Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Review: The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot

    Bart Ehrman’s books tend to get quite a bit of hype around them, but when one actually reads them, one finds the work of a fine, generally balanced scholar. This is true of The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, as it was of Misquoting Jesus, which I reviewed early in a series of posts. Ben Witherington is fairly hard on Ehrman, referring to that same book, and stating that he goes well beyond his evidence (What Have They Done with Jesus?, pp. 6-7). If one goes by he cover, that is likely true, but I would say that the actual contents are much better, both in terms of nuanced claims and of evidence. (I’ve begun blogging through Witherington’s book here.)

    The bottom line is that this is a well-written book, easy to follow, and covering the most essential material. I rarely read a book on a discovery like this one without wishing that the author had spent less time on some things and more on others. Ehrman manages to include enough of the story of discovery to give the flavor. He summarizes the document well, and then looks at its implications.

    Many popular discussions–by which I mean non-scholars discussing the Gospel of Judas–get the focus and implications entirely wrong. It is natural for 21st century westerners to immediately turn to issues of the historical Jesus, and of course the historical Judas. But the fact is that the Gospel of Judas gives us very little additional information on that issue. It is later than the canonical gospels, though earlier than most non-canonical gospels, and it has even less emphasis on historical events.

    But it does have a significant impact on our understanding of early Christianity in its various forms and on gnosticism. That is what could be expected, and it is also what was actually found. Ehrman makes these facts pretty clear.

    He starts by providing us a narrative framework for his own exposure to the gospel which serves to help us understand the process of discovery and preservation (or lack of it) that goes into bringing this type of manuscript to publication. This preface and first chapter illustrates some of the difficulties in dealing with ancient artifacts. Fortunately, unlike most items such as ossuaries, pieces of pottery, and so forth, a printed text retains a good deal of its value even without a well-established provenance.

    The second chapter continues by telling us what is already known about Judas Iscariot and how this is known, as well as discussing the various perspectives on Judas. This is followed in chapter three by a discussion of later Christian literature and its perspective. These two chapters are valuable in demonstrating how a story can grow and change shape over centuries of use. Chapter 4 then tells us what was known previously about the Gospel of Judas in order to prepare for the discovery of the actual text, and chapter 5 finishes the story of the discovery.

    Chapters 6-8 get to the heart of the matter and tell what we learn from the text itself, and how that fits into our understanding of early Christian gnosticism. Ehrman provides good context and well done summaries. He also covers a variety of views on gnosticism. The result is about the best one could hope for in the space allotted.

    Finally, in chapters 9-10 we get what many were probably looking for in the first place–a discussion of the historical Judas, and it turns out that the Gospel of Judas has practically nothing to say about this at all. Ehrman follows with an excellent summary of how historical study is done using ancient manuscripts and other material, and then applies those methods to Jesus and Judas Iscariot. He finds frustratingly little that one can say with certainty, but he is very clear about how he comes to those conclusions. Those interested in the historical Jesus could do worse than to read his summary of the methodology involved.

    Despite the limited historical conclusions about Judas, Ehrman regards the Gospel of Judas as very historically important. Its importance is to the history of early Christianity. In the final chapter he kind of rounds up what has been implied earlier. There are two extremes in views of the history of early Christianity. One holds that a single orthodoxy came from Jesus and the apostles. There were numerous heresies that broke off and threatened the true faith, but ultimately truth (orthodoxy) prevailed. Thus while there may have been disputes, these were either minor ones amongst friends, or fights between truth and error.

    The other extreme represents Christianity as spreading from its origin point in Jerusalem and presumably Galilee in many variations as various groups of disciples did their best to understand Jesus and what he meant. Orthodoxy is “orthodox” because it represents the winning viewpoint, not because it has some ultimate claim to being the most genuine. Ehrman plainly represents the second of these views and sees the Gospel of Judas in that light.

    While I am not fully in agreement with Ehrman on all points, I think this is an exceptionally good popular level book and a good introduction to the meaning of the Gospel of Judas. It doesn’t require any substantial background, because Ehrman provides a clear context throughout.

  • What Have They Done with Jesus? – II

    It has been some time since I wrote my first post on this book. I have been distracted by other matters.

    The first chapter really builds very little on the principles I described in my first post. Rather this deals with the historical clues we have in the gospels about two women: Joanna and Miriam of Migdal, more commonly known as Mary Magdalene.

