Listen to who is giving us the latest insights into the secrets of Christianity. Various stories of Christianity are being told. Who do you think of “America’s biblical scholars” are telling the truth? Or do you think they are all telling the truth?
Special Issue – U.S. News & World Report (keep on sale through March 11, 2008)
Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity
Introduction – Amy D. Bernstein
And so the grand irony of Christianity remains. Even though we have much more information and far greater insight than 200 years ago, many important details elude certainty. Like the mathematical truism that a number can be divided infinitesimally without reaching zero, it seems that we can approach, but never attain, the total truth about Jesus the history of Christianity (11).
James Tabor
Most forms of Christian eschatology wait for something so otherworldly that its failure to arrive is no problem,” Tabor [James Tabor, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte] says, “but the Jesus I find took things in hand and tried to make something happen.” Tabor acknowledges that seeing Jesus this way is to see him as an “apocalyptic failure,” but he finds Jesus no less an inspiration for being that (17).
Second Messiah?
That priestly figure, in Tabor’s reading, is Jesus’s cousin John the Baptizer, even though later Christian tradition would reduce him to a herald rather than an equal. The reason for the demotion is obvious: John cannot be as important as the only son of God and second person of the Trinity, which is how orthodox Christianity comes to understand Jesus (17).
Tabor tries to walk a fine line: “I don’t want to pull Paul out of his Jewish context, but he does emphasize the man over the message. He creates a ‘heavenly, exalted’ figure. He equates Jesus’s functionality with Jahweh’s. Jesus is a manifestation of God’s lower powers but more than human.”
And, ultimately, Paul’s version of Jesus as divine savior obscures and replaces the apocalyptic visionary and dynasty builder—who for Tabor is the more credible Jesus: “I don’t think Jesus thought that he was the savior” (19-20).
Julie Galambush
Galambush [Julie Galambush, a professor of religion at the College of William and Mary] points out that the Gospels were written or assembled by people who didn’t equate historical truth with literal accuracy. “If it had been vital to the early Christians to have a literally accurate picture of Jesus,” Galambush says, “they wouldn’t have kept all four Gospels” (21).
John Dominic Crossan
So I see the language of Jesus about the kingdom and the language of Paul about the Resurrection as exactly isomorphic. . . . I know thousands of Christians for whom the bodily resurrection is equated with the Resurrection. They’ve reduced it to “Do you or do you not believe that Jesus came bodily out of the tomb?” If they take the Resurrection to mean just that, then they say I can’t be a Christian. I am ready to say if you are a Christian then you must believe in the Resurrection. If they ask literally or metaphorically? I would say, tell me what you mean by “literally”; tell me what you mean by “metaphorically.” What are the implications, how does it work out, how does it change the world, how do we participate in a new creation?” (23).
Elaine Pagels
Among the promoters [of Gnostic ideas], none has been more influential than Elaine Pagels, now a professor of religion at Princeton University but a junior faculty member at Barnard College when she published her hugely popular 1979 book, The Gnostic Gospels. In fact, it is fair to say that Pagel’s bestseller set the stage for the runaway success of The Da Vinci Code, which made millions on the premise that official Christianity repressed the whole truth about Jesus and his earliest followers. Simply put, The Gnostic Gospels was the right book at the right time. In an America still reeling from Watergate, still distrustful of authority and institutions, and still shaken by the liberating intensities of the 1960s, here was a book that argued that early Christianity contained a multitude of diverse interpretations and movements—or at least did so until the leaders of the orthodox church succeeded in suppressing them as heresies.
Why were the teachings of the Gnostics such a great threat to the emerging orthodoxy? The reason, Pagels argued, was that Gnostic ideas challenged theological interpretations that underlay the structures of authority of the orthodox church. According to orthodox belief, Jesus bestowed ecclesiastical authority only on those male Apostles who saw him after his Resurrection, thereby establishing the line of succession running from his inner circle of disciples, and particularly Peter, to the generations of bishops who would follow (37-38).
Marcus Borg
The Lost Gospel Q has been the result of more than 150 years of detective work by historians and theologians who found it buried within the literary layers of the New Testament itself. . . . In Q, Jesus is neither Christ nor the Messiah but the last in a long line of Jewish prophets. He is a charismatic teacher, a healer, a simple man filled with the spirit of God. Jesus is also a sage, the personification of Wisdom, cast in the tradition of King Solomon (41).
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Todd,
I don’t understand. Why would they lie? Wouldn’t someone catch them if they did? None of these statements strike me as particularly controversial in scholarship. I might not agree with some of the statements, but I wouldn’t call them lies, just differing interpretations.
John C., here is my problem. These particular “biblical” scholars do not have a consensus on what is truth about Jesus, but they will very clearly say that the Bible accounts are legend (or even a step further, myth).
Who is challenging the truthful historicity of the Bible texts? It’s them. They make it a habit of destroying historical integrity of the normal reading to the biblical texts. And rather than anyone seeking to “catch them”, the media enjoys this. Oh, they will throw in a token by N.T. Wright or a remote link to someone like Ben Witherington. But for someone to try to catch them, no, that would be to completely sacrifice any hopes for scholarly credentials in this “Christian” country.
John C., I believe the biblical scholarship plight is pretty serious, today, in America. Soon there will be no regard for living prophecy that provides clear, singular truth.
