For all you New Yorker readers out there, I’d like to recommend an interesting (though unsurprising) article in this week’s issue entitled “What Did Jesus Do?”. The premise of the article is a familiar one: to strip away all the tradition and fairy tales of Christian tradition, and get back to who the historical Jesus really was. In typical New Yorker fashion, the author, Adam Gopnik, pays homage to the usual suspects (Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman), while also admitting that these guys basically “write the same book over and over” (true).
All that aside, here’s what I found interesting: after taking away all the apparent contradictions and unbelievable parts (the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus claiming to be the Son of God), the author, and everyone following his train of thought, hits an impasse. How do you connect the Jesus who one moment preaches a message of death and doom to those who don’t repent with the one who dines with the lowest of the low the next? There’s a pretty wide canyon between the judgment he often espouses and the love that he even more often shows.
COMMENTS
6 responses to “The New Yorker on Modern (Re-)Interpretations of Jesus”
Leave a Reply
A fascinating article and great read. I am left with the same questions, and am hoping to hear some answers from the scholars here at MB.
I'm not sure why anyone pays attention to Ehrman. He found his fifth-grade simplistic theology wanting, and now inflicts his interrupted faith journey on undergraduates. These new-questers should read Kierkegaard, who years ago analyzed the absurdity in that approach.
The cross is God's hammer. In fact, it will hammer to pieces anything that would boast against it!
Margaret, when I was reading this article and reached these questions, it reminded me of Tim Keller's idea that our culture at this time thinks we know more truth than any other time. This arrogance stretches into Christianity in the form of a desire to rewrite the Gospel into something less offensive, because we think we are given that right.
Doing something as bold as throwing out theology (and all of Paul's writings with it) so that we can come up with some new scheme that doesn't make sense, which is what this article is suggesting, just doesn't cut it for me.
You can't trust 'Paul' not because Paul isn't trustworthy but because Paul's epistles have been interpolated with proto-orthodox polemic. You can't just take your pastor's or some orthodox writers interpretation of Paul. To understand Paul you need the help of someone who lived before Paul was interpolated into 'Paul.' You need Marcion.
Beowulf28, I'm unfamiliar with the scholarship you are referencing. Are you suggesting that there was a later redaction of the Pauline Epistles to suit the church's fight against Marcion? I've read my fair share of higher criticism of Pauline letters, but I have never heard of such a suggestion.
It's true that in the deutero-Pauline letters there are new ecclesiastical tendencies not seen in the 'authentic' Pauline letters, but this is not to be confused with an second redaction.
It seems flat-out wrong to interpolate Marcion doctrines into Paul. There may be a similarity, but that does not imply congruency. For instance, Paul's views are chiefly derived in dialogue with the Old Testament. Paul frequently cites the OT not just for support of his position, but his position is birthed by his reading of the OT. See especially his reading of the Abrahamic Narrative!