Well, after having upset all the scholars yesterday (see how many made negative posts in response?), here I am with part 2.
Continuing in Bart D. Ehrman's The New Testament, I want to look at Jesus' return to Nazareth during his adult ministry. In the Gospel of Mark, this occurs in Chapter 6, after the woman with bleeding is healed and before the sending of the Twelve and the death of John the Baptist. In Matthew, this occurs in Chapter 13, long after the woman is healed of bleeding but before John the Baptist is beheaded. John doesn't cover this. Luke describes a trip Jesus made to Nazareth in Chapter 4, long before the woman with bleeding is healed and the Twelve are sent out. I've thought long and hard about this discrepancy, and come up with a conclusion. But first, let's see what Ehrman has to say about it.
"For Luke, the message of God's salvation comes first to the Jews...Luke's Gospel...is oriented toward showing how this salvation comes largely to be rejected in the city of God by the people of God, the Jews themselves...[and] leads to its dissemination elsewhere...among the non-Jews, the Gentiles. In Luke, Jesus' ministry begins with a sermon in the synagogue that infuriates his fellow Jews, who then make an attempt on his life...In order to begin Jesus' ministry in this way, Luke narrates a story that does not occur until nearly halfway through both Mark's and Matthew's account of the ministry.... This is the famous narrative narrative of Jesus' sermon in his hometown of Nazareth, a story that is much longer and more detailed in Luke than in the other Gospels and that, as the opening account, set the stage for Luke's overall portrayal of Jesus..."
So according to Ehrman, Luke changed the story from what Mark and Matthew said in order to make his point about Jesus' ministry.
Does anyone besides me see something wrong with this? If Ehrman is correct, and Luke is changing stories to suit his purpose, then his whole gospel is called into question. We can't believe anything he tells us, because he is not revealing history; he is just making points according to what he wants us to believe. And if we can't believe him, we surely don't have to listen to him.
But I see another possibility, one not even mentioned by the scholar, or by any other scholarly work that covers this. The simple explanation is Jesus made two trips to Nazareth. The first is documented in Luke, and the second is documented in Mark and Matthew. The activities that took place, and the general tenor of the accounts are so different it seems somewhat obvious these are two separate visits. If I, as a layman who has no formal training in the scriptures (except what I've picked up from sermons and my own intense readings), can figure this out, why can't they? It's so obvious.
Why can't they? They don't want to. If they did, they might have to believe the gospels and respond to their message, instead of tearing them apart.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dave,
You ask some interesting and insightful questions. These are certainly things to ponder and discuss. I would humbly offer a few minor cautions...as a fellow follower of Jesus.
I would be somewhat careful not to lump all "scholars" together. It is certainly not the case that all New Testament scholars agree with each others methods of study or conclusions. There are as many and varying scholars it seems as there are people in general. I would encourage you not to demonize those who spend their life studying the text. There are some that seem to have an agenda that would be destructive to the Christian faith - others who write and say things that are destructive somewhat unintentionally - and still others who have offered great service to Christ and His Church through their study.
I'm not really that familiar with Ehrman's work...I recognize the name, but again I've not read him so I hesitate to respond to these excerpts. It does seem that since the rise of Historical Critical study of Scripture - modern scholars began a process of dissection which (if the primary or sole method of study) is ultimately destructive - but it is simply built on modern notions of History and is in line with modern historical study of ancient texts, and as a result it tends to tacitly adopt secular philosopical categories that can be quite at odds with a Christian vision of reality.
However, it seems to me that you are still using modern concepts of "history" to combat the misuse of this historical-critical dissection. Unfortunately, it seems to me that sort of solution doesn't end of leading anywhere that is actually productive. Meaning that we need to rethink our categories of truth and history - it seems to me that there can still be a truthful telling of one's life story without getting the "facts" all right - since the sort of factual retelling is a more modern notion of history. That doesn't mean that facts are unimportant or history as we understand it for that matter...it just means that these types of questions wouldn't have been that important for the original hearers of these texts - and I'm not sure that they should be that important for us either. By that I don't mean that we question the reality of what Jesus did or who He really is. Those are I think the critical questions of the texts...I don't think we can or should question that reality simply because we question whether he went to this place or that place first - the gospels are overwhelmingly consistent in their narrative structure and what they are saying about what Jesus said and did.
