So far it is a fascinating account of discrepancies in the Bible. Most of the inconsistencies are minor and not really noteworthy. However there are several inconstancies that are seemingly, if not completely, irreconcilable. These include the stories of Jesus’ birth, miracles, life, death, trial, and resurrection. And all of these discrepancies are learned by all who attend seminary; this is common knowledge to all pastors, priests, reverends, clergy, and so on. The question is why don’t pastors pass on this historical/critical information onto their parishioners? Are they afraid that such information will lead to the faithful losing their faith? I don’t know, but if that is the case I think that pastors are underestimating the faith of their congregations. While there are many discrepancies, Dr. Ehrman maintains, even though he is a self-professed agnostic, that one can know about such contradictions and still maintain faith in god. However one cannot believe that the Bible is inerrant, it’s not. Often I have wondered, as have many others, why I haven’t caught many of these very obvious contradictions. Dr. Ehrman has an answer to this, vertical reading. Most people read anthologies from the top of the page to the bottom and from the first chapter to the last. So when you read the crucifixion story of Jesus in Matthew you don’t realize the differences in the story by the time you get to read it John. You end up naturally weaving the stories together; you fill in the blanks. The solution to this is what Dr. Ehrman calls horizontal reading. So instead of reading through Matthew then Mark and so on; read the resurrection story in Matthew then read the account in John keeping track of the details of both. Basically you want to read the accounts side-by-side. It is when you read horizontally that you notice the inconsistencies in the different gospel accounts.
Since it is Christmas time I thought I would talk a bit about the nativity and what the Bible says about it, or rather what Dr. Ehrman says about it. We all know the story of Jesus‘ birth and according to Dr. Ehrman we get our account of the birth of Christ from two gospels: Matthew and Luke, and these two accounts are irreconcilable; at the very least difficult to reconcile. Dr. Ehrman explains below:
“The differences between the accounts are quite striking. Virtually everything said in Matthew is missing from Luke, and all the stories of Luke are missing from Matthew. Matthew mentions dreams that came to Joseph that are absent in Luke; Luke mentions angelic visitations to Elizabeth and Mary that are absent in Matthew. Matthew has the wise men, the slaughter of the children by Herod, the flight to Egypt, the Holy Family bypassing Judea to return to Nazareth, all missing from Luke. Luke has the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Caesar, the trip to Bethlehem, the manger and the inn, the shepherds, the circumcision, the presentation in the Temple, and the return home immediately afterward, all of them missing from Matthew.” (Jesus Interrupted pg. 33)
Do these contradictions mean that the event didn’t happen? No, not necessarily. It just means, at the very least, that someone was wrong in their account of the event. I think what is important here, as does Dr. Ehrman, is that when one reads the Bible that one should read each gospel for itself. In other words, read John for John; not Luke for John. Each author had a particular theological theme that they were trying to convey. If you read Matthew to fill in or understand Mark then you are missing the point of Matthew. This idea of reading a single gospel for itself is something that Dr. Ehrman discusses in more detail in his book, and something that I hope to expand on here at a later date.
Nice find - I'll have to grab that book next! Just finished "Why Evolution is True" and wanting something else now.
ReplyDeleteHaving been brought up Christian (Episcopal until I was 9, then Mormon until a few years ago when I began to realize I couldn't pretend anymore), I can shed some light on some of it.
Most pastors know the discrepancies, of course. Most educated parishioners know of them, as well - it's the youth who don't, or who have the truth glossed over in fairly convincing fashion. By the time you're 30 or 40 and up, you don't want to consider the notion that what you've read, believed, espoused and testified of may be wrong; it's easier to continue maintaining the status quo, especially when the idea of brimstone and eternal damnation rest in the back of your mind.
I don't mean to imply that there's some grand conspiracy or anything, but far too many people consider discussion of the veracity of Scripture like the Bible to be taboo.
BTW, just found your blog and I love it. :)
I related to Scott regarding Mormonism. There is lots of pretending there, ie, pretending that their definitions of theological words mean the same things to them as to catholics or protestants. They do now and they know it but they cover that up.
ReplyDeleteThis is my second post here. So, I will try this briefly. To see a more full review of the Jesus Interpreted book, see goodnewsnow.wordpress.com for more.
Dr. Ehrman raises points that have been raised for centuries. I read a book by C. W. Farrah, 1800s, the other day and Farrah said that if you believe that every letter of the manuscripts is accurate, you are going to be disappointed. Thus, Dr. Ehrmans demise--he started in the wrong school.
I've read this book and I see much of his approach focused on selling the book. He knows Mark and Luke don't give the contrasting views to the pre-crucified Christ that he implies. Also, he flatly misinterprets the Exodus passage in the first chapter and I can't appreciate him doing that to help bolster his point. He is not giving attention to detail and for a scholar/PhD that bothers me.
@ John
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, there is nothing new that Dr. Ehrman addresses. In matter of fact he states that many times over in his book. Secondly, it seems, at least the way I was reading him, that he was writing the book for the layperson and not the scholar. While I do agree that it would have been beneficial to write a scholarly work, I don't think that is the audience he was aiming for. Overall I think it is a good introduction to some of the biblical textual errors and why they are there. I do agree that in no way is his book exhaustive.