    Working from a few historical clues, Witherington proposes to identify Joanna with Junia of Romans 16:7, who was prominent among the apostles. Having seen how annoyed some complementarians get at the suggestion that this Junia is a real apostle, I have to wonder what their reaction will be to Witherington’s proposal that she is actually the Joanna who traveled with Jesus, witnessed the crucifixion, and then, he says, was likely present at Pentecost. For the arguments in favor of this, you’ll have to get the book and read the chapter. I will just say that I have always been convinced Junia was an apostle in the fullest sense of the word, and Witherington has added to that conviction. The connection with Joanna of the Gospel of Luke is more tenuous, but not implausible.

    As for Miriam of Migdal, Witherington says several things which I had just read in Ehrman’s The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. Basically both point out that most of the things we believe about her are simply not present in the text. There is nothing to suggest she was a prostitute, nor that she was Jesus’ wife. Other than the statement that seven demons had been cast out of her, none of these details are even suggested. Witherington focuses on the story of John 20 which makes her a witness to the resurrection.

    I would agree here that the story of the women as the initial witnesses to the resurrection has the ring of truth to it, if on no other basis than the criterion of embarrassment. Had the disciples not run away, it is doubtful they would have invented such a story, and had they not first heard the story of the resurrection from women, it is doubtful they would have created that story either.

    So much for chapter 1. I’ll keep blogging chapter by chapter.

  • FAQ on Theistic Evolution

    This is a reminder that even though I truly dislike the term “theistic evolutionist,” I’m continuing to develop my FAQ on Theistic Evolution. Besides listing the FAQ (far short of the number I need there) it provides links to my most recent posts here and on the Participatory Bible Study Blog that relate to theistic evolution.

  • Science Education Problem for Florida

    In today’s News Roundup from the Florida Citizens for Science blog, there is reference to a poll taken in Florida. This poll suggests that 50% of Floridians would like to see only faith-based views of origins taught in public schools.

    What is most interesting to me in the poll, however, is how it shows that increased education makes acceptance of evolution more likely. In fact, if you went outside the boundaries of the poll, you’d find that the more evolution is involved in someone’s professional or academic specialty, the more likely they are to accept the theory of evolution.

    Now conspiracy theorists suggest brainwashing. I’m sure scientists are subject to social pressure, but often less so than anyone else. In science, the opportunity to overturn a dominant theory is the road to success. People speaking against the science standards here in Florida talk about the series of dominant theories that have been overturned (see commentary at Dispatches). What these comments seem to miss is the fact that it is scientists engaging in science who have overturned those theories, and that the culture of science favors overturning.

    In addition, these same folks miss the Sunday School and church brainwashing that is possible on the other side. I know that I heard nothing until I was well into college other than young earth creationism. While I encountered evolution in a high school biology text, I was immediately also introduced to “the truth” in other materials. But all that supposed brainwashing doesn’t take. I would certainly be willing to discount the church based brainwashing if the creationist crowd will back off the the science education brainwashing.

    Those who oppose evolution have a fully valid way to attack it–get out there and do the science. Instead we have PR statements, popular books, and political maneuvering to get content that does not pass muster as science including in science courses. Let creationists do the hard work of demonstrating their view. Right now it’s not happening, and thus it is appropriate that such views are shut out of the science classroom. Please note that I say “shut out of the science classroom” and not out of public discourse or scientific discourse. Anyone should be able to engage in public discourse–and creationists are doing so. Anyone can attempt to overturn a scientific theory, but they need to present it to scientists first, not to school children.

    There are those who will argue that the majority of parents should be able to set the public school curriculum. I disagree. I think we would be appalled should the majority of the public be permitted to set curriculum in medicine or health, and even in various shop classes. What the general public knows about auto mechanics, for example, is somewhat questionable. But nobody believes they should write curriculum unless they are fully acquainted with the field. In the area of biological sciences, parents are in effect trying to write curriculum, or to get their state representatives to do so, without any qualification.

    I would hold that parents should have the ultimate control, in the form of home schooling or the use of private schools. Public school curriculum should be written by the consensus of those qualified in the field, something that has already happened with the Florida science standards. The Board of Education should approve the standards as written.

