Bart Ehrman discussions part 3

Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogLost Letters of Paul’s Opponents 
  
24 votes, average: 4.92 out of 524 votes, average: 4.92 out of 524 votes, average: 4.92 out of 524 votes, average: 4.92 out of 524 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5 (24 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Lost Letters of Paul’s Opponents

I’m back now to my thread on the lost writings of the early Christians that I would love to have discovered.    On bunch that would be absolutely fantastic to have would be the letters of Paul’s *opponents.*
I get asked all the time if I think that Paul is the true founder of Christianity and whether we should call it Paulinanity instead of Christianity (and related questions).  My answer is decidedly NO.   For two main reasons.
The first is the most obvious:  Paul did not himself invent Christianity.   He inherited it.
It is difficult to establish a firm chronology of Paul’s life.  There are scholars who have devoted many years just to this topic.  It’s messy and complicated.   My colleague from Duke, Douglas Campbell, has just written an-over-400-page book dealing just with the chronology of Paul’s *letters*, Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography.   It is about how to situate the surviving letters of Paul (Douglas accepts ten of the thirteen as authentic – all but 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) chronologically in relation to one another.  I haven’t read it yet, but Douglas is a very smart fellow and I imagine it will be a standard work for a very long time (though I doubt that he will convince the majority of scholars that Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians are authentic.  But maybe he will!)
In any event, however one arranges Paul’s letters, it is possible…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.  If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, OR YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!!!


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Paul’s Christian Enemies: Galatians«
Paul’s “Exceptional” Letter to the Romans»


23

MAR

2015

49
  
Comments
49  Comments
0  Trackbacks


talitakum

talitakum  March 23, 2015
You say that Paul had enemies only within the Church. Didn’t he have enemies also among the Jews?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
I’m sure he did! I didn’t mean to say that his *only* enemies were in side the church!!
Log in to Reply  
 



MikeyS  March 23, 2015
Paul is definitely and interesting character. But there are too many questions that make me wonder about his statements and his credibility. He said he persecuted Christians but didn’t say who they were and where it was or who he was doing it for. eg The Sandhedrin or the Romans? How did he know who were Christians and who wasn’t, as it was supposed to be a secret movement. Secondly, anyone that did have that commission would surely seek out the leaders of that movement in order to cut off the head so to speak and send a clear message to the rest of them. Its inconceivable that he didn’t seek out Peter and James who were based in Jerusalem itself and not some outlying province as that is where the Sandhedrin was based. Yet he never met them for years? No reasonable person would do that.
His other claims about his conversion and again not seeking out the disciples who actually lived with him and heard him preach and yet ignored them going off for three years to Arabia makes no sense and what Christian Church did he start in that area anyway? Again, makes no sense.
But the central and main doctrine of Paul was personal acknowledgement of the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God at Calvary and that was and is preached more than even the words of Jesus himself in all Christian Churches that I have gone to over the last 60 years. In fact the Church could not exist witthout that core doctrine that ALL have come short of the glory of God and we are all sick and need redemption. Without the death and shedding of Jesus’s blood as the only thing that would pacify a God seeking vengence based on original sin, even to babies is complete nonsense and Tosh. And has caused such misery since. For some unknown reason they haven’t read the account of Zaccheus and obviously, neither did Paul. If God believed in orginal sin that needed redemption by his only son, why did he wait 4000 years? And then to a few Jews in Palestine?
Don’t get me started on his mysogeny! I think Paul was the most over rated man in biblical history! Just my opinion. No wonder the other Christians disagreed with him. Has Jesus spoken to any other person, Pope, Cardinal, Priest, Muslim, non believer since he supposedly spoke to Paul 2000 years ago, while three quarters of the world are all going to hell in a handcart? How disappointed he must have felt when Jesus failed to turn up in his lifetime and which he wrote about the whole time and promised all those who would keep the faith! Maybe its tomorrow?! They are still repeating that today in all churches across the world.
In actual fact, we did end up with Paulinanity!
Log in to Reply  


spiker  March 24, 2015
Heya, Mikey
As you probably suspect, I have some criticisms. You write that Paul “… said he persecuted Christians but didn’t say who they were and where it was or who he was doing it for. eg The Sandhedrin or the Romans?”
Are those the only options? If Paul was motivated by what he considered an ugly insult,why would he have to be working for anyone? Notice when he converted, he doesn’t seem to have been working for
 anyone. However, If we take The Acts of the Apostles, seriously we find in 8:3 that Saul is going from House to House dragging “off both men and women and put them in prison” Similarly, Chapter 9 claims Paul “went to the high priest “and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus…,”
If any of this is historically reliable, my suspicion is Saul offered his services and must have gotten his authority to put people in jail from the same source that was responsible for local
 order: The High Priest et al. I sincerely doubt the Romans considered this negligable movemnt as
 a threat.
“How did he know who were Christians…”
what evidence do we have that it was secret? But even secret movements get infiltrated and caught.
 I don’t see how secret movement translates into invisible or immune to being attacked.
“anyone that did have that commission would surely seek out the leaders of that movement in order to cut off the head…”
I don’t see why you put so much emphasis (Inconcievable? based on what?)on the cut off the head of the serpent strategy. If early Christianity was a secret movement what evidence do you have that
 Saul knew who the leaders were? you can’t have it both ways: Either Christianity was a secret movment and because of that there wasn’t really any way to know who its members and leaders were or it wasn’t. Even if that is the only concievable strategy, it had been tried and did not have the desired effect with the crucifixion of Jesus. Should Saul have just continued to employ the same unsuccessful tactic? If a clear message to the followers was his purpose, how could the message be any clearer than by directly attacking them. Rounding up followers is a tried and true tactic. It is still done today; particularly if one is trying to stop the spread of a movement.
“His other claims about his conversion and again not seeking out the disciples who actually lived with him and heard him preach and yet ignored them going off for three years to Arabia makes no sense”
What!? Saul’s conversion purportedly happened while he was on the road attacking Christians,
 I highly doubt there were “disciples who actually lived with him” what would he have been preaching? “murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” is what he was “preaching” at that time according to Acts. Paul’s disappearancce into Arabia makes perfect sense. On the one hand he is openly attacking and prosecuting this new movement. I’m sure he understood that he would not be welcome in Christian circles. If some guy today was publically arresting and threatening members of this blog, I highly doubt any of us would be anxious to introduce ourselves or stick around if he came to our town. Perhaps, you might since you think “it makes no sense” .
Second, conversions of this nature can take a long time. For the sake of argument, let’s say the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts is true. He is then with a group of men who probably shared his previous convictions. Does it “make sense” that he would want to stay with that group?
 Even if Paul knew who Peter et al were, he had plenty of reason to not go running to them considering his recent activities. He may have disappeared into Arabia as a wanted man (if he
 started informing his fellow travelers of his conversion experience they may have decided he
 needed prosecuting. On the other hand, he may have gone to figure things out. My suspicion is he spent some of time out there deconverting, as it were. Figuring out just what really happened to him; what he really experienced. Add to that the likelyhood that Peter was probably not immediately receptive to a visit from Saul of Tarsus (you know the guy who had recently been throwing his fellow Christians in Jail etc) arranging it may have taken some time.
“But the central and main doctrine of Paul was personal acknowledgement of the atoning sacrifice…”
Indeed, yet what evidence do you have that this was invented by Paul? Wouldn’t it need to have been for it to be Paulianity? If Christianity “was around – with the core of its theology already established — for a few years before [Paul] ever showed up on the scene as a Christian himself.”
I fail to see how any of those docterines could be distinctively his. Paul was simply a potent ally
 in the spread of Christianity.
Lastly, Mikey I can’t help but think you are in a process of deconversion that may have lasted for some time. I understand where you’re comming from. Been there done that, but letting your disallusion drive your analysis doesn’t accomplish anything constructive. All you’re managing to do is exactly what you think the gospel writers did. It’s not easy getting past it, but the only thing to do is do it the right way. Dealing with the disallusion ( anger etc) is the only way to get past it. It can be a destructive thing when not properly dealt with.
Log in to Reply  
 



Thomasfperkins  March 24, 2015
What about the letter of James 2:14-26?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
Yes indeed, I think that too is under influence of Paul, as a reaction against how Paul was being interpreted by some of his later followers.
Log in to Reply  
 



Todd  March 24, 2015
I can think of s few other letters in the NT Canon that are not totally Pauline including those of John, James and Peter, and I’m wondering about the Didache which seems to be an instructional manual for early church members. The writings Paul seem to dominate (even today as most quoted verses) and the others are somewhat iqnored.
All this really says to me is that there was a great variety of opinions early on regatding the significance of the Jesus event until it’s solidification through the establishment of a uniform doctrinal statements primarily in the creeds which largely ignored Jesus’ teaching ministry and social ethics.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
James and Peter, absolutely. John, not so much. Or the Didache.
Log in to Reply  
 



haoleboy26  March 24, 2015
Are there any reasons to think the author of Luke/Acts either did or did not have access to any of undisputed Pauline letters?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
It’s a much debated topic. My view is that he did not have access. Lots of other scholars think otherwise. He certainly never *mentions* any letters and in my view does not seem to know any of the ones that we have today.
Log in to Reply  
 



Scott  March 24, 2015
On the topic of Paul, do you have any thoughts concerning his death? Should we believe that he was arrested and taken to Rome, even if the details and speeches surrounding the event in Acts may be more “artistic” than factual?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
I don’t think the Acts narrative is reliable. But I suppose he probably did end up in Rome, as he indicates he wanted to do, and possibly died there.
Log in to Reply  


Elisabeth  April 22, 2015
Have you done/could you do a post on the reliability of Acts?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 22, 2015
Not sure if I have, but I should do!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Stephen  March 24, 2015
Prof Ehrman
What do you think of the suggestion that the antagonists mentioned in the letters of John and the epistolary section of the Book of Revelation were in fact members of Pauline churches? I believe I read Raymond Brown make this suggestion (or quote somebody else who did).
thanks
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
I’ve never been persuaded by the evidence of that.
Log in to Reply  
 



salaminfo1  March 24, 2015
According to Michael Hart, the honor for founding Christianity is to be shared between Jesus and St. Paul. The latter he believes to be the real founder of Christianity.
 The word Christian is used mentioned three time in the NT (Acts:11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter:4:16). It was used first to address the followers of Christ and later believers embraced the word as badge of honor.
NT gives us a choice; either follow Jesus Christ, or the anti-Christ Paul since each one demands his followers to accept his teachings:
 Paul (1 Corinthians 11:1)
 Jesus (John 8:31).
Jesus was circumcised, Paul rejected circumcision :
 Jesus ((Luke 2:21)
 Paul ((Acts 15:1)
Jesus taught salvation is attained by keeping the commandments, physical prayer, fasting, and observing the Law of Moses. While Paul said that “salvation comes through faith and grace” which is exactly what the missionaries are saying today
 Jesus Forbade the Gentiles: (Matthew 10:5-6) (Matthew 15:24) , while Paul openly preached among the Gentiles, a totally different religion: (Romans 11:13)
 If you ask anyone who is your Master: Jesus or Paul? They say Jesus but they follow Paul. According to the teaching of Jesus , there is no such Christianity. There is Christianity word in the bible at all. I had a short debate with a missionary a few days ago about the deity of Christ and his alleged crucification. He started to quote from Paul and this sickness is going on and on. I asked him what did Jesus say? No answer.
Log in to Reply  
acircharo

acircharo  March 26, 2015
I have difficulty with this issue as well. I just don’t get a message that Jesus was beginning any “new” religion or even a new strain of Judaism. His message seems to me to be to observe the Law with even more diligence and rigor than the priests or various council members; Sanhedrin etc. E.g., on adultery, it wasn’t just committing the act that was sinful, it was even just lusting in your heart that was as bad as the sin itself. That’s the message I continually get; the Law, the Law, the Law. He seems pretty clear about it. Furthermore to believe he was the Messiah while somehow repudiating his Judaic heritage is out of the question to me. Lastly, he seems to proclaim that your salvation (if there really is any) comes from your works. James too, is quite clear on this as well. Paul, decidedly not. Geza Vermes wrote some excellent books about the “Jewish Jesus” where he, too, basically concludes he was simply an apocalyptic preacher, trouble maker to the authorities, and became just another self-proclaimed messiah to end up on a cross. Hyam Maccoby’s “Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity” is also a compelling argument as well. No Paul, no Christianity. As he says “Paul is Christianity, and Christianity is Paul.”
Log in to Reply  
 



jgranade  March 24, 2015
Would it be fair to say, then, that the orthodox Christianity that eventually “won out” over other early Christianities was heavily influenced by Paul’s interpretations, perhaps more so than any other? So that in his day, Paul may have been one voice among many, but much of what later became orthodox Christianity (and how it is understood today) is largely based on Paul’s theology, Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
Yes, I think that’s fair to say.
Log in to Reply  
 

