A
couple weeks ago I finished After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers by Bart Ehrman. I wasn't going to write a review
because I couldn’t recommend it. (Not that I’m against negative reviews
on principle, but with so many other things read a non-recommendation
would be sort of non-information.) But I’m puzzled by something in it
and that is still bugging me. This is a general survey of the writing of
the apostolic fathers from a neutral (really secular) point of view.
The apostolic fathers is a subject I just love. So I was looking
forward to listening to this course even though I knew of Ehrman’s
non-sympathy with traditional Christian views was expecting I would
disagree with him on some points. When Ehrman got to Ignatius of Antioch
and didn’t so much have a different opinion as not get Ignatious all
together, I thought, ‘OK, Ignatius of Antioch is a favorite of mine and
maybe I have an unusual degree of sympathy with him.’
What
really puzzled me was when he referred, quite incidentally, to the
phenomenon of synoptic passages in the gospel. He used differences in
the passages to try to demonstrate the oral tradition can change over
time. The way he presented it gave the impression that he thinks that
oral source are the only source the synoptics share. Now I’m sure that
if you asked Ehrman specifically he would agree with the normal
scholarly opinion that the minor agreements in the synoptics indicate
that there was some sort of shared written source, either copying from
each other or a additional source. But it seems Ehrman is so focused on
counteracting naive version of Christian belief that he is willing to
ignore the very distorted impression of his own beliefs he is leaving. I
am still puzzled by this seeming lack of centeredness in his own
secular scholarly tradition. It seemed as if Ehrman was centered around a
simplistic version of evangelical Christianity, but in a negative way.
One
other example of what puzzled me: Ehrman gave a very detailed run
through of a version of the theory of the development of orthodoxy in
early Christian history that focused on hypothesized centrality of Rome
in determining doctrine. Then he admitted in passing the even though
most of the details of this theory were wrong (actually he had a slip of
the tongue and first admitted all the details were wrong before going
back and correcting himself to most) he thought the main thesis still
held up. But he didn’t offer a single detail of an alternative
supporting detail for his main theory. It makes me wonder if anyone has
really gone back and re-evaluated the main theory in light of the
downgrading of its details.
All
this has started me wondering about the emotions of secular scholars
who firmly disavow any commitment to a religious tradition but still
spend their careers studying religious documents and religious history
in exquisite detail. How much does an aversion to developing and
positive connection to what they are suding so intimately predispose
them to a negative connection?
No comments:
Post a Comment