction/reconstruction,” very thoroughly secular.  I know… it certainly looks like we are outwardly in our public education system from grammar school on through university, and on the surface we are.  (And it is not that “secular” is a proper or even realistic goal, I’m just noting the misconception.  Actually, a robust exploration and discussion of religion as a common human phenomenon is sorely needed.)   In the body of this post below, I elaborate one key aspect of such assumptions unconsciously present in most academic subject areas.

First, one trend in Christian thought that is not real new, but seems to be still developing and gaining influence is a way of viewing and interpreting the Bible that is often called “Narrative Theology.”  I won’t try to do justice to it here in terms of a meaty description.  Basically, its emphasis is that the Bible represents a developing story (given bit by bit as it unfolded) of God’s interactions with humanity.  The particular focus is the “saving” actions of God–which gives room for the more liberally oriented to emphasize salvation as a societal thing–or as the Kingdom of God among us–and the more conservative/traditional, as the Kingdom of God within us, individually (primarily).  Incidentally, both those prepositions are legitimate translations of the Greek one in the famous saying attributed to Jesus.  So, one thing interesting about Narrative Theology (NT), is that it is not, to my understanding anyway, making claims about dogma that must be believed.  If anything, it seems to be saying dogma is relatively less important, and less the point of the Bible than is the recounting of the experiences and perceptions of the various authors of the Bible.  How can we then relate to, it says, and benefit from various aspects of the larger story they tell and from the story as a whole?

Now back to the point about assumptions carried into supposedly “secular” or “scientific” disciplines which have arisen mostly in the last 200 years or so.  Indirectly, if not directly, these disciplines have fairly close ties to the biblical and theological understandings of pre-Enlightenment Christianity (which had differentiated some into Protestant and Roman Catholic thought in the 16th and 17th centuries, of course–Eastern Orthodoxy being set aside for current purposes).  The significant assumption I’ll deal with here is that of the basic age of human civilization–really very young.

I must express real frustration that NT (and other, even more “progressive” theologies like Process, which I find much affinity with) still operates from assumptions of a much earlier day, apparently unconsciously.  These assumptions were built-up via theology and European scholarship over many centuries prior to around 1500, and only gradually challenged by the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and others  (these men, incidentally, and most others plowing new ground were generally loyal, devoted “Churchmen”).

In Part II of  ”An Incomplete History Narrated by the Bible?” I discuss the key short-history-of-civilization assumption and why we have it a bit further.  Please share your comments after you read that post.

The Future of Doubt

Maybe it’s nothing new, but it seems everybody is focused on the future these days.  Even the future of abstract things like faith. I haven’t seen “the future of doubt” phrased yet, but I imagine someone before me has done it. 

I don’t have time to get deep or analytical about it, but did at least want to note that all levels of leadership and study on religion in America are quite abuzz about doubt. Related to this, about the direction of faith, of institutional religion (Christianity in particular, here), etc.

Even a number of prominent Evangelicals have aired their doubts in ways seldom seen in recent times (one has come to expect it of “liberals”).  Many others have quietly struggled with doubts on many levels and ultimately left their churches, “the faith,” or even belief in God entirely.  What about you? Care to share some of your thoughts and the processes you’ve gone through?

I will conclude by including just below the response I made to a recent Christianity Today online article on doubt by Mark Galli.  (It was limited to 1000 characters so a bit “crammed.”) I was responding to the broader observation I’ve made that Evangelicals generally seem to be seriously avoiding dealing with the root concept issues that are driving much of the doubt that is being analyzed and discussed.  They don’t want to face the fact that for thinking, exploring Christians who like to look at factual foundations or “evidences” upon which to base a reasonable faith, orthodox Christianity has seriously flawed foundations…. So much so that for many of us, it cannot at all support the complex of interlinked doctrines that ultimately make no sense, have no real consistency (because the Bible is a collection of books, never writtten for thorough consistency though united in general themes). 