Ryan Pence

Ryan Pence  March 24, 2015
I agree. Paul’s letters, those authentic and not, those that we know existed that we have not, are part of the most interesting and pivotal aspects of early protto-orthodox christianity to me. That would be a huge find, those letters opposite to Paul’s views. It’s of of my favorite aspects of Christianity in antiquity.
Log in to Reply  



Slydog1227  March 24, 2015
Thank you Sir! A great explanation!
Log in to Reply  



Philbert  March 24, 2015
Great post Thank You!
Log in to Reply  



jhague  March 24, 2015
Is it likely that Paul’s early persecution of Christians was actually persecution of Jews that followed Jesus? I think there’s a difference. With Paul devoting his life to the message that Gentiles can become Christians without converting to Judaism, this further separated him from the original followers of Jesus. Could it be that as Paul continued his efforts that the majority of his enemies were Jesus Movement Jews, not Christians (again, I see a difference)? Also, the term Christian seems to be from Paul’s (and maybe others’) use of the term Christ for Jesus. Paul did not seem to have any concern regarding Jesus. His concern was with his claimed vision of a cosmic Christ which he applied to Jesus. (His idea or someone else’s?) After Paul’s influence on the writers of the Gospels and Acts, the appearance was given that the original Jesus followers were Christians. I would say that the Jerusalem Jews continued to call themselves Jews, not Christians.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
I don’t think Jews who follow Jesus are any less Christian than gentiles who follow him.
Log in to Reply  


jhague  March 24, 2015
But Jews who followed Jesus certainly did not call themselves Christians. Jews who followed Jesus were looking for a Messiah to return and set up God’s kingdom on earth. Gentile followers were looking for a cosmic Christ to take them into the sky and onto Heaven. Is this accurate?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 25, 2015
I’m defining CHristian as anyone who believes that Jesus is the one who brings salvation (e.g., through his death and resurrection), whether Jewish or gentile.
Log in to Reply  


jhague  March 26, 2015
Didn’t Jews believe that salvation was from God, not a man? Didn’t Jesus’ followers see Jesus as God’s chosen one to be the king of God’s kingdom on earth? Not as a savior. Jesus’ original followers saw his death as a failure, not a way of salvation. I know this might be semantics but I can’t see calling the original Jewish followers of Jesus “Christians.” Especially since they lived as Jews before and after Jesus.
 

Bart

Bart  March 27, 2015
It simply means what you mean by “Christian.” I mean anyone who believes that Christ is the way God has provided salvation.
 
 
 



MikeyS  March 24, 2015
I think jhague has it spot on. There was no need to persecute any gentiles as they were not mainstream and mostly didn’t live in Palestine anyway. The Sanhedrin would also not be concerned about any non jews believing in Jesus. So its not hard to see if he persecuted anyone at all and I have my doubts as think the man was clearly deranged after his Road to Damascus experience that was clearly a fit or sezure, that they were Jews who the Sandhredin wanted to keep onside. For me Paul would have needed to be far more specific in his words and what he did previously when doing the persecuting. And as someone said on the other forum. Had he turned traitor to the Sanhedrin, is it really likely they would then have allowed him to go and preach about Jesus without himself being arrested by them and stoned to death as was their right. The moment he set foot back in Jerusalem, they would have arrested him surely along with Peter and James?
Log in to Reply  
 

acircharo

acircharo  March 26, 2015
I agree. James and the remaining Jerusalem Church continued right on going to Temple, observing Jewish law and praying for the soon-to-be apocalypse which, of course, never came.
Log in to Reply  
 



Wilusa  March 24, 2015
“Those who were Christians before him were certainly declaring that Jesus had been raised from the dead; and they certainly had drawn the conclusion that Jesus was God’s suffering messiah and that therefore his death was a fulfilment of God’s plan and of the Jewish Scriptures.”
I’m sure the first of those statements is true…but can we be sure of the latter, when Paul is the earliest written source? When I was young, I imagined the core doctrines were that Jesus had come to urge people to show concern for the needy, etc. – teachings they’d been neglecting, while fussing over details such as what could and couldn’t be done on the Sabbath – and his resurrection was all-important *because it proved he was God*, and therefore had to be heeded. Couldn’t his earliest followers have believed something as simple as that?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 25, 2015
Well, Paul says that he “received” this teaching from others (1 Cor. 15:3-5).
Log in to Reply  



SBrudney091941  March 26, 2015
But what is simple about that? It does not follow that if one is resurrected one is divine.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 27, 2015
Ah, there is a logic to that, actually, if it’s an actual resurrection and not a resuscitation. I explain it in my book How Jesus Became God.
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  March 27, 2015
Because those who were merely “resuscitated” would continue aging and ultimately die again, while the “resurrected” Jesus wouldn’t? But if people thought they’d encountered the “risen” Jesus in the weeks after his death, and never learned what later became of him, they wouldn’t have known that.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 29, 2015
Jesus wasn’t merely brought back to life. he was taken up to heaven where he sits at God’s right hand.
 
 
 



Wilusa  March 27, 2015
Now, of course, I agree with you!
But when I was in, possibly, my teens, I thought the central doctrine was that Jesus had risen from the dead under his own power (he didn’t need to be “raised,” even by another member of the Trinity) – something unique in history. In fact, the only miracle workers who’d ever been able to raise others from the dead were Jesus himself, and disciples to whom he’d given the power.
Also, I thought all Christians believed he’d indisputably been seen alive by many people after the date of his death. The only thing that might have been questioned was whether he’d died. That was why he’d let himself suffer the most public kind of death, by crucifixion.
And as I said before, I thought the point of it was to prove he was, as he’d claimed to be, the ultimate authority – God – and everyone should, therefore, heed his teachings! Basically, the “Golden Rule”: to treat others as they themselves would want to be treated. I didn’t understand any of the rigmarole about his death and resurrection somehow “atoning” for others’ sins.
Like most people, I never let myself think too much about the conundrum at the heart of the story: if Jesus needed to die by crucifixion, and freely accepted it, why was Judas considered a villain for bringing it about?
Log in to Reply  
 
 



RonaldTaska  March 24, 2015
Thanks. It is interesting to think of Paul’s views as being one of many.
Log in to Reply  



jrhislb  March 25, 2015
What could Paul’s persecution have amounted to? What sort of power would the Jewish leadership have to persecute dissenters, considering they were living under Roman rule? Are we talking about mob actions or formal court proceedings?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 25, 2015
I wish we knew! I have the same questions.
Log in to Reply  
 



SBrudney091941  March 25, 2015
Bart, I think jhague is on to something except that he didn’t spell it out enough. I’ll try to unpack it as I would unpack it: unless a set of beliefs about Jesus includes the idea that his suffering, blood, death, and resurrection were for the expiation of human sinfulness (and that a person must believe that in order to be saved), it is not Christianity. (Marcus Borg might disagree.) If all some Jewish followers of Jesus believed, after his death, was that he had risen, was in some way or another in waiting (maybe with God), and would return to restore the nation and people Israel, expel its enemies, and usher in the Kingdom of God, then they weren’t Christians. They were messianists waiting for the return of their messiah Jesus without believing that believing in him could absolve them of their sins—i.e. they were not waiting for the return of Paul’s Christ. (By “Christ,” Paul meant something much more (and much less) than most Jews meant by “messiah,” even given the variations in the messiahs various Jews envisioned. Machiach and christos are not simply interchangeable.) If that was the limits of their beliefs about Jesus, then it is misleading to call them Christians. Paul set out to persecute followers of Jesus—Jews who continued to believe that he, although executed, was the messiah and would return. But were they Christians? What I want to ask of you (I just don’t have it together to study on my own and nail all this down) are citations to verses that make it clear that they believed the additional things (about the salvific power of Jesus’ death and resurrection) that it would have taken to qualify them as Christians and that they weren’t simply followers of Jesus as the messiah who would return, perhaps as that messiah “of power and grandeur” you’ve often referred to, to complete the tasks a Jewish messiah had been expected to accomplish.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 27, 2015
I don’t see what grounds you have for saying that something or someone is Christian based on several doctrines that you specify. In other words, to put it bluntly: “Says who?” :-)
Log in to Reply  


SBrudney091941  March 27, 2015
Sorry, Bart. I guess I’m confused. I’m Jewish and, although I’ve studied Christian beginnings from time to time for over 30 years, I am apparently just not getting it. I’ve always thought that a Jew (in the years after Jesus died) might have been considered a bit whacko by other Jews if he continued after Jesus’ execution to believe Jesus was still the messiah and had risen, was in some way or another in waiting (maybe with God), and would return to restore the nation and people Israel, expel its enemies, and usher in the Kingdom of God. It has seemed to me that there’s nothing non-Jewish about a set of beliefs like that in any essential way, just a strange variation among other Jewish messianic beliefs. Whereas, I’ve been thinking for a long time that Jews at the time (as many today would) would have thought that it went beyond the pale of Judaism to believe that Jesus was the literal, partly divine Son of God or God incarnate or that salvation could be found through him rather than through God. What parts of this picture are the most off-base?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 29, 2015
Yes, I would agree, early Christianity was a sect of Judaism with its own beliefs and practices but also identifiably Jewish.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 

acircharo

acircharo  March 26, 2015
How many “Christians” could there have been right after Jesus died? My impression is that the following was quite small, maybe a couple of hundred at most? And, since they seem to be observing Jewish Law what would the charges be, that they disagreed with the degree to which one must observe the Law or that Jesus was the Messiah? Was that a “sin?”
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 27, 2015
Right after he died? Just a handful — even the NT indicates it was just 11 men and a small group of women. I don’t think it could have been more than that.
Log in to Reply  
 



Eric  April 1, 2015
Sorry for commenting so late, this is actually a request inspired by your post. I don;t think you have dealt with this before:
Natrually you’ve spent a lot of ink and posting on Paul’s views and meaning (christology, plan of salvation etc). You’ve also spent time comparing and constrasting the authentic Paul letters with the forgeries, and maybe what these forgeries were trying to “alter.”
Could you post on what in my meager understanding are the “independent” yet relatively contemporary schools of thought provided in the NT. I think these are at least four (I know the names aren;t really the authors ): 1) James 2) Hebrews 3) Peter 4) John i, ii, iii (do these “go” with the gospel of John
Things I would like to understand include christology, plan of salvation, theology, to degree they are in contnetion, was this contention specific, known and in response to each other, or were these writers simply broadcasting “in the clear” without concerning themselves with the other voices we currently know of, etc?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 1, 2015
I would say there are more schools than four! Virtually every author is a separate school of thought in my book.
Log in to Reply  
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Sketch of My Memory Book
April 4, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (17) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...


My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
As I indicated in my previous two posts, the fifth chapter of the book I’m now writing, Jesus Before The Gospels, deals wit...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/lost-letters-of-pauls-opponents/













Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogLost Letters of Paul’s Opponents 
  
24 votes, average: 4.92 out of 524 votes, average: 4.92 out of 524 votes, average: 4.92 out of 524 votes, average: 4.92 out of 524 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5 (24 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Lost Letters of Paul’s Opponents

I’m back now to my thread on the lost writings of the early Christians that I would love to have discovered.    On bunch that would be absolutely fantastic to have would be the letters of Paul’s *opponents.*
I get asked all the time if I think that Paul is the true founder of Christianity and whether we should call it Paulinanity instead of Christianity (and related questions).  My answer is decidedly NO.   For two main reasons.
The first is the most obvious:  Paul did not himself invent Christianity.   He inherited it.
It is difficult to establish a firm chronology of Paul’s life.  There are scholars who have devoted many years just to this topic.  It’s messy and complicated.   My colleague from Duke, Douglas Campbell, has just written an-over-400-page book dealing just with the chronology of Paul’s *letters*, Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography.   It is about how to situate the surviving letters of Paul (Douglas accepts ten of the thirteen as authentic – all but 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) chronologically in relation to one another.  I haven’t read it yet, but Douglas is a very smart fellow and I imagine it will be a standard work for a very long time (though I doubt that he will convince the majority of scholars that Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians are authentic.  But maybe he will!)
In any event, however one arranges Paul’s letters, it is possible…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.  If you don’t belong yet, JOIN, OR YOU WILL NEVER KNOW!!!


You need to be logged in to see this part of the content. Please Login to access.
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







Paul’s Christian Enemies: Galatians«
Paul’s “Exceptional” Letter to the Romans»


23

MAR

2015

49
  
Comments
49  Comments
0  Trackbacks


talitakum

talitakum  March 23, 2015
You say that Paul had enemies only within the Church. Didn’t he have enemies also among the Jews?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
I’m sure he did! I didn’t mean to say that his *only* enemies were in side the church!!
Log in to Reply  
 



MikeyS  March 23, 2015
Paul is definitely and interesting character. But there are too many questions that make me wonder about his statements and his credibility. He said he persecuted Christians but didn’t say who they were and where it was or who he was doing it for. eg The Sandhedrin or the Romans? How did he know who were Christians and who wasn’t, as it was supposed to be a secret movement. Secondly, anyone that did have that commission would surely seek out the leaders of that movement in order to cut off the head so to speak and send a clear message to the rest of them. Its inconceivable that he didn’t seek out Peter and James who were based in Jerusalem itself and not some outlying province as that is where the Sandhedrin was based. Yet he never met them for years? No reasonable person would do that.
His other claims about his conversion and again not seeking out the disciples who actually lived with him and heard him preach and yet ignored them going off for three years to Arabia makes no sense and what Christian Church did he start in that area anyway? Again, makes no sense.
But the central and main doctrine of Paul was personal acknowledgement of the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God at Calvary and that was and is preached more than even the words of Jesus himself in all Christian Churches that I have gone to over the last 60 years. In fact the Church could not exist witthout that core doctrine that ALL have come short of the glory of God and we are all sick and need redemption. Without the death and shedding of Jesus’s blood as the only thing that would pacify a God seeking vengence based on original sin, even to babies is complete nonsense and Tosh. And has caused such misery since. For some unknown reason they haven’t read the account of Zaccheus and obviously, neither did Paul. If God believed in orginal sin that needed redemption by his only son, why did he wait 4000 years? And then to a few Jews in Palestine?
Don’t get me started on his mysogeny! I think Paul was the most over rated man in biblical history! Just my opinion. No wonder the other Christians disagreed with him. Has Jesus spoken to any other person, Pope, Cardinal, Priest, Muslim, non believer since he supposedly spoke to Paul 2000 years ago, while three quarters of the world are all going to hell in a handcart? How disappointed he must have felt when Jesus failed to turn up in his lifetime and which he wrote about the whole time and promised all those who would keep the faith! Maybe its tomorrow?! They are still repeating that today in all churches across the world.
In actual fact, we did end up with Paulinanity!
Log in to Reply  


spiker  March 24, 2015
Heya, Mikey
As you probably suspect, I have some criticisms. You write that Paul “… said he persecuted Christians but didn’t say who they were and where it was or who he was doing it for. eg The Sandhedrin or the Romans?”
Are those the only options? If Paul was motivated by what he considered an ugly insult,why would he have to be working for anyone? Notice when he converted, he doesn’t seem to have been working for
 anyone. However, If we take The Acts of the Apostles, seriously we find in 8:3 that Saul is going from House to House dragging “off both men and women and put them in prison” Similarly, Chapter 9 claims Paul “went to the high priest “and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus…,”
If any of this is historically reliable, my suspicion is Saul offered his services and must have gotten his authority to put people in jail from the same source that was responsible for local
 order: The High Priest et al. I sincerely doubt the Romans considered this negligable movemnt as
 a threat.
“How did he know who were Christians…”
what evidence do we have that it was secret? But even secret movements get infiltrated and caught.
 I don’t see how secret movement translates into invisible or immune to being attacked.
“anyone that did have that commission would surely seek out the leaders of that movement in order to cut off the head…”
I don’t see why you put so much emphasis (Inconcievable? based on what?)on the cut off the head of the serpent strategy. If early Christianity was a secret movement what evidence do you have that
 Saul knew who the leaders were? you can’t have it both ways: Either Christianity was a secret movment and because of that there wasn’t really any way to know who its members and leaders were or it wasn’t. Even if that is the only concievable strategy, it had been tried and did not have the desired effect with the crucifixion of Jesus. Should Saul have just continued to employ the same unsuccessful tactic? If a clear message to the followers was his purpose, how could the message be any clearer than by directly attacking them. Rounding up followers is a tried and true tactic. It is still done today; particularly if one is trying to stop the spread of a movement.
“His other claims about his conversion and again not seeking out the disciples who actually lived with him and heard him preach and yet ignored them going off for three years to Arabia makes no sense”
What!? Saul’s conversion purportedly happened while he was on the road attacking Christians,
 I highly doubt there were “disciples who actually lived with him” what would he have been preaching? “murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples” is what he was “preaching” at that time according to Acts. Paul’s disappearancce into Arabia makes perfect sense. On the one hand he is openly attacking and prosecuting this new movement. I’m sure he understood that he would not be welcome in Christian circles. If some guy today was publically arresting and threatening members of this blog, I highly doubt any of us would be anxious to introduce ourselves or stick around if he came to our town. Perhaps, you might since you think “it makes no sense” .
Second, conversions of this nature can take a long time. For the sake of argument, let’s say the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts is true. He is then with a group of men who probably shared his previous convictions. Does it “make sense” that he would want to stay with that group?
 Even if Paul knew who Peter et al were, he had plenty of reason to not go running to them considering his recent activities. He may have disappeared into Arabia as a wanted man (if he
 started informing his fellow travelers of his conversion experience they may have decided he
 needed prosecuting. On the other hand, he may have gone to figure things out. My suspicion is he spent some of time out there deconverting, as it were. Figuring out just what really happened to him; what he really experienced. Add to that the likelyhood that Peter was probably not immediately receptive to a visit from Saul of Tarsus (you know the guy who had recently been throwing his fellow Christians in Jail etc) arranging it may have taken some time.
“But the central and main doctrine of Paul was personal acknowledgement of the atoning sacrifice…”
Indeed, yet what evidence do you have that this was invented by Paul? Wouldn’t it need to have been for it to be Paulianity? If Christianity “was around – with the core of its theology already established — for a few years before [Paul] ever showed up on the scene as a Christian himself.”
I fail to see how any of those docterines could be distinctively his. Paul was simply a potent ally
 in the spread of Christianity.
Lastly, Mikey I can’t help but think you are in a process of deconversion that may have lasted for some time. I understand where you’re comming from. Been there done that, but letting your disallusion drive your analysis doesn’t accomplish anything constructive. All you’re managing to do is exactly what you think the gospel writers did. It’s not easy getting past it, but the only thing to do is do it the right way. Dealing with the disallusion ( anger etc) is the only way to get past it. It can be a destructive thing when not properly dealt with.
Log in to Reply  
 



Thomasfperkins  March 24, 2015
What about the letter of James 2:14-26?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
Yes indeed, I think that too is under influence of Paul, as a reaction against how Paul was being interpreted by some of his later followers.
Log in to Reply  
 



Todd  March 24, 2015
I can think of s few other letters in the NT Canon that are not totally Pauline including those of John, James and Peter, and I’m wondering about the Didache which seems to be an instructional manual for early church members. The writings Paul seem to dominate (even today as most quoted verses) and the others are somewhat iqnored.
All this really says to me is that there was a great variety of opinions early on regatding the significance of the Jesus event until it’s solidification through the establishment of a uniform doctrinal statements primarily in the creeds which largely ignored Jesus’ teaching ministry and social ethics.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
James and Peter, absolutely. John, not so much. Or the Didache.
Log in to Reply  
 



haoleboy26  March 24, 2015
Are there any reasons to think the author of Luke/Acts either did or did not have access to any of undisputed Pauline letters?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
It’s a much debated topic. My view is that he did not have access. Lots of other scholars think otherwise. He certainly never *mentions* any letters and in my view does not seem to know any of the ones that we have today.
Log in to Reply  
 



Scott  March 24, 2015
On the topic of Paul, do you have any thoughts concerning his death? Should we believe that he was arrested and taken to Rome, even if the details and speeches surrounding the event in Acts may be more “artistic” than factual?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
I don’t think the Acts narrative is reliable. But I suppose he probably did end up in Rome, as he indicates he wanted to do, and possibly died there.
Log in to Reply  


Elisabeth  April 22, 2015
Have you done/could you do a post on the reliability of Acts?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 22, 2015
Not sure if I have, but I should do!
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Stephen  March 24, 2015
Prof Ehrman
What do you think of the suggestion that the antagonists mentioned in the letters of John and the epistolary section of the Book of Revelation were in fact members of Pauline churches? I believe I read Raymond Brown make this suggestion (or quote somebody else who did).
thanks
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
I’ve never been persuaded by the evidence of that.
Log in to Reply  
 



salaminfo1  March 24, 2015
According to Michael Hart, the honor for founding Christianity is to be shared between Jesus and St. Paul. The latter he believes to be the real founder of Christianity.
 The word Christian is used mentioned three time in the NT (Acts:11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter:4:16). It was used first to address the followers of Christ and later believers embraced the word as badge of honor.
NT gives us a choice; either follow Jesus Christ, or the anti-Christ Paul since each one demands his followers to accept his teachings:
 Paul (1 Corinthians 11:1)
 Jesus (John 8:31).
Jesus was circumcised, Paul rejected circumcision :
 Jesus ((Luke 2:21)
 Paul ((Acts 15:1)
Jesus taught salvation is attained by keeping the commandments, physical prayer, fasting, and observing the Law of Moses. While Paul said that “salvation comes through faith and grace” which is exactly what the missionaries are saying today
 Jesus Forbade the Gentiles: (Matthew 10:5-6) (Matthew 15:24) , while Paul openly preached among the Gentiles, a totally different religion: (Romans 11:13)
 If you ask anyone who is your Master: Jesus or Paul? They say Jesus but they follow Paul. According to the teaching of Jesus , there is no such Christianity. There is Christianity word in the bible at all. I had a short debate with a missionary a few days ago about the deity of Christ and his alleged crucification. He started to quote from Paul and this sickness is going on and on. I asked him what did Jesus say? No answer.
Log in to Reply  
acircharo

acircharo  March 26, 2015
I have difficulty with this issue as well. I just don’t get a message that Jesus was beginning any “new” religion or even a new strain of Judaism. His message seems to me to be to observe the Law with even more diligence and rigor than the priests or various council members; Sanhedrin etc. E.g., on adultery, it wasn’t just committing the act that was sinful, it was even just lusting in your heart that was as bad as the sin itself. That’s the message I continually get; the Law, the Law, the Law. He seems pretty clear about it. Furthermore to believe he was the Messiah while somehow repudiating his Judaic heritage is out of the question to me. Lastly, he seems to proclaim that your salvation (if there really is any) comes from your works. James too, is quite clear on this as well. Paul, decidedly not. Geza Vermes wrote some excellent books about the “Jewish Jesus” where he, too, basically concludes he was simply an apocalyptic preacher, trouble maker to the authorities, and became just another self-proclaimed messiah to end up on a cross. Hyam Maccoby’s “Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity” is also a compelling argument as well. No Paul, no Christianity. As he says “Paul is Christianity, and Christianity is Paul.”
Log in to Reply  
 



jgranade  March 24, 2015
Would it be fair to say, then, that the orthodox Christianity that eventually “won out” over other early Christianities was heavily influenced by Paul’s interpretations, perhaps more so than any other? So that in his day, Paul may have been one voice among many, but much of what later became orthodox Christianity (and how it is understood today) is largely based on Paul’s theology, Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
Yes, I think that’s fair to say.
Log in to Reply  
 

Ryan Pence

Ryan Pence  March 24, 2015
I agree. Paul’s letters, those authentic and not, those that we know existed that we have not, are part of the most interesting and pivotal aspects of early protto-orthodox christianity to me. That would be a huge find, those letters opposite to Paul’s views. It’s of of my favorite aspects of Christianity in antiquity.
Log in to Reply  



Slydog1227  March 24, 2015
Thank you Sir! A great explanation!
Log in to Reply  



Philbert  March 24, 2015
Great post Thank You!
Log in to Reply  



jhague  March 24, 2015
Is it likely that Paul’s early persecution of Christians was actually persecution of Jews that followed Jesus? I think there’s a difference. With Paul devoting his life to the message that Gentiles can become Christians without converting to Judaism, this further separated him from the original followers of Jesus. Could it be that as Paul continued his efforts that the majority of his enemies were Jesus Movement Jews, not Christians (again, I see a difference)? Also, the term Christian seems to be from Paul’s (and maybe others’) use of the term Christ for Jesus. Paul did not seem to have any concern regarding Jesus. His concern was with his claimed vision of a cosmic Christ which he applied to Jesus. (His idea or someone else’s?) After Paul’s influence on the writers of the Gospels and Acts, the appearance was given that the original Jesus followers were Christians. I would say that the Jerusalem Jews continued to call themselves Jews, not Christians.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 24, 2015
I don’t think Jews who follow Jesus are any less Christian than gentiles who follow him.
Log in to Reply  


jhague  March 24, 2015
But Jews who followed Jesus certainly did not call themselves Christians. Jews who followed Jesus were looking for a Messiah to return and set up God’s kingdom on earth. Gentile followers were looking for a cosmic Christ to take them into the sky and onto Heaven. Is this accurate?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 25, 2015
I’m defining CHristian as anyone who believes that Jesus is the one who brings salvation (e.g., through his death and resurrection), whether Jewish or gentile.
Log in to Reply  


jhague  March 26, 2015
Didn’t Jews believe that salvation was from God, not a man? Didn’t Jesus’ followers see Jesus as God’s chosen one to be the king of God’s kingdom on earth? Not as a savior. Jesus’ original followers saw his death as a failure, not a way of salvation. I know this might be semantics but I can’t see calling the original Jewish followers of Jesus “Christians.” Especially since they lived as Jews before and after Jesus.
 

Bart

Bart  March 27, 2015
It simply means what you mean by “Christian.” I mean anyone who believes that Christ is the way God has provided salvation.
 
 
 



MikeyS  March 24, 2015
I think jhague has it spot on. There was no need to persecute any gentiles as they were not mainstream and mostly didn’t live in Palestine anyway. The Sanhedrin would also not be concerned about any non jews believing in Jesus. So its not hard to see if he persecuted anyone at all and I have my doubts as think the man was clearly deranged after his Road to Damascus experience that was clearly a fit or sezure, that they were Jews who the Sandhredin wanted to keep onside. For me Paul would have needed to be far more specific in his words and what he did previously when doing the persecuting. And as someone said on the other forum. Had he turned traitor to the Sanhedrin, is it really likely they would then have allowed him to go and preach about Jesus without himself being arrested by them and stoned to death as was their right. The moment he set foot back in Jerusalem, they would have arrested him surely along with Peter and James?
Log in to Reply  
 

acircharo

acircharo  March 26, 2015
I agree. James and the remaining Jerusalem Church continued right on going to Temple, observing Jewish law and praying for the soon-to-be apocalypse which, of course, never came.
Log in to Reply  
 



Wilusa  March 24, 2015
“Those who were Christians before him were certainly declaring that Jesus had been raised from the dead; and they certainly had drawn the conclusion that Jesus was God’s suffering messiah and that therefore his death was a fulfilment of God’s plan and of the Jewish Scriptures.”
I’m sure the first of those statements is true…but can we be sure of the latter, when Paul is the earliest written source? When I was young, I imagined the core doctrines were that Jesus had come to urge people to show concern for the needy, etc. – teachings they’d been neglecting, while fussing over details such as what could and couldn’t be done on the Sabbath – and his resurrection was all-important *because it proved he was God*, and therefore had to be heeded. Couldn’t his earliest followers have believed something as simple as that?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 25, 2015
Well, Paul says that he “received” this teaching from others (1 Cor. 15:3-5).
Log in to Reply  



SBrudney091941  March 26, 2015
But what is simple about that? It does not follow that if one is resurrected one is divine.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 27, 2015
Ah, there is a logic to that, actually, if it’s an actual resurrection and not a resuscitation. I explain it in my book How Jesus Became God.
Log in to Reply  


Wilusa  March 27, 2015
Because those who were merely “resuscitated” would continue aging and ultimately die again, while the “resurrected” Jesus wouldn’t? But if people thought they’d encountered the “risen” Jesus in the weeks after his death, and never learned what later became of him, they wouldn’t have known that.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 29, 2015
Jesus wasn’t merely brought back to life. he was taken up to heaven where he sits at God’s right hand.
 
 
 



Wilusa  March 27, 2015
Now, of course, I agree with you!
But when I was in, possibly, my teens, I thought the central doctrine was that Jesus had risen from the dead under his own power (he didn’t need to be “raised,” even by another member of the Trinity) – something unique in history. In fact, the only miracle workers who’d ever been able to raise others from the dead were Jesus himself, and disciples to whom he’d given the power.
Also, I thought all Christians believed he’d indisputably been seen alive by many people after the date of his death. The only thing that might have been questioned was whether he’d died. That was why he’d let himself suffer the most public kind of death, by crucifixion.
And as I said before, I thought the point of it was to prove he was, as he’d claimed to be, the ultimate authority – God – and everyone should, therefore, heed his teachings! Basically, the “Golden Rule”: to treat others as they themselves would want to be treated. I didn’t understand any of the rigmarole about his death and resurrection somehow “atoning” for others’ sins.
Like most people, I never let myself think too much about the conundrum at the heart of the story: if Jesus needed to die by crucifixion, and freely accepted it, why was Judas considered a villain for bringing it about?
Log in to Reply  
 
 



RonaldTaska  March 24, 2015
Thanks. It is interesting to think of Paul’s views as being one of many.
Log in to Reply  



jrhislb  March 25, 2015
What could Paul’s persecution have amounted to? What sort of power would the Jewish leadership have to persecute dissenters, considering they were living under Roman rule? Are we talking about mob actions or formal court proceedings?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 25, 2015
I wish we knew! I have the same questions.
Log in to Reply  
 



SBrudney091941  March 25, 2015
Bart, I think jhague is on to something except that he didn’t spell it out enough. I’ll try to unpack it as I would unpack it: unless a set of beliefs about Jesus includes the idea that his suffering, blood, death, and resurrection were for the expiation of human sinfulness (and that a person must believe that in order to be saved), it is not Christianity. (Marcus Borg might disagree.) If all some Jewish followers of Jesus believed, after his death, was that he had risen, was in some way or another in waiting (maybe with God), and would return to restore the nation and people Israel, expel its enemies, and usher in the Kingdom of God, then they weren’t Christians. They were messianists waiting for the return of their messiah Jesus without believing that believing in him could absolve them of their sins—i.e. they were not waiting for the return of Paul’s Christ. (By “Christ,” Paul meant something much more (and much less) than most Jews meant by “messiah,” even given the variations in the messiahs various Jews envisioned. Machiach and christos are not simply interchangeable.) If that was the limits of their beliefs about Jesus, then it is misleading to call them Christians. Paul set out to persecute followers of Jesus—Jews who continued to believe that he, although executed, was the messiah and would return. But were they Christians? What I want to ask of you (I just don’t have it together to study on my own and nail all this down) are citations to verses that make it clear that they believed the additional things (about the salvific power of Jesus’ death and resurrection) that it would have taken to qualify them as Christians and that they weren’t simply followers of Jesus as the messiah who would return, perhaps as that messiah “of power and grandeur” you’ve often referred to, to complete the tasks a Jewish messiah had been expected to accomplish.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 27, 2015
I don’t see what grounds you have for saying that something or someone is Christian based on several doctrines that you specify. In other words, to put it bluntly: “Says who?” :-)
Log in to Reply  


SBrudney091941  March 27, 2015
Sorry, Bart. I guess I’m confused. I’m Jewish and, although I’ve studied Christian beginnings from time to time for over 30 years, I am apparently just not getting it. I’ve always thought that a Jew (in the years after Jesus died) might have been considered a bit whacko by other Jews if he continued after Jesus’ execution to believe Jesus was still the messiah and had risen, was in some way or another in waiting (maybe with God), and would return to restore the nation and people Israel, expel its enemies, and usher in the Kingdom of God. It has seemed to me that there’s nothing non-Jewish about a set of beliefs like that in any essential way, just a strange variation among other Jewish messianic beliefs. Whereas, I’ve been thinking for a long time that Jews at the time (as many today would) would have thought that it went beyond the pale of Judaism to believe that Jesus was the literal, partly divine Son of God or God incarnate or that salvation could be found through him rather than through God. What parts of this picture are the most off-base?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 29, 2015
Yes, I would agree, early Christianity was a sect of Judaism with its own beliefs and practices but also identifiably Jewish.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 

acircharo

acircharo  March 26, 2015
How many “Christians” could there have been right after Jesus died? My impression is that the following was quite small, maybe a couple of hundred at most? And, since they seem to be observing Jewish Law what would the charges be, that they disagreed with the degree to which one must observe the Law or that Jesus was the Messiah? Was that a “sin?”
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  March 27, 2015
Right after he died? Just a handful — even the NT indicates it was just 11 men and a small group of women. I don’t think it could have been more than that.
Log in to Reply  
 



Eric  April 1, 2015
Sorry for commenting so late, this is actually a request inspired by your post. I don;t think you have dealt with this before:
Natrually you’ve spent a lot of ink and posting on Paul’s views and meaning (christology, plan of salvation etc). You’ve also spent time comparing and constrasting the authentic Paul letters with the forgeries, and maybe what these forgeries were trying to “alter.”
Could you post on what in my meager understanding are the “independent” yet relatively contemporary schools of thought provided in the NT. I think these are at least four (I know the names aren;t really the authors ): 1) James 2) Hebrews 3) Peter 4) John i, ii, iii (do these “go” with the gospel of John
Things I would like to understand include christology, plan of salvation, theology, to degree they are in contnetion, was this contention specific, known and in response to each other, or were these writers simply broadcasting “in the clear” without concerning themselves with the other voices we currently know of, etc?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  April 1, 2015
I would say there are more schools than four! Virtually every author is a separate school of thought in my book.
Log in to Reply  
 

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Sketch of My Memory Book
April 4, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (17) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...


My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
As I indicated in my previous two posts, the fifth chapter of the book I’m now writing, Jesus Before The Gospels, deals wit...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/lost-letters-of-pauls-opponents/











Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogPublic Reactions to Muslim Extremists 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Public Reactions to Muslim Extremists

I have never used this Blog as a platform for my particular political views (even though I suppose they are easily enough seen by a careful reader) or to convert anyone to them.  And I’m not about to start now.   But I do have a category of comment on the blog, not used very often, on “Religion in the News.”   And a couple of news items appeared this past week that are “close to home” for me – one involving Duke University, which is literally close to home (less than a mile from where I live, move, and have my being) and the other involving Oxford University Press, with whom I have published almost all my academic books over the past twenty-two years and with whom I have a very good personal and professional relationship.   Both of these news items involve the relationship of an academic institution to recent developments in Islam.
The situation at Duke is this.   In the face of radical Islam fundamentalism and its much maligned jihadist and terrorist element– maligned by Jew, Christian, and Muslim alike – students and administration at Duke had chosen to show solidarity with other Muslims, who are – contrary to what you read in some papers or here on FOX news – not intent on blowing up your house or beheading your loved ones.   Most Muslims are honest, sincere, and loving.  Considering them bloodthirsty terrorists as a group because of ISIS and Paris makes no more sense than considering Christians bloodthirsty terrorists as a group because of what some Christians have done over the years in the name of Christianity (think: Crusades; Inquisition; IRA bombings – lots of options.  Most Christians had and have nothing to do with such things and are opposed to them.  So too most Muslims with the current atrocities.)
The Duke solidarity involved something very simple.  Every week the Muslim students at Duke gather together for prayer in the basement of Duke Chapel.  They requested that the required call for prayer be sounded publicly for all to hear,  from the chapel tower (much as the ringing of bells occurs for Christian calls to worship in a variety of settings).   The request was granted by those who want to show unity among Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of all faith, as a gesture of solidarity.
The administration, after receiving threats from the Christian right, retracted its approval.  Here’s the article:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/01/15/4478652_muslim-students-will-chant-call.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1
As you’ll see, it was the son of Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, who raised the protest.  Here is what he said:
 “As Christianity is being excluded from the public square and followers of Islam are raping, butchering, and beheading Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t submit to their Sharia Islamic law, Duke is promoting this in the name of religious pluralism,” said a post on Graham’s Facebook page.
 He urged supporters of Duke to withhold their support (i.e., their money) until the approval was reversed.   In other words, he wanted Duke to be held hostage by its wealthy Christian donors.  For Graham, it is acceptable to have Christians and Christianity publicly represented at Duke (e.g., in the Chapel that towers over the campus), but not Islam.
Make of that what you will.

The second news item concerns my publisher Oxford University Press (OUP).   Here is the deal with this one:  after the Paris attacks of last week, OUP issued a directive that authors should not mention pigs, or pork, or sausage, etc. in their books, so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities.  Here is an article on the decision.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html
This decision created a backlash as people found it to be a rather bizarre and crude form of censorship.   When protests immediately were raised, a highly placed executive at OUP in the U.K. issued an explanation meant to calm the nerves.  Here it is:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/15/books-pigs-global-publishing-oxford-university-press-children
This response is clever and witty and meant to be ultra-sensitive.   But read it closely.   It seems to me she doesn’t answer the question:  is it in fact the case that in light of Muslim extremism and terrorism, that Oxford is telling authors of children’s books (we’re not talking about dictionaries here) what not to write about, precisely to avoid offending Muslim extremists?   And is this really how a free press in a free world wants to operate?   If the issue is sensitivity, pure and simple, why have these decisions not been implemented before?   Has anyone noticed that for millennia JEWS, as well, do not eat pork?  Were Jewish feelings not important enough to establish a policy?  But only Muslim feelings?  And only after Paris?  Is this response really up front and honest about what is really driving this new policy?
Well, these are some of my questions.  You may have some of your own.   These are topics on which every thinking human being in our society appears to have very (very, very) strong views.
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







New Manuscripts and the Destruction of Antiquities«
New Discovery of an Ancient Christian Amulet»


18

JAN

2015

66
  
Comments
66  Comments
0  Trackbacks




flcombs  January 18, 2015
It is always interesting how “freedom of religion” only matters to conservative Christians as applying to them but not others. It will be interesting to see how much they still believe in public prayer at events when Muslims start leading it!
Log in to Reply  



BrianUlrich  January 18, 2015
On the first point, the argument I get from people is that one cannot quote Christian Scripture to justify violence the way one can the Quran. This is, of course, dubious. A four-digit number of women are burned as witches today in Africa and Melanesia, mainly on the basis of the Old Testament, but perhaps also with the excuse of Paul’s anti-witchcraft statements in Galatians.
Most striking, however, is the role of Christianity in anti-Semitism. The Gospel of Matthew has always been most striking to me in this regard, with the parables like the wedding one that seem to say clearly, “The Jews always kill their prophets, they missed all these obvious signs of Jesus’s Messiah-ship and killed him, so they’ve been superseded and their dire punishment at Roman hands should serve as a warning to us all.” At the very least, this was an important part of the exegetical tradition right up to Martin Luther, whose ideas for how to treat Jews were about what ISIS does to Yazidis and Christians.
Nonetheless, of course, modern Christians have their own interpretations of these texts, and even though there is a denomination called “Lutheran,” no one looks at them and assumes they all carry forward Luther’s anti-Semitism.
Log in to Reply  


jbjbjbjbjb  January 19, 2015
Hey Brian, I enjoyed reading your response. I was interested in the modern example of biblically justified violence “in Africa and Melanesia” – your mention here is probably meant to be vague “are being burned” and “four-digit”. If you have any more information at all on this situation then would you please reply with a reference or just more info?
Thank you.
John
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 20, 2015
It is hard to track. I’ve seen it in scattered news stories, but can’t find where someone has done an overall study. Try googling witch burnings with countries: Kenya, Congo, Papua New Guinea are ones I remember.
Log in to Reply  
 



Helmut  January 20, 2015
I am currently half way through an eye opening book that documents Christian anti-Semitism from the Gospels onward. It was written by a former Catholic priest, James Carroll, and is very thoroughly documented and researched. The title is “Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews”. One quickly realizes that the ant-Semitism was there very early and part of the Scriptures.
Log in to Reply  
 



pstrst@pacbell.net  January 18, 2015
If bells are being rung during Christian services, and both the bells and calls to prayer are not so loud as to be disruptive to those with no interest in either type of services, it seems purely discriminatory.
This is sort of slanting off-topic, but I would be very interested in reading a book about the Qur’an from a social and historical perspective. In other words, do you know if there is a Bart Ehrman of the Qur’an out there? Other blog readers might be interested also.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
I don’t think there is such a book! I wish there were….
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 19, 2015
There is a whole literature of historical Quranic studies. However, most scholars don’t see its text as complex in the way the Bible is. (There are exceptions.) The equivalent of critical Biblical studies in Islam would be hadith criticism. Jonathan Brown has two books for general readers. One, Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World, is a good introduction. More recent is is Misquoting Muhammad, which I have not read.
Log in to Reply  



Mhamed Errifi  January 19, 2015
hello Bart
All christian apologists when they are confronted with their bloody past they replied that bible did not inspire those christians to commit those atrocities and there is no passages in NT that encourage that . you as an expert in the fields do you agree with them if not please explain how this was done in the name of christ
Log in to Reply  



nichael  January 19, 2015
Although it’s not a book (nor a “rigorous critical analysis”) The Atlantic published a pretty nice article in 1999 that, among other things, touched on the textual history of the Quran:
“What is the Koran”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/
Log in to Reply  


Bahtiyor Tuhtayev  January 20, 2015
Hi nichael,
Toby Lester is not an authority neither in Islam, nor in Quran, let alone Quranic manuscripts. His highly misleading article has been refuted numerous times by scholars and non-scholars alike . You may be interested in reading “The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments” written by a true scholar Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami which partly deals with his article as well. So, Toby Lester’s article in the atlantic.com is just the wrong source to refer to.
Log in to Reply  


nichael  January 21, 2015
Just to be clear, Al-Azami’s book is a defense of the traditionalist view of the history of the Qumran which demonstrated that the Quran (quote) “has remained completely intact and unchanged since its reception by the Prophet in the seventh century.”
I think it is reasonable to suggest this constitutes a refutation of the issues that Lester raises in the same sense as claiming that the publications of Dr Ehrman have been “refuted” by citing the works of Richard Carrier, or pointing to books like Andrew’s “Misrepresenting Jesus”.
In short, I think it is best that we simply agree to invite the reader to read the referred to sources and to make up their own mind.
 
 
 

talitakum

talitakum  January 21, 2015
No historical criticism on Q’ran? Guess why :-)
Log in to Reply  
 



Bahtiyor Tuhtayev  January 20, 2015
There is a book by Jonathan A.C. Brown “Misquoting Muhammad” (named after Dr. Ehrman’s book). The author is a Muslim, and he is not a “Bart Ehrman of the Quran”, but it’s still worth reading.
Log in to Reply  



pbrockschmidt  January 20, 2015
Try Thomas Holland’s In The Shadow of the Sword for a non-Islamic viewpoint (which got him in trouble when they made a film of the book). I find most of the work in this field hagiographic.
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 21, 2015
Tom Holland represents the views of the skeptical school, which is “a” non-Muslim view, as you say, but not necessarily the only one. The evidence still strongly suggests that the Quran’s textual history simply isn’t as complex as that of the Bible. It is a completely different kind of book.
On a related note, I blogged about some current work into the “historical Muhammad” here and in three subsequent posts linked at the bottom: http://bjulrich.blogspot.com/2014/09/reconstructing-historical-muhammad.html
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Mhamed Errifi  January 18, 2015
“It’s wrong because it’s a different god,” Graham said
I am tired to read this nonsense repeated ONLY by the way by christians from the west Allah is another God
The Arabic word allah is not generic word and the prove is if i want to say my god in arabic i wil not use the word allah therefore allah is not generic word , but it is rather the name of deity who created the universe and no other deity can be called allah we do not use the word allah in Arabic to refer to other gods of other nations such as Greek . Does this evangelist know the word allah exist in armaic language so jesus used the word allah to refer to god and allah is used in arabic bible in verse gene 1:1 in the begining allah created heaven and earth so Graham if it is name of false god why you have it in arabic bible
Log in to Reply  


rostopchin  January 19, 2015
You are right. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the God of Abraham. If you trace the etymology of both Elohim and Ellah (the older form of Allah) you wind up at the Canaanite deity El, the Father of Humanity and all creatures, at least according to tablets we have found at Ugarit. The cuneiform that is used in these tablets seems to a bridge older types like Sumarian and Babylonian, and the ancient Hebrew used to write the Torah (Bart, chime in if you think I’m wrong). If we go back even farther, we can credit a good part of Genesis (not sure about the Qu’ran, but I’m aware of reference to Ibrahim and the great flood) to the Sumerians. The oldest creation Myth we have found so far is Eridu Genesis, and in fact most evidence reveals that the Sumerian city of Eridu is probably the oldest city on earth. In the creation myth the Gods can’t sleep because of all the noise people were making, so they wiped them out in the flood. The first name “Noah” is Ziusudra and later Utnapishtim both of which mean “he found life.” All myths seem to agree he was the king of the Sumerian city of Shuruppak. Abraham came from the Sumerian city of Ur (though by his time it was likely overtaken by the Chaldeans, it depends on the timeline you use) where we’ve found the oldest (and quite advanced) code of laws to date. I’ve could go own for hours, but it is clear to me that we can thank the Sumerians for inventing the first writing, the first code of laws, the wheel, the plow, irrigation, the Zigurrat (think Tower of Babel), and western religion. If you’ve never read it, you should at least read Eridu Genesis if not Enuma Elish, and my person favorite, the Epic of Gilgamesh. The roots of the tree of western religion all come from the same place, maybe we should just role with it and quit being so bigoted. Once I’m done studying ancient Sumeria and Egypt, I’m reading the whole Bible (though I won’t be able to resist the urge to research individual concepts). I’m either going to read the Qu’ran or Buddhist teaching next, probably the Qu’ran. I think all religions have something to offer, if nothing else to help us understand ourselves. We keep finding that the temple has always come before the city, so I think we have to credit belief in the divine for civilization itself. Most of my training has been in science, mathematics and engineering. Religion provides a whole dimension of the human experience that is intentionally missing from science. I credit Bart Ehrman for kindling was has become sort of an obsession with religion in general. The fact is, who really knows what it all means, so I need to study it for myself.
Log in to Reply  
 



shuhan  January 18, 2015
As a Muslim I find what OUP was stupid and unnecessary, but on the other hand what Duke university did was admirable and courageous.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
Really? Do you think it was admirable not to allow Muslims to have a public call to prayer?
Log in to Reply  


shuhan  January 19, 2015
I meant before they retracted their approval
Log in to Reply  
 
 



countybaseball  January 18, 2015
Well here’s my 2 cents worth. I live in what you would call a bible belt area. I asked people all the time about Islam and they think they are all alike. Everyone I have spoken with even in my own family thinks that all Muslims agree with ISIS. There is no talking to them and they dont care what you say. I dont take up for any religion but I dont think all Muslims agree with ISIS. When I tell my family that, they ask why am I taking up for them. It’s aggravating. Everyone in this area thinks if your not Christian you are whats wrong with this Country. I have to deal with this shit everyday. And to go with it no one in my family goes to Church. They just say they believe. And dont live by what the bible says about anything. Very screwed up around here. Just wonder in anybody else has to deal with this.
Log in to Reply  


jbjbjbjbjb  January 19, 2015
Hi – I definitely do not live in a bible belt (Marseille, France’s most muslim-populated city). I bought a car last week from a North African who is actively demonstrating a third category I was not aware of. It basically goes a bit like this, and is based on conspiracy plots.
“The west organised the terrorism in Europe, both Paris and Belgium suspects.
 Ok some innocent people got killed, but it was paid for by the west.
 There’s a documented story X (sorry can’t remember the details, I was feeling too incredulous to listen attentively)
 And there’s a now-deleted video of Coulibaly apparently already handcuffed when he was shot
 20 years from now you will look back and see that I am right”.
He texted me a link to a video of an outraged Muslim at an American broadcast of a political leader declaring that this is a war on Islam [and not just terror or Islamic extremism].
I found this very far fetched indeed needless to say! But what is interesting in it is a third category existing of strong anti-west, conspiracy types, that place ultimate blame for terror in the west with the west. Anyone else come across that?
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 20, 2015
There is definitely a culture of “9-11 Truthers” in the United States who believe the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration as an excuse for Middle Eastern wars. Many in the Middle East also assert Israel and the West started ISIS as an excuse to invade Iraq and defame Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei asserts this regularly on his Twitter account.) I’ve seen it about the Charlie Hebdo stabbings, but I don’t recall where.
Log in to Reply  
 



Slydog1227  January 25, 2015
North Mississippi here. And it is the same thing. I’m of a minority of about …maybe 10 people that I know personally. I’m probably the only really vocal one out of that bunch. I get prayed for a lot…..
Log in to Reply  
 



RonaldTaska  January 18, 2015
Thanks for the post. Another example of Christian extremism is the KKK.
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  January 18, 2015
I’d seen a headline about Duke rescinding permission it had previously given for that Muslim call to prayer. I thought their rescinding the permission was regrettable, and I was sure you’d feel the same way. I hadn’t known they’d let themselves be pressured by wealthy donors – that’s shameful!
On the other topic…”cultural sensitivity” is important, but it can go too far. And it should be considered all the time, not just as a response to terrorism. (I still don’t understand whether OUP really has a new policy, or exactly what they may be changing in children’s books.)
But I’ve been having a hard time recently, understanding why some things are considered permissible. On a non-religious topic, I thought it was “the extreme of poor taste” to make a movie, comedy or not, about a plot to assassinate any real, living person.
And I can’t help agreeing with the Pope that it’s wrong to deliberately mock and insult anyone’s religion. It’s my understanding that most if not all Muslims are grievously offended by any “portrait” of the Prophet Mohammed. (What I learned years ago – it may not be correct – was that the original purpose of that was to discourage people’s wrongly *worshipping* him.) So I can’t applaud “Charlie.”
Log in to Reply  



Jana  January 18, 2015
I read about Duke University and came to a similar conclusion. As you know, I live among the Maya who were brutalized during the Inquisition and held as slaves for over 300 years and to this day are denied financial help unless they denounce their pagan God Cha’ac. The Oxford demands I did not know and yes it is censorship. Thank you for posting.
Log in to Reply  



prairieian  January 18, 2015
Bart;
I had not heard of the Duke situation, although I had heard of the OUP matter. I must say I find the Christian fundamentalist response, embodied by Franklin Graham, disappointing, albeit no surprise. The OUP response is bizarre.
Observing that the situation with Islam is complicated is true and unhelpful. True because the geo-political aspects touch on all of us to greater or lesser degree. Unhelpful because much of the energy invested is internal within Islam itself, about which we have nothing much to offer. It is a civil war between various interpretations of the religion, and it has notions of world domination and the elimination of all faiths but its. This approach is unlikely to win it friends to state the obvious, even if this notion is scarcely mainstream.
One problem that Islam has not resolved is the intersection of the faith with the public square. Western nations have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to separate church and state. The US famously made the separation a formal part of the consititution, but nevertheless the Christian church is central to US political life, One cannot imagine an American politician running on an atheist or even agnostic platform, notwithstanding the notional separation of church and state that is part of the consititution. In brief, separation is de jure, but certainly not de facto. The US is, as is common knowledge, quite out of step with the rest of the Western world on this. Indeed, for a European politician to make known his religious views is unusual. Tony Blair’s overt Christianity, for example, is considered odd and Blair is not positively regarded for this aspect of his persona.
Where I take offence is the whole concept of someone with special knowledge dictating what I am to believe, and that if I resist they will take it upon themselves to inflict God’s wrath. Frankly, leave God to inflict his wrath on me without human assistance, thank you very much. The state of my soul is my business, no one elses.
I am discouraged at the current state of affairs and live in hope that the fury of jihadist Islam burns itself out. It likely will, as such movements have in the past, but the meyhem imposed on all in the way is distressing to witness.
Log in to Reply  
Rick

Rick  January 22, 2015
I hope you are correct – that it will burn itself out. However, a number of authorities point to the youthful demographic throughout the Middle East, their high unemployment, and the presence of many Wahhabist madrassas financed by the Saudi’s to suggest it will be an ongoing problem.
Log in to Reply  
 



Zoomama  January 18, 2015
My concern with the Duke plan was not that “OMG, they’re allowing MUSLIMS to pray”, but that it’s amplified prayer in a public space. That differs somewhat from church bells. Yes, church bells are a call to prayer. But they are not in themselves a prayer. If Islam used music to call to pray, I would have no problem with that. What bothers me is the verbal call. It’s more equivalent to a preacher standing in the bell tower and calling, “Everyone who worships Jesus, come now and pray, and that should be all of you”.
So I’ve had mixed feelings about it: total disgust with the Christians criticizing it because it’s Islam, yet my civil liberties sensitivities not feeling that people should be forcibly exposed to the religious beliefs of others.
Duke shut it down before I worked out my conflicts, so I’m still conflicted.
Log in to Reply  


Zoomama  January 19, 2015
On the other hand, Duke is a private, not State, school, so allowing whatever forms of worship is not the equivalent of endorsement by the State.
Log in to Reply  



Helmut  January 20, 2015
The bells and church tower had also a secular function during the Middle Ages and even later as an alarm for fire and approaching enemies. I know of one instance where the church tower and its bells to this day are city property and not the property of the church. The elevated perch allowed for survailance and the bells functioned as an alert for the citizens.
 My comment is strictly informational and is not meant to endorse or justify a specific view or policy.
Log in to Reply  
Rick

Rick  January 22, 2015
The towers were also the markers for town to town horse races ,,, hence the steeple chase!
Log in to Reply  
 
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  January 19, 2015
I’ve thought for a long time that Franklin Graham is a dangerous politically motivated fundamentalist. I always looked kindly on his father though. From 4 years old to 6th grade I attended a private Christian school in SC just south of Charlotte that was founded by a church that Billy Graham had some hand in forming when he was based out of Charlotte in the 60s. I never met the man, but I always thought he was trustworthy when I saw him on TV. People tell me I’m a good judge of character so I have to think I formed the correct opinion of him years ago. He met with and advised presidents of both parties and I can’t recall anything he ever said that might be divisive. You might could say it was a different world when he was active, but I don’t think that’s true. He was in his prime during the late 60s when we had free love and Vietnam was raging. If he had any “true colors” to show I’d think they’d have come out then. His son, on the other hand, is a different animal altogether. He’s obviously conservative and from what I’ve seen he seems more likely to self-immolate and walk over broken glass than to cross the street to shake hands with a “liberal”. What gets me about these fundamental extremists and their attitudes towards Muslims in general is that they are behaving EXACTLY like Muslim extremists and they’re oblivious to it.
As to your publisher, I don’t find that surprising at all. Oxford Press is based in the UK which is the nanny state at its worst. You can’t even lift a finger there to defend yourself if someone breaks into your home because you might harm the poor burglar.
Log in to Reply  



barrios160679  January 19, 2015
The only question, I guess, would be: “Est-ce que vous etez Charlie, Bart?”
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
I fully believe in the right for Charlie to satirize anything it sees fit in any way it chooses. I myself do not choose to do so. I do not think it is appropriate (for me or others — though others should be legally allowed to do so) to make fun of other people’s deeply cherished beliefs.
Log in to Reply  


reillyjj  January 19, 2015
Something that is inappropriate (making fun of religion in a satirical newspaper) and something that is evil (murdering 12 people in cold blood that were at work minding their own business) are extremely different issues. The disturbing part of this whole issue, to me, is that many are focused on the what the newspaper printed and not the murders. I think it’s easy to hop on the media bandwagon when one hasn’t been forced to stare evil in the eye throughout their lifetime.
Log in to Reply  


nichael  January 20, 2015
Just a couple comment:
1] it goes without saying that these are two very different things, just as it goes without saying that no one –and most certainly no one here– has said anything, that in any way suggests anything different.
2] I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but with regard your curious comment about a supposed “media bandwagon” I’d be interesting in seeing any real world newspaper, magazine, or broadcast report that have been focused on anything _other_ than the murders.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Goat  January 19, 2015
What a loaded subject. A matter along these lines comes up in my Sunday School/Bible Study classes (small dicusson groups) with some regularity. So many seem to be convinced that the government is driving religion (meant in this context Christianity) out of the public square. Most of my contemporaries think there is some sort of recent conspiracy against Christianity in the United States. They seem to be, for the most part, ignorant of the fact that prayer in public schools has been held unconstitutional since 1962, yet freedom of religion is alive and well, for those who wish to practice religion in the United States. I sometimes respond to these objections that I view restrictions against prayer in school and in other government sponsored venues as a tremendous guarantee of my right to practice my religion (Christianity) in accordance with my own beliefs and in the manner that I deem to be appropriate. Sadly, I rarely hear anyone in a chruch setting agree with me. While I respect Franklin Graham, I would not want to live in a world in which I was compelled to feign unqualified agreement with his theology anymore than I would want to live in a world in which I was prohibitted from chosing whether to eat bacon. Good luck with this post. Hope your computer does not blow up.
Log in to Reply  

Matilda

Matilda  January 19, 2015
Honestly, I’m sick of religion. They should all just go to their corners and shut up. The sane people in the world need to be free form their crap. I’m tired of them all foisting their dos and don’ts and hurt feelings on society at large. I’m sick of their offences and their defensiveness. It’s like a bunch of little children fighting over who’s right and who’s wrong. Ironic since they are all wrong. Spank the lot of them and send them to their rooms. I for one will never “assume the position” to satisfy their silly sensibilities. I don’t care who eats pork or who doesn’t and I resent them making stuff like that everyone’s problem. Thanks for the rant time, Bart.
Log in to Reply  



paulmiller  January 19, 2015
I often have heard conservative Christians decry the mistreatment of their brethren in foreign lands which I have no doubt in some cases is true. However for them its okay if they do it here in the U.S to those they disagree with. Maybe while they’re cherry picking bible verses to suit their own agenda, they haven’t come across that whole love your enemies and do onto others thing…Perhaps they’re concerned that a different group of fundamentalists will set up American theocracy before they get the chance to create their Christian version of it first.
Log in to Reply  

Rick

Rick  January 19, 2015
“It’s wrong because it’s a different god,” Graham said …. oh really? Ok, I am the lay student here but I always thought that the Arabic Allah was the Hebrew El as in El Shaddai or God Almighty…. Some of what I have read in the (image of the) Koran seems to be pretty clearly talking about the God of Abraham. Now he (Graham) did go on to say “Using the bell tower that signifies worship of Jesus Christ, using (it) as a minaret is wrong.” So my question is … are there theological grounds ,perhaps in the trinity, for denying Allah is the same deity as YHWH/El/God the Father?
 By the way… if you thought what Franklin said in the article was a bit much… read the comments!
Log in to Reply  



reillyjj  January 19, 2015
it’s outrageous that anyone can actually propose, much less implement the censoring of free press in our great country. I also find it sad that people are yielding to radical islamists by censoring themselves and/or refusing to recognize the violence amongst this group for what it is – radical Islamists terrorism. Their ideology drives them. Their fundamentalism motivates them. There hate is a projection onto those who do not adhere to their religious commitments and practices. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of extremists is much larger than many of us want to believe. If I’m wrong, more Muslims should be making their voices heard in emphatic condemnation of the beliefs and the believers perpetuating this international evil.
Log in to Reply  



GokuEn  January 19, 2015
Prof. Ehrman, do you know if the Quran has been subjected to the same rigorous critical analysis that the Bible has? If so, do you know which scholars are the best to read on the topic?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
I don’t know of any books written on the topic!
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 19, 2015
There is a whole literature of historical Quranic studies. However, most scholars don’t see its text as complex in the way the Bible is. (There are exceptions.) The equivalent of critical Biblical studies in Islam would be hadith criticism. Jonathan Brown has two books for general readers. One, Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World, is a good introduction. More recent is is Misquoting Muhammad, which I have not read.
Those who doubt the Quran dates from Muhammad’s day usually try to explain it as a hymn book or lectionary for a Christian sect. During the 1970’s, John Wansborough wrote two books arguing that the text dated from the 800’s, but I don’t know of anyone who agrees with that today.
Log in to Reply  
 



Mhamed Errifi  January 19, 2015
you are asking the wrong person about koran. Muslims did critical analysis on koran right from the start they did not wait 1770 years. here is good like
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/#
Log in to Reply  
talitakum

talitakum  January 21, 2015
Sure. One of the article informs us that: “Newton and his buddy M. Rafiqul-Haqq published a list of grammatical errors in the Qur’ân in 1996..”
What? Grammatical errors in the Q’ran? How could *Newton and his buddy* dare to think something like that? The answer comes at the of the article, where finally Newton and his buddy are refuted (?!) and we are informed that:
“One can only presuppose that in the spirit of deception, such arrogant and authoritative charges are made possible through the suppression of facts and selective argumentation. And Allah knows best!”
Of course Allah knows best. I agree that when you already have the best textual critic ever onboard, you don’t Ehrman!
Log in to Reply  
 



Hon Wai  January 19, 2015
GokuEn: See “The Quran in Its Historical Context (Routledge Studies in the Qur’an)”. The contributors to this book are leading scholars of Quranic studies and of early Islamic history.
Log in to Reply  
 



Joseph  January 19, 2015
Perhaps humanity as a whole has not yet evolved enough to deal with religion. Certainly, that is true of sausage, isn’t it?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
I thought sausage had evolved significantly!!
Log in to Reply  
 



dragonfly  January 19, 2015
In the game of “my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend”, Franklin has pulled out all stops in trying to associate students praying, with terrorists.
“Islam is not a religion of peace.” Yeah? Well what are you doing to promote peace, Franklin?
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  January 19, 2015
I may be naive, but I disagree with the person who seemingly doesn’t believe the U.S. would elect an agnostic or atheist President. If they were actually running on some sort of agnostic or atheist “platform” (whatever that might be), of course they’d be unelectable! But that would be true of a person championing *any* sort of “platform” excessively influenced by his or her views on religion.
Log in to Reply  

Matilda

Matilda  January 19, 2015
I’m back. I can’t help myself. It seems to me university is a place to learn not to pray. If you want to pray go to church/temple/ or your bedroom. As Christopher Hitchens would say, “Monotheists are supposed to pester their deity more times than that (every day), lest he be deaf.” Why does a place of learning have to be subjected to religious sensibilities? This should not be happening on a college campus.
Log in to Reply  

Jeff

Jeff  January 19, 2015
It will be tough for me to keep this short. Having read and reread no fewer than 26 books on Islam, studied the Koran and immersed myself in the principal a-Hadith, I could write a treatise on Islam.
The multiculturalist mantra, repeated ad nauseum and believed by many, is that the peaceful religion of Islam has been hijacked by crazed mass murderers to justify their butchery. It is a classic example of the awesome power of well crafted rhetoric. At least one US demographic won’t buy it: The good people of Hoboken, NJ whose peaceful loving Muslim neighbors filled the streets and danced in wild celebration as flaming bodies plunged from the WTC.
The people of Hoboken would not have been surprised if they had studied as I have. Horrified, yes, but not surprised. Their Muslim neighbors, along with “moderate” Muslims all over the world, were reacting precisely as their odious prophet taught them, by his word and example.
Muslim immigrant populations will wear the mask of reason, tolerance, even amity only for as long as it takes them to accrue enough social, economic and political power to smash their naïve trusting hosts.
Today’s global Islam is not a throng of peaceful, loving folks who want only to live in harmony with their neighbors. It is a smoothly transitioning continuum consisting of the following: those who commit mass murder for the glory of Allah, those who support said murder, those who merely approve of it and those who, while not admitting approval, sit back and watch, never dreaming of raising a hand or voice to resist it. The Muslims who have taken a stand, publicly, vociferously and unequivocally against it can be counted on one the fingers of one hand.
BTW, Bart, Chapel bells make music, beautiful music that pleases the ear and soothes the soul. Have you ever heard a Muslim prayer call? It is a shrill, piercing, ululating wail blasted out through loudspeakers every three waking hours—every single day. It is a perfect synecdoche for the most savage and coercive ideology the world has ever known.
Log in to Reply  



clarenceclutterbuck  January 19, 2015
Quote from gmatthews
Oxford Press is based in the UK which is the nanny state at its worst. You can’t even lift a finger there to defend yourself if someone breaks into your home because you might harm the poor burglar.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Citizens in the UK are allowed by law to use reasonable force to repel an intruder in their home, but not to use excessive force and shoot them to death. Mass shootings are rare here, but when such incidents happen (three times since 1987 including the Hungerford massacre that year), gun laws are further tightened. In effect, the right here not to be shot dead outweighs the right to possess the means to vent one’s disenchantment at the vicissitudes of life by murdering one’s fellow citizens in mass shooting sprees. Not to mention the constant daily deaths from gun violence that pass unremarked in the U.S. by a desensitized populace .
I’m quite happy with our outlook on these matters and don’t think they amount to the UK being an overprotective “nanny state”.
Log in to Reply  
Jeff

Jeff  January 20, 2015
Clarence, I don’t agree with your position but I do respect it and I intend no sarcasm whatever by this question. In all seriousness, how DOES a person, particularly an elderly, frail or diminutive female one, repel a home invader if he/she is w/o a weapon with injurious and or deadly potential?
Log in to Reply  


clarenceclutterbuck  January 26, 2015
Ideally I think the answer is that elderly, frail and diminutive women should have the right to live in societies that don’t aggrandize violence and promote revenge fantasies, so that confrontations with home invaders are less frequent, and when they do happen are less likely to involve life threatening violence. Peacetime societies don’t have to wait for the kingdom of God to arrive before they beat weapons into ploughshares, as per Isaiah 2:4 (says he getting all theological), and in practice societies where citizens aren’t armed with deadly weapons have lower murder rates. According to good ol’ Wiki, the UK has 1.00 murders per 100,000 to the U.S’s 4.7, and we’re less theistic too, which probably says something deeply instructive about the relationship between theism and naughtiness aka sin.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



FrankJay71  January 20, 2015
For a while I’d been meaning to ask if you were familiar with Christoph Luxenberg’s “The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran?” From what I understand he asserts that Islam is inspired by Syriac Christianity specifically. Recently I read Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, which spends about a chapter discussing Luxembergs assertions. He points out the similarities of some of the Quraranic texts with Syriac apocrypha. One example that comes to mind, is from the infancy gospel of Thomas, i think, where Jesus gives life to some clay birds. Obviously, unless one accepts that Muhammad received the Quran by divine revelation, he must have had some connection or knowledge of both Christianity and Judaism. I’m currious about the connection, and would like to know if you think Luxenberg is reliable.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 20, 2015
No, I’m afraid I don’t know it.
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 21, 2015
The Cambridge Companion to the Quran has a chapter dedicated to these interpretations.
Log in to Reply  
 

Jeff

Jeff  January 20, 2015
Hey, FrankJay. Quite true. The Koran and the a-Hadith are loaded with Christian and quasi-Christian references. There is even an explicit reference to the virgin birth of Jesus (but not his divinity). Virtually all such references can be traced, by their theology, to various heretical groups that had fled orthodox persecution and populated the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed certainly must have come in contact with many of them in his business travels as a merchant and caravan master.
Log in to Reply  
 



brcworks  January 20, 2015
The whole Duke thing is very complex. I completely disagree with Franklin Graham; I think he and his ilk are bigots and, frankly, quite stupid. I also agree with the constitutional idea that public institutions should not support any religion, but since Duke is a private university, I think their first decision was the correct one. Having said that, I have to counter with the idea that changing that decision is perfectly acceptable. If Frankin Graham made a racist statement and the NAACP threatened a boycott of any institution that hired him, that’s not censorship, that’s capitalism. Likewise, if enough of Duke’s donors are bigots and, frankly, quite stupid, then Duke has an obligation to reflect their views or stop taking their money.
Log in to Reply  



David  January 24, 2015
Here is an English translation of the Muslim call to prayer (Adhan) used in the Sunni tradition (the numbers following each phrase indicate the number of repititions during the call):
“Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest. x4
 I bear witness that there is no God but Allah. x2
 I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. x2
 Hasten to worship (salat). x2
 Hasten to success. x2
 Prayer is better than sleep. x2
 Allah is greatest. x2
 There is no God but Allah.” x1
There is nothing overtly offensive in those words, assuming that they are meant only for the believers to adhere to. As for the esthetics, that is a call for each individual to make. It’s not my cup of tea, but I suppose many are comforted and energized by the sound. I’m an atheist and pretty much disagree with any such publicly broadcasted creedal displays regardless of religious sentiment, but on their own time and dime and personal space, I could care less. If one was faith minded as a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc, I can see how the words of the Adhan might be construed as particularly offensive, especially when announced publicly for all to hear.
That said, Duke does have an alumni base to worry about, as do all universities and it calls the shots as it pleases, because it is a private institution. Muslims have a right to worship and speak as they will according to the First Amendment, but others have the right to counter their speech with their own, to include refusing continued support of Duke. Remember that the First Amendment applies to all, not just a few, select religious people. And while you can say what you want, you cannot compel others to broadcast or listen to your views.
Log in to Reply  



walstrom  January 29, 2015
Arguments for fairness only persuade fair-minded folk. The effectiveness of Martin Luther King’s passive resistance movement arguably lay in economic boycotts.
 Sauce for the goose.
 The mindset of beset, bothered and bewildered Christians is, at core, to be taken seriously without regard to the sobriety or probity of their message, so it seems.
 Variously, the U.S. uses economic sanctions to curb unruly rogue states.
 What other recourse did Jesus have but roughing up the money-changers? And the beat goes on. . .
 Perhaps what ultra-conservatives object to most strenuously is the ‘Banquo’s ghost’ of the double-standard of ‘Liberal press” quick to condemn all Jews for the hi jinx of Israel, but loathe to whisper “Islam” when Isis runs riot.
 Franklin Graham isn’t a patch on his old man. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad one.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Sketch of My Memory Book
April 4, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (17) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...


My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
As I indicated in my previous two posts, the fifth chapter of the book I’m now writing, Jesus Before The Gospels, deals wit...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          


http://ehrmanblog.org/public-reactions-to-muslim-extremists/













Home
About Bart
Testimonials
Register
Login
Member Content
Support
Great Courses
Contact Bart
Main Website
Mobile Users

RSS

Twitter

Facebook

YouTube

Google+
  

Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

Membership
why & how to join







Philanthropy
assist the needy

Latest Posts
member & public

Member Forum
discussions

Bart´s Books
reviews & publishers













   


Bart’s Blog
HomeBart’s BlogPublic Reactions to Muslim Extremists 
  
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...



Public Reactions to Muslim Extremists

I have never used this Blog as a platform for my particular political views (even though I suppose they are easily enough seen by a careful reader) or to convert anyone to them.  And I’m not about to start now.   But I do have a category of comment on the blog, not used very often, on “Religion in the News.”   And a couple of news items appeared this past week that are “close to home” for me – one involving Duke University, which is literally close to home (less than a mile from where I live, move, and have my being) and the other involving Oxford University Press, with whom I have published almost all my academic books over the past twenty-two years and with whom I have a very good personal and professional relationship.   Both of these news items involve the relationship of an academic institution to recent developments in Islam.
The situation at Duke is this.   In the face of radical Islam fundamentalism and its much maligned jihadist and terrorist element– maligned by Jew, Christian, and Muslim alike – students and administration at Duke had chosen to show solidarity with other Muslims, who are – contrary to what you read in some papers or here on FOX news – not intent on blowing up your house or beheading your loved ones.   Most Muslims are honest, sincere, and loving.  Considering them bloodthirsty terrorists as a group because of ISIS and Paris makes no more sense than considering Christians bloodthirsty terrorists as a group because of what some Christians have done over the years in the name of Christianity (think: Crusades; Inquisition; IRA bombings – lots of options.  Most Christians had and have nothing to do with such things and are opposed to them.  So too most Muslims with the current atrocities.)
The Duke solidarity involved something very simple.  Every week the Muslim students at Duke gather together for prayer in the basement of Duke Chapel.  They requested that the required call for prayer be sounded publicly for all to hear,  from the chapel tower (much as the ringing of bells occurs for Christian calls to worship in a variety of settings).   The request was granted by those who want to show unity among Christians, Jews, Muslims, and people of all faith, as a gesture of solidarity.
The administration, after receiving threats from the Christian right, retracted its approval.  Here’s the article:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/01/15/4478652_muslim-students-will-chant-call.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1
As you’ll see, it was the son of Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, who raised the protest.  Here is what he said:
 “As Christianity is being excluded from the public square and followers of Islam are raping, butchering, and beheading Christians, Jews, and anyone who doesn’t submit to their Sharia Islamic law, Duke is promoting this in the name of religious pluralism,” said a post on Graham’s Facebook page.
 He urged supporters of Duke to withhold their support (i.e., their money) until the approval was reversed.   In other words, he wanted Duke to be held hostage by its wealthy Christian donors.  For Graham, it is acceptable to have Christians and Christianity publicly represented at Duke (e.g., in the Chapel that towers over the campus), but not Islam.
Make of that what you will.

The second news item concerns my publisher Oxford University Press (OUP).   Here is the deal with this one:  after the Paris attacks of last week, OUP issued a directive that authors should not mention pigs, or pork, or sausage, etc. in their books, so as not to offend Muslim sensibilities.  Here is an article on the decision.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11345369/Oxford-University-Press-bans-use-of-pig-sausage-or-pork-related-words-to-avoid-offending-Muslims.html
This decision created a backlash as people found it to be a rather bizarre and crude form of censorship.   When protests immediately were raised, a highly placed executive at OUP in the U.K. issued an explanation meant to calm the nerves.  Here it is:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/15/books-pigs-global-publishing-oxford-university-press-children
This response is clever and witty and meant to be ultra-sensitive.   But read it closely.   It seems to me she doesn’t answer the question:  is it in fact the case that in light of Muslim extremism and terrorism, that Oxford is telling authors of children’s books (we’re not talking about dictionaries here) what not to write about, precisely to avoid offending Muslim extremists?   And is this really how a free press in a free world wants to operate?   If the issue is sensitivity, pure and simple, why have these decisions not been implemented before?   Has anyone noticed that for millennia JEWS, as well, do not eat pork?  Were Jewish feelings not important enough to establish a policy?  But only Muslim feelings?  And only after Paris?  Is this response really up front and honest about what is really driving this new policy?
Well, these are some of my questions.  You may have some of your own.   These are topics on which every thinking human being in our society appears to have very (very, very) strong views.
 
image_pdfimage_print









in
Share
.







New Manuscripts and the Destruction of Antiquities«
New Discovery of an Ancient Christian Amulet»


18

JAN

2015

66
  
Comments
66  Comments
0  Trackbacks




flcombs  January 18, 2015
It is always interesting how “freedom of religion” only matters to conservative Christians as applying to them but not others. It will be interesting to see how much they still believe in public prayer at events when Muslims start leading it!
Log in to Reply  



BrianUlrich  January 18, 2015
On the first point, the argument I get from people is that one cannot quote Christian Scripture to justify violence the way one can the Quran. This is, of course, dubious. A four-digit number of women are burned as witches today in Africa and Melanesia, mainly on the basis of the Old Testament, but perhaps also with the excuse of Paul’s anti-witchcraft statements in Galatians.
Most striking, however, is the role of Christianity in anti-Semitism. The Gospel of Matthew has always been most striking to me in this regard, with the parables like the wedding one that seem to say clearly, “The Jews always kill their prophets, they missed all these obvious signs of Jesus’s Messiah-ship and killed him, so they’ve been superseded and their dire punishment at Roman hands should serve as a warning to us all.” At the very least, this was an important part of the exegetical tradition right up to Martin Luther, whose ideas for how to treat Jews were about what ISIS does to Yazidis and Christians.
Nonetheless, of course, modern Christians have their own interpretations of these texts, and even though there is a denomination called “Lutheran,” no one looks at them and assumes they all carry forward Luther’s anti-Semitism.
Log in to Reply  


jbjbjbjbjb  January 19, 2015
Hey Brian, I enjoyed reading your response. I was interested in the modern example of biblically justified violence “in Africa and Melanesia” – your mention here is probably meant to be vague “are being burned” and “four-digit”. If you have any more information at all on this situation then would you please reply with a reference or just more info?
Thank you.
John
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 20, 2015
It is hard to track. I’ve seen it in scattered news stories, but can’t find where someone has done an overall study. Try googling witch burnings with countries: Kenya, Congo, Papua New Guinea are ones I remember.
Log in to Reply  
 



Helmut  January 20, 2015
I am currently half way through an eye opening book that documents Christian anti-Semitism from the Gospels onward. It was written by a former Catholic priest, James Carroll, and is very thoroughly documented and researched. The title is “Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews”. One quickly realizes that the ant-Semitism was there very early and part of the Scriptures.
Log in to Reply  
 



pstrst@pacbell.net  January 18, 2015
If bells are being rung during Christian services, and both the bells and calls to prayer are not so loud as to be disruptive to those with no interest in either type of services, it seems purely discriminatory.
This is sort of slanting off-topic, but I would be very interested in reading a book about the Qur’an from a social and historical perspective. In other words, do you know if there is a Bart Ehrman of the Qur’an out there? Other blog readers might be interested also.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
I don’t think there is such a book! I wish there were….
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 19, 2015
There is a whole literature of historical Quranic studies. However, most scholars don’t see its text as complex in the way the Bible is. (There are exceptions.) The equivalent of critical Biblical studies in Islam would be hadith criticism. Jonathan Brown has two books for general readers. One, Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World, is a good introduction. More recent is is Misquoting Muhammad, which I have not read.
Log in to Reply  



Mhamed Errifi  January 19, 2015
hello Bart
All christian apologists when they are confronted with their bloody past they replied that bible did not inspire those christians to commit those atrocities and there is no passages in NT that encourage that . you as an expert in the fields do you agree with them if not please explain how this was done in the name of christ
Log in to Reply  



nichael  January 19, 2015
Although it’s not a book (nor a “rigorous critical analysis”) The Atlantic published a pretty nice article in 1999 that, among other things, touched on the textual history of the Quran:
“What is the Koran”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/
Log in to Reply  


Bahtiyor Tuhtayev  January 20, 2015
Hi nichael,
Toby Lester is not an authority neither in Islam, nor in Quran, let alone Quranic manuscripts. His highly misleading article has been refuted numerous times by scholars and non-scholars alike . You may be interested in reading “The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments” written by a true scholar Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami which partly deals with his article as well. So, Toby Lester’s article in the atlantic.com is just the wrong source to refer to.
Log in to Reply  


nichael  January 21, 2015
Just to be clear, Al-Azami’s book is a defense of the traditionalist view of the history of the Qumran which demonstrated that the Quran (quote) “has remained completely intact and unchanged since its reception by the Prophet in the seventh century.”
I think it is reasonable to suggest this constitutes a refutation of the issues that Lester raises in the same sense as claiming that the publications of Dr Ehrman have been “refuted” by citing the works of Richard Carrier, or pointing to books like Andrew’s “Misrepresenting Jesus”.
In short, I think it is best that we simply agree to invite the reader to read the referred to sources and to make up their own mind.
 
 
 

talitakum

talitakum  January 21, 2015
No historical criticism on Q’ran? Guess why :-)
Log in to Reply  
 



Bahtiyor Tuhtayev  January 20, 2015
There is a book by Jonathan A.C. Brown “Misquoting Muhammad” (named after Dr. Ehrman’s book). The author is a Muslim, and he is not a “Bart Ehrman of the Quran”, but it’s still worth reading.
Log in to Reply  



pbrockschmidt  January 20, 2015
Try Thomas Holland’s In The Shadow of the Sword for a non-Islamic viewpoint (which got him in trouble when they made a film of the book). I find most of the work in this field hagiographic.
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 21, 2015
Tom Holland represents the views of the skeptical school, which is “a” non-Muslim view, as you say, but not necessarily the only one. The evidence still strongly suggests that the Quran’s textual history simply isn’t as complex as that of the Bible. It is a completely different kind of book.
On a related note, I blogged about some current work into the “historical Muhammad” here and in three subsequent posts linked at the bottom: http://bjulrich.blogspot.com/2014/09/reconstructing-historical-muhammad.html
Log in to Reply  
 
 



Mhamed Errifi  January 18, 2015
“It’s wrong because it’s a different god,” Graham said
I am tired to read this nonsense repeated ONLY by the way by christians from the west Allah is another God
The Arabic word allah is not generic word and the prove is if i want to say my god in arabic i wil not use the word allah therefore allah is not generic word , but it is rather the name of deity who created the universe and no other deity can be called allah we do not use the word allah in Arabic to refer to other gods of other nations such as Greek . Does this evangelist know the word allah exist in armaic language so jesus used the word allah to refer to god and allah is used in arabic bible in verse gene 1:1 in the begining allah created heaven and earth so Graham if it is name of false god why you have it in arabic bible
Log in to Reply  


rostopchin  January 19, 2015
You are right. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the God of Abraham. If you trace the etymology of both Elohim and Ellah (the older form of Allah) you wind up at the Canaanite deity El, the Father of Humanity and all creatures, at least according to tablets we have found at Ugarit. The cuneiform that is used in these tablets seems to a bridge older types like Sumarian and Babylonian, and the ancient Hebrew used to write the Torah (Bart, chime in if you think I’m wrong). If we go back even farther, we can credit a good part of Genesis (not sure about the Qu’ran, but I’m aware of reference to Ibrahim and the great flood) to the Sumerians. The oldest creation Myth we have found so far is Eridu Genesis, and in fact most evidence reveals that the Sumerian city of Eridu is probably the oldest city on earth. In the creation myth the Gods can’t sleep because of all the noise people were making, so they wiped them out in the flood. The first name “Noah” is Ziusudra and later Utnapishtim both of which mean “he found life.” All myths seem to agree he was the king of the Sumerian city of Shuruppak. