The marketing campaign for Bart Ehrman’s latest popular book (this time on forgery in the Bible) has picked up in earnest, first with a few interviews and now with a piece in the Huffington Post summarizing his thesis that “the Bible actually contains lies.” As usual, Bart isn’t actually saying anything new in this popular-level book but is instead summarizing what lots of scholars have said for many years in service of a more provocative thesis. So there’s really nothing new here—nor would Erhman claim there is.

The plain declaration that these books are “lies” is problematic and overlooks a few other options (Ehrman is aware of this and will address that more clearly in his forthcoming scholarly foray into the subject). For example, Jim Davila has pointed out “the possibility that some of the ancient writers of biblical pseudepigrapha wrote in the names of ancient prophets because they thought themselves to be ‘channeling’ those prophets” in this SBL paper (see his brief comments on Ehrman’s claims here). In addition, it’s not fully established that some of the books that Ehrman highlights were in fact not written by the claimed author, with 2 Thessalonians and Luke-Acts being foremost among those disputed.

So, when Ehrman says, “Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul’s name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi — lies,” that statement isn’t exactly true, as about half of Pauline scholars think 2 Thessalonians was indeed by Paul (meaning that 100% of scholars would have to think the other five were all pseudepigraphical in order for this statement to be true). But that discussion will be worth having after Ehrman’s forthcoming academic monograph, which will be where he actually makes his scholarly arguments.

What is more interesting to me in this present book is how the subject of forgery really puts Ehrman into an interesting bind, as especially illustrated by the following quote:

The [biblical] authors intended to deceive their readers, and their readers were all too easily deceived. The use of deception to promote the truth may well be considered one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition.

A few others have already drawn attention to the problems inherent in this claim:

I don’t think there is any way other than a time machine for Ehrman to know this. How can discover the intent of the author to this degree without going to ask him/her?!How can a modern reader possibly recover that much data from the historical texts that we have available? (“Bart Ehrman Has a Magical Time Machine“)

Here’s the problem, and here’s where Ehrman turns from academic researcher to publicity seeking deceiver: he cannot POSSIBLY know what intention was operative in the minds of the writers of those texts which eventually became the New Testament. To pretend that he does only demonstrates that he is more interested in saying absurd headline grabbing things than that he interested in and engaged in actual academic pursuits. (If Ehrman Really Thinks That, He’s the Deceiver“)

But what actually makes this more problematic is that Ehrman is usually the one to make nearly the same critique as these—Wimsatt and Beardsley’s “Intentional Fallacy” (a part of the so-called “New Criticism“) has long been one of Ehrman’s favorite hobby-horses. That is, Ehrman regularly insists that we have no access to an author’s intent (go here for one example) and can only talk about how a text functions (this is a big point in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture). This makes Ehrman’s more recent foray into forgery—and claims about what the authors were intending when they wrote—potentially problematic for him, at least as formulated in this popular-level book. It’s an example of trying to have the cake and eat it too: either we can assess intentionality with a reasonable level of certainty or we can’t, and Bart has now firmly placed himself on both sides of the equation.

I do think that the “Intentional Fallacy,” while an important corrective against excessive interpretive claims (which may well include Ehrman’s claims in this case), is overused inasmuch as entirely dispensing with our ability to discern an author’s intent is ultimately self-refuting in that it makes communication impossible. As Richard Hays observes:

Often overlooked in the discussion of authorial intention is the fact that W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley, in their landmark essay, “The Intentional Fallacy,” The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1954), did not exclude in principle the possibility of gaining information about the author’s intention in all texts. Indeed, they asserted that “practical passages”—as distinguished from “poetry”—”are successful if and only if we correctly infer the intention” (5). Their primary point was that “the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art” (3, emphasis mine). This is a proposal about aesthetics, not a skeptical stricture on historical knowledge. [Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 201 n.90]

Stephen Carlson has likewise argued (here and here) that borrowing the legal concept of a “reasonable reader” provides a way forward in assessing intentionality and meaning in a post “New Criticism” context.

At any rate, I don’t think the scholarly enterprise should be barred from discussing an author’s “intent,” as authors typically write with the intent of communicating a given message. But this is a point on which Ehrman and I have disagreed in the past—and precisely why I find it so interesting that he is now openly using the language of “intent” when discussing early Christian forgeries. I’m curious to see what direction this goes, as Ehrman will not be able to have it both ways—he’ll either have to retreat back to a semi-modernist perspective in which he can make statements about “intent” like those in his most recent book, or he will have to amend these provocative statements that claim he knows the authors’ intentions.

ADDENDUM: John Hobbins has taken the opportunity to address some of the bigger issues at stake, calling Ehrman a “reverse fundamentalist” while pointing to Didymus the Blind’s statements on 2 Peter and expressing exasperation that Ehrman did not address this data. It’s a bit ironic that Hobbins brings Didymus into the discussion, since Ehrman’s dissertation was on Didymus the Blind’s text of the Gospels. I can completely echo Hobbins’ comment:

I am neither a fundamentalist nor a reverse fundamentalist. I am a student of ancient texts who can think of nothing better than to defend said texts from modern mis-interpreters. In my view, fundamentalists and reverse fundamentalists alike are prone to expect the wrong things from the Bible.

Well said, John. Well said.

Related articles from other sites

• Ehrman’s Overblown Claims – Again (str.typepad.com)
• Bible Writers Intended to Deceive (releasingreligion.blogspot.com)
• Bible and Interpretation’s New Feature (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

Related posts:

1. A Brief Report on the Ehrman-D’Souza Debate
2. “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1
3. “That day will come like a thief”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #4

Nice post by Daniel Kirk over at Storied Theology on the “deacons” of Acts 6 and how coming to the text asking the wrong questions (questions about church government and structure) can lead to missing some very important points. He rightly points out that two of these “deacons” are then highlighted preaching/evangelizing, not waiting tables—and that their appointment itself places them in the same role Jesus himself tried to exemplify before the Twelve in Luke. It’s a point often missed in Acts by those who only read the irenic surface of the book—Luke is not above subtly criticizing early leaders of the church, often in the very places he is also eulogizing the work of the Spirit through them. (For example, note that although he presents the growth of the Jerusalem church in glowing terms, that this church remains in Jerusalem rather than moving out to Samaria and the ends of the earth until the persecution is also a subtle criticism, since Jesus had commanded moving beyond Jerusalem.) Check it out: “The Seven: Not Exactly Deacons.”

Related posts:

1. The Length of Jesus’ Ministry and Daniel 9
2. Goodacre on our ignorance of the “Historical Jesus”

I’m presenting a paper at this year’s SECSOR in Atlanta that deals tangentially with the Tetragrammaton in first century Judaism, most notably in how it might have been translated and/or pronounced when incorporated into a Greek text (i.e. κύριος, transliteration, or something else?). Anyone out there in the biblioblogosphere have any suggestions on sources that I might want to consult before presenting? I’ve already got a few key ones (like Fitzmyer’s important chapter) but I have this nagging feeling that I’m missing a few biggies. Any suggestions—even if I already have checked it—are appreciated.

Related posts:

1. Goodacre on our ignorance of the “Historical Jesus”

A good post over at the TCoJC blog compiles a list of quotations on eschatology from the church fathers. Unfortunately, the quotes are not in chronological order, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.

(Missing from the list are the numerous quotes from church fathers talking about the pre-tribulation rapture and all the horrible events of the Great Tribulation that will precede the second coming—you know, all the stuff Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsey, etc. have made large amounts of money talking about. Oh wait, never mind—that’s because these teachings didn’t exist in early Christianity.)

One notable feature that does consistently reappear is the notion of the Parousia occurring at the end of 6000 years, meaning the “Day of the Lord” would be the “seventh day,” a Sabbath day of rest, interpreting the six days of creation as a roadmap of human history. (It is worth noting that the church fathers tended to interpret Genesis 1 in this manner rather than taking it as a literal account of the creation of the world.) Obviously the various calculations about when this 6000 year period ends differ across the quotations, but that idea does seem to have been a consistent element in early Christianity. I’ve been wanting to do a note or short article on that notion (which I think can be traced at least to the early second century) for some time. There are a couple more early witnesses that connect with this idea.

2 Peter 3:7–9 But by the same word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. But, dear friends, don’t let this one thing escape your notice: that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise—as some consider slowness—but is patient toward you, not wanting anyone to perish but wanting all to come to repentance.

Avodah Zarah 9a “The Tanna debe Eliyahu [the early teaching from Elijah] taught: The world is to exist six thousand years; the first two thousand years are to be void; the next two thousand years are the period of the Torah; and the following two thousand years are the period of the Messiah. Through our many sins, a number of these [the days of the Messiah] have already passed [but the Messiah has not yet come]. [The passage then turns to mathematical calculations as to when the two thousand years of Torah should be considered to have started and when the Messiah was to have come.]

b. Sanhedrin 97a–b “R. Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, ‘And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day’ [Isa 2:2]. Abaye said: It will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, ‘After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight’ [Hos 6:2].

It has been taught in accord with R. Kattina: Just as the seventh year is one year of release in seven, so is the world: one thousand years out of seven shall be fallow, as it is written, ‘And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day’; and it is further said, ‘A Psalm and song for the Sabbath day’ [Ps 92:1], meaning the day that is altogether Sabbath—and it is also said, ‘For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past’ [Ps 90:4].

The Tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, but through our many iniquities all these years [of the Messiah] have been lost.
[The passage continues with much speculation about the Messiah and the timing and manner of his coming, including (as is common in Talmud) all sorts of contradictory views and traditions.]

The Jewish sources are obviously late, but each references an earlier teaching (the Tanna debe Eliyahu, though not finalized until the 10th Century, supposedly goes back to a 3rd Century sage, who was supposed to have received it from Elijah) about the 7000 year scheme, including the final “day of the Lord.” One has to be very cautious in applying Rabbinic sources to an earlier time, but I think the confluence of early Christian material, tracing from 2 Peter through Ep. Barnabas and numerous church fathers, when combined with the Rabbinic evidence, suggests that this timetable was a very early Christian teaching, dating to the first decade of the second century at the very latest.

No related posts.