Monday, March 28, 2011

Who to Believe?

In this New York Times bestseller, leading Bible expert Bart Ehrman skillfully demonstrates that the New Testament is riddled with contradictory views about who Jesus was and the significance of his life. Ehrman reveals that many of the books were written in the names of the apostles by Christians living decades later, and that central Christian doctrines were the inventions of still later theologians. Although this has been the standard and widespread view of scholars for two centuries, most people have never learned of it.

Amazon.com product description of
Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman

In "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?" Larry Hurtado investigates the keen devotion to Jesus that emerged with surprising speed after his death. Reverence for Jesus among early Christians, notes Hurtado, included both grand claims about Jesus' significance and a pattern of devotional practices that effectively treated him as divine. Directed at readers across religious lines, this book argues that whatever one makes of such devotion to Jesus, the subject at least deserves serious historical consideration.

Amazon.com product description of
How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God by Larry W. Hurtado

I've just started reading Hurtado's book, but I'm already impressed with both his scholarship and humility. I've already read and reviewed Ehrman's book and although I don't agree with all of his conclusions, he too makes a compelling case. And thereby lies my problem.

I've been turning this issue over in the back of my mind for awhile, but reading Hurtado yesterday forced the issue to the surface, something like an eruption at Old Faithful. It wasn't the only catalyst, but I'll explain the rest in a moment.

I've been reading books written by all of these scholars, theologians, and Bible experts and trying to put everything they're telling me into some kind of framework that makes sense and helps me sort out my faith. The problem is, most of them make a sort of sense and I can see all of their points of view. They're well educated and they know their stuff. The problem is, they don't all agree with each other. The real problem is, I don't operate at anywhere near their level of intelligence or education. How am I supposed to critique and evaluate one view vs. the other? How am I supposed to read all these books and say "this one's right and that one's wrong?"

This isn't just a matter of deciding between Ehrman, a New Testament scholar who is an agnostic and most assuredly doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus, and Hurtado, a Professor of New Testament Language and theology at the University of Edinburgh, who certainly does make a case for the deity of Christ, but all of the other learned teachers who have published their opinions and understandings.

For instance, Hurtado mentions Maurice Casey and his book From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, which I also reviewed and found convincing, and refutes Casey's conclusions that the church arrived at the decision to "make" Jesus a God centuries after the resurrection and ascension. Hurtado makes a pretty good point about the early adoption of the worship of Jesus, but I either have to take his word for it that Casey is wrong or somehow replicate Hurtado's and Casey's research and see for myself, which is beyond my cognitive and educational abilities.

It's not just the big time experts either. I happened to mention (and I've been mentioning this a lot), that I find Paul Philip Levertoff's perspective on the Gospels to be particularly convincing, largely because Levertoff seems to solve many of my personal problems with the traditional Christian viewpoint on Christ. However, there are other opinions that oppose my personal judgment:
Let us stop to consider what you are arguing here: you are arguing that a first-century Jewish teacher is better understood in the context of eighteenth-century Jewish mysticism from Poland derived primarily from a thirteenth-century work of Jewish mysticism from Spain than in the context of his students' (John) students' (Polycarp) students (Iraneus) ninety years later.
While I think you can make a case that the unique perspectives of a Chasidic Jewish scholar who lived less than 100 years ago might say more about the ancient Jewish teachings of Jesus than Gentiles who lived much closer to the time of Christ, I'm hardly an expert and after all, I can be wrong. The young man who made this comment on one of my recent blog posts is intelligent and certainly better educated in both Christian and Jewish theologies than I am. In trying to understand, explain, and defend my evolving comprehension of who Jesus is and what he taught, I'm barely able to keep my head above water.

How do people do it? How do people seem so completely sure of what they believe, not just in general, but down to the most minute details?

I do have one answer. I noticed something when I was reading Hurtado's book. I bought a used copy from Amazon and the book has various highlights and underlines (apparently made by the original owner of the book) pointing out specific parts of the text. So far, I've noticed that the passages treated thus all support the deity of Jesus and the idea that worship of Jesus as God occurred almost immediately after the ascension and certainly within the first 30 years after the ascension of the Jewish Messiah to the right hand of God the Father.

I think people read books that support the positions they already hold. I previously made the point that I thought Bowman's and Komoszewski's book Putting Jesus in His Place seemed specifically written for an audience that already believed the book's central assumptions (and the book is written as a teaching aid for Bible studies to present the conclusions of the authors).

I suppose only reading books that support your already held beliefs works in a sense, but what about people like me who are trying to get a wider perspective? Are we just supposed to take an expert's or a group of experts' word that they are right and everyone else is wrong? Which expert or experts are we supposed to believe? On what basis do we choose to believe one scholar and not the other? I want to be a good "Berean", but apparently they were a lot smarter than I am.

I can see agnostics and atheists believing Ehrman because his viewpoint supports their own. I can see evangelical Christians believing Bowman and Komoszewski because the points they make in their book support the evangelical view of Jesus. I can see more scholarly Christians who support the deity of Christ going for Hurtado's book because that's what he presents. I can see people like me, who need to believe that Christianity isn't totally and completely divorced from a Jewish conceptualization (Jewish Messiah teaching Jewish disciples, revealing mysteries in a Jewish mystic context in first century Judea...seems like there ought to be a Jewish interpretation being employed to me) gravitating toward people like Levertoff, who see the Gospels as closely mapping to Chasidic mystical teachings.

But are we supposed to make these sort of conclusions based on what seems or feels right to us? Is there nothing objective to our understanding of God? In the final analysis, are we just letting our personalities determine what is right and what is wrong as far as how we understand our faith in Jesus?

If anyone's got an answer to these questions, I'm all ears.


The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.

6 comments:

Derek Leman said...

You may answer your critic about understanding the deity issue and Yeshua in the gospels very simply. Levertoff, through the lens of Hasidic mysticism, gave you a biblical insight. He helped you to consider that there is a biblical emphasis on the mediated Presence of God (especially in Torah, wisdom lit, and Ezekiel). He helped you to conceive of the possible ideology of the Jewish disciples of Yeshua through a neglected biblical theme.

Meanwhile, the early church fathers had other influences, not least of which was a rabid anti-Judaism. Their understanding of the gospels and Paul was pretty poor in some areas. I do not dismiss the value of Christian tradition in saying this anymore than I dismiss Jewish tradition when I say that the sages were quite prejudiced and wrong about certain things and that the medieval exegetes, especially Rashi, were (understandably in light of persecution) racist.

Derek Leman

James said...

You may answer your critic about understanding the deity issue and Yeshua in the gospels very simply. Levertoff, through the lens of Hasidic mysticism, gave you a biblical insight.

That's the truth from my perspective, but reading Levertoff provided me with a particular insight. That goes back to my question about whether or not our personalities and our "druthers" determine which sources we consider valid and which ones we don't. It seems like a lot of folks, myself included, gravitate toward certain Biblical scholars based on who we are rather than on the merits of Biblical scholarship.

Judah Gabriel Himango said...

James,

I'm stumped by this statement:

"I either have to take his word for it that Casey is wrong or somehow replicate Hurtado's and Casey's research and see for myself, which is beyond my cognitive and educational abilities."

They're expert theologians, sure, but what they output is educated opinion at best, confirmation bias at worst. Why base life-and-death decisions on them? Why give them so much weight?

My point is this: you're putting too much weight into expert opinions on religion.

After all the naysayers and deserters have spent ample time on their soapboxes, I remain convinced Yeshua is the Messiah, was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, was given all power in heaven and earth, and will one day be worshiped by the whole world, beginning with all Yisrael.

(Amein!)

James said...

They're expert theologians, sure, but what they output is educated opinion at best, confirmation bias at worst. Why base life-and-death decisions on them?

I don't think I'm making "life and death" decisions based on their opinions. I'm not saying they're determining the existence of my faith, but how can you tell the particulars? For instance, how can you determine when Yeshua was first worshiped as a deity?

I remain convinced Yeshua is the Messiah, was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, was given all power in heaven and earth, and will one day be worshiped by the whole world, beginning with all Yisrael.

Actually, I don't dispute any of that. I am trying to, well...conceptualize what all of that is supposed to mean. Maybe that's an unattainable goal, but so many people think they've got it all figured out. I've been trying to understand by what basis a person can do that.

What it's coming down to for me, is that people really do choose a way to conceive of all the details about God and the Messiah based on their personalities; what they can grasp and what "seems right".

We all choose the glasses we wear by which we "see" the Messiah. In my case, as Derek put it, through the lens of Hasidic mysticism, Levertoff helped me conceive of the possible ideology of the Jewish disciples of Yeshua through a neglected biblical theme.

It may not be the way others would choose to make sense of it all, but right now, it's the way that works for me.

Judah Gabriel Himango said...

>> I don't think I'm making "life and death" decisions based on their opinions.

Casey and Ehrman basically argue that Jesus is not God.

If they are right, then your years of following Jesus were misguided. At worse, idolatrous.

If Hurtado or Brown is right, then the people that reject Yeshua are, in fact, rejecting God. At worse, they're committing blaspehmy.

That's life-and-death, really. And if you don't think following Yeshua is a life-and-death matter, a lot of people have given up their lives in vain. (Many of the principal figures and authors of the New Testament, for starters.)

You asked, "How do people seem so completely sure of what they believe?"

It's a matter of trusting. I put more trust in the veracity of the Scriptures than modern experts on religion. I think, in the end, many experts will end up with egg on their faces.

James said...

It's a matter of trusting. I put more trust in the veracity of the Scriptures than modern experts on religion. I think, in the end, many experts will end up with egg on their faces.

I can find many different Pastors, Rabbis, and so forth who *all* say they "trust in the veracity of the Scriptures", but they all have different understandings of what the Scriptures say. No one is lying or being insincere. They're doing their best to understand what God is trying to say, using the tools and the traditions they have at their disposal (and one could say that believing Jesus is literally God and co-equal with the Father is a "tradition" as much as "the rapture" is).

If you're saying that the Scriptures can *only* point to Jesus being God in the way that say, Bowman and Komoszewski believe he is God; in a modern Evangelical sense, I would say that this is one way to interpret Scripture, but not the only way.

So far Levertoff and Hurtado are making more sense to me in describing how Jesus/Yeshua can possibly have a divine nature, than the traditional Trinitarian viewpoint of "the church". I did a brief update on my "journey" in my subsequent blog post Chasing Cars.