  • Need for Moderate/Liberal Hermeneutics

    It is sometimes difficult to discuss scriptural issues involved in many modern debates simply because there is so little explicit liberal hermeneutic. It’s not that there is no liberal hermeneutic; it’s simply that so few people are aware of such a thing, and it’s so badly communicated to people in the pews. Moderates have succeeded in producing something they can use with varying degrees of success, but often this is simply exceptions made to the fundamentalist or conservative evangelical hermeneutics we encounter.

    The problem, I think, results from simply telling people not to take the Bible so literally. In many churches, “literal” and “true” have become almost synonymous, and this statements sounds like saying not to take the Bible so seriously. Mainliners end up hanging between Biblical literalists on the one hand, and critical Biblical scholarship on the other, and are uncertain just what to do with scripture. Now I have no problem with critical methodology, but it has a major limitation. Once you’re done discussing the prehistory and history of the text in great deal, just what are you going to do about it?

    This is where many of us fall flat in communicating what we’re doing. The Bible is important to me, but why is that so, and how do I manage to communicate that importance to others? More importantly, just what role does the Bible play in my life, and specifically in the way I answer life’s questions? It cannot play the same role as it plays in the life of a fundamentalist who is looking for specific commands in specific verses. That’s not the way I study or understand it.

    To get a bit more specific, I am frequently asked about Genesis. How can I possible be a theistic evolutionist and still believe the Bible? Is what I practice “Biblical” Christianity?”

    Let’s start with the term “Biblical.” I believe it is horribly abused as an adjective. One cannot answer the question of whether something is Biblical or not without establishing an interpretive framework–a hermeneutic if you please. Thus if someone asks me whether my views are “Biblical” or not, and they are dispensationalist, odds are that I will not appear Biblical to them. Frankly, were I as tense as they are, they would not appear Biblical to me, simply because I see dispensationalism as something imposed on the text from the outside without adequate justification. From my perspective, I’m quite Biblical, but to the dispensationalist, who does believe that dispensationalism is Biblical, and the appropriate way to understand the Bible, I don’t look much like it.

    In response to the question about Genesis and theistic evolution, I don’t see any problem at all, because I simply do not see Genesis as narrative history, or any other form of literature that would make be believe that the events it narrates are historical. Thus I’m reading Genesis differently because of the type of literature it is. If I respond to this question by saying, “I don’t take Genesis literally,” then I really haven’t given much information. There are few literal interpretations that will work, but many non-literal. I have to be more specific.

    So I would say that in order to interpret any piece of ancient literature correctly, you need to find out what type of literature it was, and hopefully what types of questions it was intended to answer, and then read it in that light. In the case of Genesis 1-11, we have largely the language of an origin myth, and these were written in the ancient near east not to preserved historical fact but to establish social order and legitimize governments.

    Today I’m just going to make a few remarks about my view of hermeneutics. I may blog further on individual elements. I believe liberals and moderates need to be more clear about the way in which we get from text to action. If the Bible is important in my life, in what way is it important? How does it change the way I would otherwise act. Obviously I’m not talking simple exegesis here. It is not sufficient to determine what Paul meant to his first audience, but also to determine just how that can be applied in life now.

    My understanding starts with seeing the Biblical literature as the result of a community living their faith. This doesn’t exclude divine inspiration, but divine inspiration operates amongst real people at a specific time and place. Communication with these people must occur in a way that they can understand. Since the literature results from a faith community, the way it is received and created and the way the community handles and transmits it become relevant to understanding it. If the Pentateuch is built from sources that grew up over centuries, I think this is significant. It tells us something about God and the way he works just as the actual text does.

    A corollary to this is that I do not take God’s knowledge or God’s context as the basis for understanding the literature. If it was communicated to and in a community, it lived in that community and was understood by that community. I don’t believe they had a God’s eye view, and I know I don’t.

    But the understanding of that community may not be of value to me today. For example, I believe the community that heard the stories of Genesis first was comfortable with a flat earth, round like a dinner plate, with the dome of the sky above it. That was their cosmology. I know better. Later generations may improve on my understanding. I do not suddenly reread the stories from my new perspective (without other necessary adjustments), on the basis that God already knew the earth was spherical.

    Since the Bible was produced in and by a community, I am also interested in the continuity of community from that time to this, such as it is. In this way I keep connection and continuity in a changing world. I also bring in tradition in this way.