Anyway, here are my comments on Galli’s doubt article:

“It’s good to see the issue of doubt being addressed.  But there was a glaring omission: no discussion of what a great deal of the doubt “out there” is really about. Maybe “questioning/exploring” is a better term.  I am one who continued exploring Scripture deeply during and well beyond 11 college/graduate years at Biola/Talbot/Claremont and many in ministry. I know many who’ve gone a similar path. My “doubt” was not in the existence or goodness of God, but in the supposed “God-directedness” of the human institutions and how paths taken influenced and ultimately determined the books of the Bible and their content, and subsequently the main lines of biblical interpretation.  Taking just one core doctrine, do many question the origin and veracity of “substitutionary atonement?” They should, as this concept never appeared to be biblically clear to many of the early “Fathers” and other theologians since. The deeper one studies biblical authorship, etc., the less “orthodoxy” can be believed.”

What do you think?

Will Christian Leaders Do What is Most Needed?

 What Christian leaders see as their role is tied intimately to themes we cover here, such as the future of Christianity and the “identity crisis” that the faith finds itself in.  What is pastoral leadership, and other forms of leadership in religion and spirituality about? Having used the title ”…What is most needed,” let’s expand that to what is clearly vital, of high importance, if not the most important, which might be debatable. 

I am concerned about what people–kids and adults–are experiencing ”in the pew,” along with, and springing partly from what leaders are being and doing.  Actually, many pew-sitters are now longer found there, but are still exploring or hoping for something from their Christian heritage, from models or leaders within the Christian community.  Surveys these days show that many traditional beliefs are in question, perhaps more so by at least young Evangelicals now than for decades, if not a century. 

And for good reason.  Whether you call societal movement Postmodernism or something else, and view it as positive progress or not, our views of truth, religious truth, and broader “worldviews” have been in rapid flux.  This has understandably called much of traditional theology and religious assumptions into question.  But it doesn’t automatically mean that something with more “truthiness” (thank you, Stephen Colbert) always takes the place of traditional concepts.  Nor something that is more helpful to finding meaning and spiritual “reality.” One thing I believe we all need is a spirituality well integrated with the rest of personality and aligned with how things really are, here and beyond.  That is something developed beyond the exercise of the postmodern ”hermeneutics of suspicion,” or questioning everything. 

So, what do Christian leaders need to do today? Among their many nurturing, organizing and other tasks, they can seek to truly walk alongside their parishoners in the exploration process.  I refer to the growth process of not only applying their faith to life, work and everything else, but of maturing the nature of that faith itself.  (We can boost that maturing actively.)  Now this sounds easy enough, right?

Well, maybe not.  Pastors live in fishbowls. They are “supposed” to be further along the spiritual growth path than at least most in their congregations.  There are a multitude of expectations and church-politics forces they contend with.  For most of them, there is precious little time or impetus to focus on their own inner development, between the intellectual focus and high demands of seminary training, seeking a suitable appointment, adjusting to one once there, perhaps starting or continuing to raise a family, etc.  

Now, most effective pastors do seek to be a positive example and many share vulnerably about at least the safer aspects of their own struggles. But when it comes to doubt, questioning, or belief changes that are core to a particular brand of Christianity, very few dare to be truly honest.  Many have had their questioning and “liberalizing” (usually, vs. “conservatizing”) period during seminary or ongoingly through their reading or other input.  As a result, areas where they may continue to have disturbing doubts or where belief changes have been made that they know are not harmonious with their Christian niche, they generally remain silent about.  In many of these cases (which I keep hearing are more common than almost anyone realizes), I believe important growth has begun but it tends to get stalled, and the benefits of it not passed along.  The stalling is partly because the leader believes (rightly or wrongly) that he/she cannot be open and share about what is truly going on in head and heart. 