That being said, it could certainly be the case that your solution to the textual problem is correct...I just think those sorts of questions can easily fall into the great adventures of missing the point...the primary questions are the ones that the text themself are asking...the questions that the text lead us to - which primarily have to do with "What does this mean? Who is this Jesus? What is he saying? What is He up to? What is the relevance of this story to my life?"
Not that you needed my opinion...I just thought I would share my thoughts. One thing is true...I wouldn't recommend many lay people or pastors or anyone for that matter to read quite a few scholars...many of them aren't worth the paper they're published on. Much of their criticism should be criticized...but it's often not worth the time, energy or effort. But I'm glad that you are engaging in the conversation, nonetheless. Blessings.
Hi Richard.
Yes, I'm sure I'm over-generalizing, but most of the books I've read that would be considered "scholarly" as opposed to "popular"--and not just books but also some magazine articles I've found on-line, use the general term for scholarship. "Most scholars agree", "The overwhelming view of Bible scholars", "almost without disagreement, Bible scholars believe...". So the writers of these scholarly books are writing in a way to shut off debate, to lead the casual layman who stumbles onto their work, such as me, into believing that what their pastors have been saying for decades is wrong. Jesus didn't mean himself when he said 'Son of Man.' Luke changed the story to promote his own view of Jesus and his own theology. Paul didn't writer the letters to Timothy and Titus, and maybe not the ones to Ephesus and Collosae. John is incompatible with Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Etc., ad nauseum.
These scholars are the ones who are generalizing, which is what sticks in my craw the most. If they would just say, "In my opinion, Peter didn't write the letters attributed to him", I wouldn't have a problem with it. But instead they write, "Almost no modern scholar believes Peter wrote the letters attributed to him." There's some logical falicy associated with such reasoning, but I can't remember what it is (appeal to authority; circular reasoning; something).
If there are scholars who are not trying to tear down the gospel, to diminish it for whatever agenda they have, their works have not made it to my millieu.
You do raise a good point, however, about not generalizing. I will be more careful to qualify future posts to be more specific to the works I'm reviewing.
Thanks for participating in the discussion.
Here are just a few Biblical Scholars that I don't perceive having any agenda other than studying the text as "faith seeking understanding":
N. T. Wright (He goes by N.T. in his more scholarly publications and Tom Wright in his more popular publications.)
Raymond Brown
I. Howard Marshall
Larry Hurtado
Donald Juel
Richard Hays
Joel Green
Ben Witherington
Maybe Brevard Childs (but I may be biased there)
Walter Brueggmann
These are just a few off the top of my head...of course, being respected in the scholarly world and confessing orthodox Christian faith is not necessarily an easy task...many of these seem to care less about respect from colleges and more about faithfulness to the One that the Scriptures point toward. I'm sure there are more secular or secularized scholars (if we can use those identifications) than genuine Christian scholars, but we mustn't conflate the terms scholar and secular, even if others are in the habit of doing so to support their own arguments.
All teachers are attempting to persuade others, making arguments for their view of reality...it only makes sense that they would generalize scholarly support for their argument attempting to gain credibility and wide acceptance - that doesn't mean it is right...it just means that they perceive wide acceptance in the so-called scholarly community. I just don't want to fall into the same errors of my opponents, which is too often the case. We can quickly become a very similar reflection to that which we oppose most fiercely.
You can do what you wish...I simply don't think it wise to turn this issue into a fight against scholarship - but rather to question and oppose the ideas proposed by some (or even most) biblical scholars today. My mind may change on this in 25 years, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. Hope you have a great day. Blessings!
Richard:
Thanks for the return comment, and for the list of scholars I can look for. Of these, I'm only familiar with I.H. Marshall, of whom we've talked before. I have only one of his books, and found it hard to slog through. Possibly this is telling me I'm out of my leaque trying to adress scholarly things.
It is a shame that being an honest Christian scholar makes it difficult to be respected in the academic world. Shows how far we have sunk into the post-Christian era. And of course, I don't intend to make this a fight against scholarship, but rather against what appears to be a large group of scholars, who seem bent on destroying Christianity. IMHO.
Post a Comment