    At the same time I recognize that I understand this through my own experiences, and that my connections to my modern community, especially my spiritual community (a United Methodist congregation) provide a framework in which I understand it. There are, however, ways other than revelation from which I get knowledge, and these are added in as well, by means of science.

    Finally there are two elements that I believe work closely together. First is reason (also part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which some may recognize here in parts), which doesn’t seem to me to be a separate source of knowledge but rather the means by which we comprehend all the rest. Some Christians disdain reason, but you will form doctrines using your reason in any case. The only question is how well you do this. The second of these two elements is the Holy Spirit, guiding us into all truth. I think the Holy Spirit is more active than we often believe, and I think we need to be open to continuing guidance.

    The result of this is often nothing at all like what a fundamentalist or conservative evangelical would get from the text. Yet in order to understand that difference we have to look at how we interpret and apply what what we read.

    I hope to discuss these elements some more. This is such a brief look. As I said there is a great deal of quite good moderate and liberal hermeneutics out there. It just doesn’t seem to filter down to the pews as well as I would like.

  • Interesting Florida County Statistics

    I have been neglecting to post much on the Florida science standards issue lately. One interesting study looks at the FCAT scores for students in counties supporting and opposing the standards. You can find the article here. Be sure to keep up with the action via the Florida Citizens for Science Blog.

    Speaking of Florida Citizens for Science, I received an e-mail today which I will answer in more detail later, but which quoted the FLCFS site (Word .doc file):

    . . . The supernatural cannot be measured or tested and so is not included in any science course. Additionally, there are many people with sincere religious belief who accept the theory of evolution. It needs to be made clear here that no student is asked to “believe” evolution. Rather, evolution is to be “understood” in the same way that the heliocentric solar system is understood.

    This e-mailer then says: “A person of no faith surely posed the remark that the supernatural cannot be measured.” That’s astonishing, and shows a complete lack of understanding of theology, not to mention simply the meaning of words. If my correspondent can measure the supernatural he’s a bigger man than I am!

  • The Value of REB Eccentricity

    Or perhaps I should say REB uniqueness.

    One of the major reasons for using multiple Bible versions when studying the Bible in English (or any other language other than the originals) is to make yourself aware of alternate translations for particular passages. This goes beyond different ways of expressing the thought in English, to places in which the source language could be interpreted multiple ways, but even in the most literal translation, one must choose one or another option.

    This morning in doing my lectionary reading, I chose the REB, and quickly found two examples: Genesis 12:3b and Psalm 121:1-2.

    In Genesis 12:3, most translations use “in you will all nations of the earth be blessed” or something very similar. It is possible, however, to translate as the REB does:

    All the peoples on earth
    will wish to be blessed as you are blessed.

    Now it happens I prefer the option presented in most other versions, but most people would not be aware of the alternate possibility unless they check a footnote, or use the REB. This is a positive value for a version which is known for accepted readings that are a bit out of the mainstream. (Note that I love the REB for my own reading; I will disagree with any translation on various renderings, and I don’t let that concern me. As long as a reading is well supported technically, I would never count it against the translation.)

    The second one is in Psalm 121. Verses 1 & 2 are normally translated in a slightly ambiguous way. Is one looking to the hills for help? Is one rejecting the hills in favor of the Lord? This becomes more interesting when one seeks a Sitz im Leben for the passage. For example, if it is a processional song going toward the temple mount, looking to the hills could stand in for looking to the Lord.

    The REB, on the other hand, renders unambiguously (or less ambigously, if that is possible!):

    If I lift up my eyes to the hills,
    where shall I find help?
    My help comes from the LORD,
    maker of heaven and earth.

    In this case, I like the REB rendering slightly better. But my preference is not the point here. I think the REB can be a valuable addition to the library of the serious Bible student who does not know the source languages simply because it showcases some unusual readings. Of course, one hopes the student will be directed to the footnotes in all versions, as they often provide the same service.

  • Christian Carnival #211 Posted

    . . . at Brain Cramps for God. (Now why can’t I think of cool names for a blog like that!)

  • A Desire to Please and a Fear to Offend – Psalm 95

    Matthew Henry, in commenting on Psalm 95 says that “[t]his psalm must be sung with a holy reverence of God’s majesty and a dread of his justice, with a desire to please him and a fear to offend him.” I’m wondering just how that was derived from this Psalm.