In another scenario, the leader does share and in the process may stimulate the learning and growth of others around, or may find it necessary to go to another congregation (or seminary to teach, etc.).  In these cases, growth will probably continue one way or another, as well as more genuine and deeper opportunities to minister and help others.  I can’t say how bold I myself would be in this type of situation.  I have faced circumstances of this nature in relatively minor ways and not with an entire career at stake.  Certainly church leaders feeling binds of this type need to know, at minimum, that they have much company, and that support is available. 

To summarize what church-goers and society at large need from our church leaders, and what they need for themselves, is first to be honest with themselves, then to be as honest as possible, to the point of risk and discomfort, with their congregations…. Is anything more basic to  Christian faith?

I’m sure readers here would love, as I would, to hear stories of what you, as a Christian leader of one type or another may have faced, how you dealt or are dealing with it, what you observe among leaders (whether you are one or not), etc. Please share.

Three Cups of Tea and The Acts of the Apostles

There has been a lot of hoopla in recent days (in case you’ve been out of the news cycle) around questions of truthfulness in some of the accounts and claims in the popular “Three Cups of Tea” by Greg Mortenson.  Just how accurate is much of the information is the key question.  That is especially the case in relation to the number of schools built in Afganistan by Mortenson’s non-profit organization, use of donated money, and other issues related to inspirational aspects of his story. 

I couldn’t help but immediately relate this all to my most recent post on the Book of Acts in the New Testament and just how influential its author (“Luke“) became as a result of the historical (or quasi-historical) accounts he gives there.  What an incredible source of inspiration it has been, of course for centuries longer than ”Three Cups of Tea” which has been a long-running best seller.  According to Wikipedia, it has been selected by over 300 communities as a One City One Book read and is published in 39 countries. 

Of course its influence is no real comparison to any major book of the New Testament (and “Luke’s” two-volume work of his Gospel and Acts is about 25% of the NT, stuck near the front).  The real significance is the issues raised when an influential, inspiring book is questionable as to its veracity.   It is much more than the reputation of the author (and/or professional writer assisting) that is at stake.  What of the inspiration raised, that at least in part, may be based on exaggeration or outright falsehoods? Does it or should it change? With inspiration goes action, such as donations to a related cause or specific organization.  (This goes for support of local churches, Christian missions, etc. as well as for CAI founded by Mortenson.)

Some think that entirely different standards than ours now were in existence for ancient works such as Acts or the Gospels.  For others, since the NT books are foundations of Christian faith, they need not or should not be questioned, at least seriously, as to historical accuracy.  Do you think so? What issues does this “extending backward” (which I think it is vital) of our modern sense of fair play in publications of importance raise in your mind? What should we expect of writers like Luke, and what, if anything should we do to fact-check him?

I could easily write a lot more on this but I really do want your thoughts and feedback, so will end for now, just reminding you that my prior two posts relate to this, especially the review of “Forged” by Bart Ehrman, which covers several related topics.

Who Is the Most Influential Writer in History?

If an opinion poll would ask, “Who has been the most influential writer in all of history?” I imagine many names, ancient to modern, would be given.  St. Paul might be among them.  But I doubt that “Luke,” the attributed author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles would come up often, if at all.  But he should. 

His work, particularly in Acts, was absolutely pivotal from all we can tell, in how Christianity would develop and be viewed from about the 2nd century to the present day.  No one can say for sure, but it seems quite possible that without his masterpiece of Acts that the Christian Church might have remained in diverse, often opposing groups for much longer and perhaps never gained the momentum or credibility to become the official Roman church by the late 4th century and many to follow.   How much different might that have made world history?  

I won’t take space to develop the reasons in depth that I suggest this.  But here is a quick summary.   The book of Acts serves as a kind of bridge between the Jerusalem, Jewish form of Jesus-following and the Pauline Gentile-oriented form which was theologically often in conflict with the Apostles in Jerusalem.  Paul speaks of this directly more than once, and particularly in Galatians.  Acts makes it sound significantly different and less contentious, though it also acknowledges the conflicts and lack of unity and agreement on crucial matters of budding “Christian” faith.  (The Jerusalem/Apostolic form can be well argued to have been a largely acceptable Jewish sect, not “Christian,” which did sometimes face opposition from other Jews – Roman-connected leaders particularly – as was common among the several sects in that era.)

Now by the time the eventual “New Testament” (NT) writings were completed, there were well more than two forms of Jewish-Christian and Christian groups (as above, more sectarian synagogues than ”churches” in Jerusalem and environs at least until after Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 CE).  But the single biggest boiled-down issue that threatened the desired unity and growth of emerging Christianity was around a requirement (or lack of it) to become either Jewish in the process of joining, or at least perhaps meet the lower standards of  “God-fearers.” (See Acts 15.)  These were non-Jews (Gentiles) who appreciated Judaism and wanted to study and worship with Jews but not go all the way with circumcision and dietary or other specific laws. 

There are numerous evidences, many within the NT itself, that contentions among various apostolic or other Christian groups were serious and heated.  Harmony and unity were not at all a predominant feature of the early faith although the ideal is called for in the Gospel of John, and Acts goes to great ends to create the impression that all tensions and disagreements were fairly quickly and rationally solved… everyone was “on the same page.” Or at least the key authorities were–mainly the Apostles and the head of the Jerusalem Jesus-followers, James, the brother of Jesus, who was not one of the original “Twelve Apostles,” as Paul also was not.

Luke also works carefully in Acts to create a story of ongoing revelation and guidance by the Holy Spirit that supposedly moved Peter from being a Jewish-observant believer in Jesus as human messiah for Israel to a “world Christian” with beliefs compatible to Paul’s superceding-of-Jewish-law theology.   He also contradicts Paul’s careful, emphatic claims to not have consulted the Apostles (or any humans) until at least 3 years after his conversion, and then only limitedly.  Paul’s point is that his teachings came by direct revelation from Christ, another indication that he was trying to contrast certain beliefs of his over against what Jesus’ direct disciples taught, as well as equal or trump their authority. 

Acts was written somewhere around the last decade of the first century or a bit later, about 30 or more years (basically a generation) after Paul’s death.  By this time, the need for a supposedly historical accounting for the emergence of a new and increasingly non-Jewish, even sometimes anti-Jewish religion (remember the massive impact of the Roman war and the Temple’s destruction in 70 and human tendency to assign blame), was mounting.  This accounting needed to keep early Christianity connected conceptually with Judaism and it needed to give the appearance of a God-led and united development with a single “once for all delievered” (per Jude, perhaps a bit later) feel.  “Luke,” whoever he really was, pulled off a gigantic coup.  He was able to accomplish these things and more. 

Just how quickly his volumes (the Gospel of Luke and Acts–a two-part entity) spread and served to support the emerging proto-orthodox movement which did eventually solidify the impressions Luke labored to create, we cannot know.  But Acts became the pivotal ”historical” core of the NT (his history is actually frequently suspect, as I’ve implied, and sometimes demonstrably just wrong).  I’d also argue that he, along with the other Gospel writers, experimented very successfully with a new literary form which, in a slightly different way than Acts, manages to merge Hebrew Scripture, myth and novel story within a generally historical framework, to where the mixture has never yet been fully figured out, despite 19+ centuries and many thousands of scholarly tomes trying to do so.  Of course, the religious side of their success has been to ground and guide the faith of literally billions of Christians. 

At the least, I think these things qualify Luke as one of the most influential authors of all time.  Thus his Luke - Acts is worthy of a closer look than even Christians, let alone historians and literary critics generally give it.  Though I cannot respect the method (“spin,” basically) and manipulation, distortion of history, etc., I have to admit it is a brilliant piece of work.

So where would you place Luke? No. 1? In the top 5? Top 10?