I say this in irony, there had better be no message given today that declares a “thus saith the Lord.” That kind of truth proclaiming becomes the terrorist activity to be shunned by any popular scholar of renown.
“I believe the biblical scholarship plight is pretty serious, today, in America. Soon there will be no regard for living prophecy that provides clear, singular truth.”
This, I believe, is one of the reasons God gave us the Book of Mormon. It stands as a second witness that God spoke anciently, and thus as a clarion call to the world to seek Him today.
America’s religious climate has changed since the birth of Joseph Smith.
Just start announcing a “Thus saith the Lord” in the community and watch how people react. For religions to survive in this day, “living prophecy” can not be the boast, for it is laughable to naturalistic Biblical scholars.
In America, we might have increasingly so . . . a famine of the Word. The prophets are being smothered.
Mahana, I am grieved.
For religions to survive in this day, “living prophecy” can not be the boast, for it is laughable to naturalistic Biblical scholars.
Todd, “living prophecy”, particularly the “Thus saith the Lord” style of Joseph Smith, also seems to be laughable to you as a fundamentalist, not just to naturalistic Biblical scholars. So my bet is that if President Hinckley made a “Thus saith the Lord” statement in the next General Conference, fundamentalists like you would still side with naturalistic Biblical scholars in finding the Mormons’ “living prophecy” laughable. And, of course, it is not just limited to fundamentalists and naturalists joining each other for a good laugh at Mormons’ living prophecy — you are joined by Christopher Hitchens and Lawrence O’Donnell as well.
In America, we might have increasingly so . . . a famine of the Word. The prophets are being smothered.
This is so bizarre coming from you. Don’t you believe there is no more prophecy because the Bible is sufficient? So, from an LDS point of view, you also believe in smothering the prophets.
(Sigh)
Once again, John f., you don’t even begin to understand me, or my heart conviction on living oracles, or my fundamental disagreements with Joseph.
All “thus saith the Lord” statements coming from prophets and apostles had better be proclaimed as bedrock canon.
Todd,
Would you mind explaining your thoughts on living oracles, then. (I agree that we likely do not understand your disagreement with Joseph, but let’s take things one at a time.)
Also, how do you distinguish “thus saith the Lord” Red Sea be parted, or Canaanites be extirminated, from “thus saith the Lord” love your neighbor as yourself? Are the former less of a statement of divine will because they are not appropriate for all times and places?
Todd, I still don’t understand. All these people are doing is explaining their position, just as Witherington or Wright would. I still don’t see how that makes them liars or their positions lies. I also think that it is clear that Christ can mean different things to different people, so why is that an inherently disappointing issue? Certainly differences regarding the meaning of Christ point to the schisms in Catholic and Protestant Christianity (and arguably some of those amongst the Mormons). It isn’t just modern scholars who questioned a unified understanding of the bible; that is exactly what Luther, Augustine, Acquinas, and Calvin did.
Is it the attempt by these scholars to ask theologically neutral questions that you find offensive?
Mahana, I see the biblical scriptures as living oracles, inspired, breathed out by God. Secondly, among the biblical scriptures, I do recognize how God operated differently with His people in different dispensations. The N.T. elders did not sacrifice animals any more because of the one great sacrifice described in Hebrews. There is not a political theocracy, today. Yet the Spirit drives home principles to my heart in reading the Red Sea story and the Canaanite extermination conquest. Insightful, needed counsel that would be relavent for me today.
It is the last Prophet, Jesus Christ, Who brings the full home runs to my heart on what the former prophets are communicating. And consequently, He is the hero throughout the inspired messages of His apostles for the Church age.
John f., I don’t need to be a brilliant scientist or a careful lawyer to see some of the biased agendas displayed among the scholars mentioned in my post. They want you see their stories because they have rejected the Story.
Todd (I think you were responding to me),
How do you know they have rejected the Story? What is the Story? Why is rejection of the Story necessary to ask the questions they ask? I still don’t understand.
I apologize John C. In #9, I was actually writing to John f.
I don’t think they are being neutral as I have sampled various books by them. They have asked questions but they do not want the answers that come from the story of historic Christianity.
They maintain they are neutral. I don’t think so. But I don’t defend neutrality in front of you, either, John C.
What I read in scripture makes me very biased toward the Jesus of historic Christianity. What the Spirit testifies to my heart makes me fundamentally biased. Jesus who is historically a man that walked this earth. Jesus who people worshipped as God and he accepted this. Jesus who died for men’s sin. Jesus who bodily rose again from the grave.
Rejecting these propositions through unbelief causes these scholars to ask questions that I don’t think the Spirit of God speaking through inspired scripture invites me to maintain and promote in the name of Christian scholarship about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Do these “Christian” scholars think that one needs to humbly depend on the Spirit to even understand scripture revealing Jesus Christ?
These things are all very important to me John C. when I am compelled by the media this Christmas to listen to the voices of scholarly experts.
I agree that these are readings that are not seeking to define belief or history in accordance with the Spirit (which is a very LDS thing for you to say, Todd). However, I also (personally) believe that there are multiple paths to truth and that no particular approach has a monopoly to ascertaining truth. So I am less inclined to be dismissive of their discoveries, even if they don’t support my own beliefs.