    I don’t doubt that there we should desire to please and fear to offend God, if for no other reason than that I believe God commands us to do merely what is best for us in any case. But in this Psalm we have a description of approaching God, and it doesn’t seem to match this solemnity. Working from God’s Word (GW), the first couple of verses refer to shouting, using adverbs like “joyfully” and “happily.”

    Now I don’t think reverence and happiness are incompatible. I don’t think shouting and reverence are incompatible. But I know plenty of congregations where they would be seen as such. A person who approached the song service by shouting joyfully would be very unwelcome. I won’t accuse Matthew Henry of making such a mistake. I don’t know precisely what his approach to worship would be.

    At the same time we turn to fearing to offend. Again, a joyous response doesn’t seem to involve a fear to offend, but rather points to a situation in which perfect love has cast fear out (1 John 4:18). And no, I don’t think I’m confusing the awe/fear of reverence with fear as in terror. The one fear the Psalm calls for is a fear of being stubborn and closed off to God’s direction, a fear of testing God.

    I may have been unfair to Matthew Henry here, but his entry on this Psalm doesn’t seem to match the spirit of the work.

  • Ethics of Lotteries vs Casinos

    I live in Florida where we have a lottery that is supposed to provide money for education. At the same time we have a strong resistance to allowing casino gambling. Now I’m not a gambler, and don’t recommend it. Some do it for entertainment, and I don’t have a problem with that. For me it would be very expensive entertainment indeed!

    But I find this approval of gambling–what else is the lottery–for state purposes while opposing any form of casino gambling a bit puzzling. Over the years I have heard many, many ads for the Florida lottery, and they trouble me much more than casinos do. It has been said that lotteries are a tax on math illiteracy. In that case, the ads for the Florida lottery amount to aiding and abetting math illiteracy, as well as charging a penalty for it. I’m only going to comment on the ones I’ve heard here, though I suspect other lotteries must use similar methods.

    Gambling by nature operates on creating an illusion. Entertainment in general does the same thing, so that’s not a criticism. In the lottery, the illusion is that you’re doing a good thing by participating and you just might get rich. Of course, there is a need to convince people that the likelihood that they will get rich is higher than it really is. In the casino, I would maintain, this is a known and knowable part of the entertainment. People may get taken in, but they basically ask for it. But do they ask for it in ads on radio and television for a state-sponsored lottery?

    Let me give an example. One type of ad emphasizes the number of chances. For example, a certain ticket is advertised as having “more chances now than ever.” One ad a couple of years back announced that each ticket now provided five chances to win–a great boon to the players. Now anyone who knows probability realizes that the actual chance to win remains the same if you increase the chances to all the players. Your odds become 5 times what they were out of 5 times what the total was before–totally equal.

    I guess one could say that if you fall for that, you deserve to lose your money. In a casino, I might even say the same thing. If one spends more on entertainment than one can afford, one has only oneself to blame. When I was an airman on temporary duty in Panama I once took $50 with me into a casino and played until it was gone. My experience didn’t make me want to spend another $50, but not everyone likes the same type of entertainment.

    But should the state be sponsoring misleading advertising? Yes, the lottery is handled by a contractor, but it is still done for the state, and its purpose is education. I don’t see this. I particularly don’t see it as better than casino gambling. I think it would be much better for us to support education directly through taxes spent on the purpose. It’s not my purpose to examine the use of the lottery money here, but there are many who question whether the education spending from lottery money is not offset by cuts the legislature feels free to make based on the availability of the lottery money. I don’t have good numbers on this.

    (As an aside, we need to establish education as a valuable, profitable investment, not a simple expenditure. One thing that troubles me about many fiscal conservatives (and I am fiscally conservative) is the tendency to lump all expenditure together, and then talk directly about cuts and deficits. “Cuts across the board” are unlikely to be wise. The problem is that we don’t have the discipline to prioritize and make choices. Spending on defense, law enforcement, education, and highways, for example, is qualitatively different from expenditures on social safety net programs.)

    It seems to me that it is unethical for the government to participate in deception, and particularly a deception that tends to take money from those least able to afford it. They should be safe from such exploitation by their government.