Review of “Forged: Writing in the Name of God”

The popular author, biblical scholar and university professor, Bart Ehrman has recently released a new book with the provocative title, Forged.  This, the key word in the full title, might not seem provocative in itself.  The subtitle–the context–makes the difference, if you’ve not heard it yet: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. 

Provocative because most people, Christian and non-Christian alike, do not think of books of the Bible as being forged.  At the same time, they may be at least vaguely aware that some books have only been attributed to certain authors via relatively early tradition rather than statements in the books themselves.  Or perhaps they are aware that there are claims among the vast majority of scholars in some cases, that certain books with stated authors (some of Paul’s, both of Peter’s, e.g.) are almost certainly of later authorship.  At best these books represent the known views of the claimed author (Paul particularly) to some degree.  But they tend to introduce additional concepts beyond the otherwise stated views of the authority figure.

If indeed a later follower of an apostle wrote in the name of his mentor, after his death or apart from his knowledge, this raises one of the many questions Ehrman deals with in depth in the book: Does this constitute forgery? Or does it reflect a common and widely accepted practice of ancient writing–and therefore something that shouldn’t concern us much?

It is Ehrman’s contention that it definitely should concern Christians who believe in the truthfulness of the Bible, for the primary reason that many of the books of the Bible (particularly the New Testament [NT], which is his main focus) do meet the criteria of forgeries, both modern and ancient. Additionally, he builds an evidence-based case for the claim that peoples of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean looked at forgeries and false authorial claims in books about the same way we do–as definitely not o.k.  They felt deceived as we do, although it seems there were more forgeries then than now.  (It was easier to pass things off with false claims or misleading impressions in the days before investigative journalism, printing presses, copyrights and other modern checks on veracity.)  One might say that forgeries were more tempting to commit then because it was harder to detect them.  And if a forger got away with it (some were caught in the act and punished at least socially) there was a lot to be gained, especially in terms of  influence for one’s agenda, one’s view of “The Truth.”  Not surprising that some of the zealously religious would try to take advantage of this.  The evidence has gradually become very clear over the last 200 years particularly, Ehrman well illustrates, that they sometimes succeeded, even in terms of “authoritative” scriptures.

Ehrman sets the stage properly and powerfully in the introduction by sharing his insider view of the preeminence of truth in the largest Christian tradition in America – Evangelicalism and its cousin, Fundamentalism.  The major points of the book are tied to misconceptions and denials that are rampant in these and other Christian traditions.  First he shares, partly from his own experience as a young Evangelical at Moody Bible Institute and then at Wheaton College, how a commitment to truth and its pursuit is at the very heart of this brand of faith, and of its views of the Bible, salvation, etc.  Nothing is taken more seriously.  However, this pursuit is not extended to some of the places one might expect.  For example, it would only seem consistent, as well as critical, to seek clear validation for authorship claims that are tied to divine authority.  Traditional Christian beliefs are build on very early concepts of apostolic authority for literally all the NT, but without genuine validation, or generally even a serious attempt toward it.   

Now, Ehrman also notes that sometimes the Evangelical commitment to the pursuit of truth does send people digging into questions of biblical consistency, authority, historical accuracy (vs. fabrication or error) deeply enough that it ultimately leads them to different views of the Bible or various core points of theology.  This was the case for him, as he shares about briefly, and happens to be for me as well.  Most of this, about the foundation of Christianity revolving heavily around truth claims and continuing so in its predominant forms today, Ehrman covers in the introduction (NOT to be skipped!).

The key question raised is this: “Is there congruency and validation of this core value in terms of the production and content of many of the books of the NT, which themselves set up concepts of authority for Christian faith and timeless truth?” Incidentally, nowhere does Ehrman argue that the presence of forgeries and other forms of deception in the Bible means that nothing in it can be viewed as true in the broader sense of valid and useful spiritual, moral, ethical principles.  Although he is frank and perhaps could be called confrontive, he does not come across to me as pushing an anti-religious agenda or atheism.  He merely loves the truth to be known and respected, leaving it to others to deal with the religious ramifications.  

So how well does Ehrman make his case? Does he back up the claim of forgeries in the NT? What about many of its authors, and those of the “Old Testament” as well (which he touches only peripherally), not being who most people think they are? I believe he makes his case more than adequately.  It is a deeply and carefully researched book, building on his many prior years of scholarship.  He notes his deeper aim has been to produce a “scholarly monograph” which is yet to come, and which “will be much more thoroughly documented and technically argued” (p.11).  This version is purposely aimed at a mainly lay audience.  Still, careful scholarship and argumentation is evident, and his documentation is substantial.

I am not from the “guild” of professional NT scholars but my formal education and ongoing research is significant in this area and I was pleased that I learned further details about early Christian documents (particularly those outside the NT canon, some later deemed heretical as well as forged) and important things about the literary situation of the first few centuries of Christianity.  Ehrman takes pains to cite the more interesting examples, so that this potentially dry subject never becomes so.  I also learned a lot about ancient practices of forgery, authorial claims, etc.  I was particularly pleased that Ehrman’s careful digging has provided me greater clarity on a key point: that there is virtually no precedent in ancient literature for students or later followers of a teacher writing under the teacher’s name and it being considered typical, acceptable practice.   Thus, this oft-cited misconception (I’d encountered it often myself, validating what Ehrman claims) is actually a rationalization or a lazy avoidance-of-the-real-issue technique.  This vital misconception has been passed along through generations of scholars (and pastors, etc.) without anyone going back to the original pertinent period documents and to see what the truth really is.

I will not try to summarize all the issues that Professor Ehrman covers–there are a lot, and all are tied to his central issue of deception in the creation and content of the founding documents of Christianity.  The adjunct concern is equally important: how churchmen and Christian scholars have been, from the time of the NT itself until now, complicitous in the process, either actively or passively (purposely looking the other way, leaning on bogus excuses, etc.).  But it is important to at least mention most of Ehrman’s subjects. 

He deals with subtle differences between false (or highly questionable) attributions of authorship for anonymous works (like all the Gospels and Acts), with falsifications within books of the NT, with other types of lies or errors.  In the latter category is a good summary of both scribal errors and intentional insertions or modification of texts between the earliest copies of text that we have and later ones that sometimes became the standard, “authorized” versions to this day or until the critical scholarship of the 19th and 20th century.  (To be thorough, it should be said that there are not a lot of such known instances of real substance, but a few of them are of importance, such as the later-added 12-verse ending of the book of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery in John.)    

When dealing with cases which he calls clear forgery, Ehrman must deal with some of the issues within NT scholarship on determining dating and authorship of books.  To support the claim of the vast majority of current NT scholars that someone well after Paul’s death wrote I and II Timothy and Titus (for example), these scholars must show good reasons to hold to such a position.  For many centuries Paul’s authorship of them and 3 to 4 others currently questioned, was not questioned, at least by many.   At the same time, other books were questioned as to authorship or authority from times even before they were eventually accepted broadly and becane part of the NT canon.  Many of these interesting authorship and canonization issues are covered by the book, so that it is a good overview for such aspects of biblical scholarship for lay people, although impossible to cover in detail given the limited scope of Forged. 

Ehrman also gives brief summaries of many forged non-canonical works from the NT era and just beyond it, and a few from modern times as well.  Some of these were never considered authoritative in terms of Scripture but help give a flavor of the literary situation and the role of story, rumor, and written literature in the early stages of Christianity’s formation.   Among other things, they help demonstrate, along with most of the NT books themselves, how much in-fighting and competition existed among varying Christian groups having often-acrimonious disagreements and disputes–major battles over who had “The Truth” or who properly represented what Jesus and his apostles had meant and handed down.   Get the book and read it!

Foundations of the Christian Faith

I’ve titled this post “Foundations of the Christian Faith” to introduce one particular aspect of what Christianity, as generally expressed through most of its history, has been built upon–the documents that make up the New Testament (NT).

Of course, it wasn’t called this while the documents were being written, nor did the authors even know that their works were destined to be considered “Scripture.” Perhaps some of them thought or hoped so…. They definitely sought to have them considered authoritative to their immediate or perhaps a broader audience (most were written to a single faith community or several in a particular region).  But it took about three centuries, through a lot of often-bitter contention (as seen in the NT itself), competition, and such, for there to be a politically-prompted general settlement on which out of scores of early Christian gospels, letters, etc. would be “canonized” into a collection called the New Testament.

What I will do here is mainly introduce the subject of the authorship, sources and “purity” of the texts handed down to us in the NT, and particularly the aspect of which books may be forgeries or falsely attributed to someone as author (an apostle or someone close to one, to carry his authority).

Did the term “forgery” seem strange or out of place at all, as I just used it? It is the contention of Bart Ehrman, in his latest book, Forged: Writing in the name of God, that scholars of the NT and theologians, along with church leaders and laity, have avoided this frank and suitable term in considerations of NT authorship.  I agree.

I also confess that I was, myself, slightly unsettled seeing his book title and reading the first few pages.  I realized that I was not used to applying that term to the process of the writing and seeking for authoritative acknowledgment of the questionable-authorship books of the NT (well over half of the 27, according to the vast majority of NT scholarship, and still a good many per the most conservative/traditionalists, in that often no authorship is even claimed within the document.)  I also realized he was making a valid and important point.

Let me digress briefly, as a sort of introduction to a longer review of Ehrman’s book that I intend to post in the next few days.  I don’t know who all has so far done reviews of Forged.  If not available yet, I’m sure there will be some by reviewers more trained and/or specialized in NT studies than I am.  But I feel I should give some relevant “resume” facts for my upcoming review: I have a lot of both formal (5 years in 2 post-grad seminaries) and informal theological training, including some in Greek and NT exegesis many years ago, but have not pursued that specialization professionally.  I’ve studied textual criticism and, more recently, a lot on NT backgrounds and authorship questions.  So I’m more familiar with the field than most lay people and even most pastors, I think I can safely say.  (They are often studious, but with little time to devote to these areas, and would concur that seminary has so much to cover that details of biblical scholarship can’t be pursued as much as some might think.)  One reason I site all this is to show I have some basis on which to evaluate the scholarship of Ehrman in Forged, and his conclusions.

But I rush to add that he has carefully written this book, like most of his earlier ones, for a lay audience.  It is interesting reading for anyone interested in not only the NT or Christian faith, but also history or literature, especially of the ancient world.  And it is not highly technical though well documented with end notes.  Incidentally, he mentions that he has simultaneously been working on a scholarly book (for NT and related scholars) on the same subject, with more detail and references, which I believe he said was due out within the year.

Now, for readers who may not get back to this blog for my full review, let me give a few highlights.  First, if you have had any questions about who wrote parts or all of the NT (as we all should have, if caring at all about religious authority, whether as a believer or unbeliever) or where its authority comes from, this book is a must-read.   It will not answer all the questions, of course.  But I know of no other readable book (or any, for that matter) which covers the issues surrounding forgery, false attribution of writings, falsifications within NT books, etc., as honestly, sensibly and yet respectfully as this book.  So rush out (or online) and buy it…. Read it by the time you come back to find my review of it.  I promise I will stretch the limits of what people will typically read on a blog post, and make it substantive.  This book is important, not just for the specifics on who may have forged what, when, and for what purposes, but also because it rightly points out that this whole subject has been far too long avoided by even questioning Christians who are seeking a faith of real integrity and impact on their lives and the world.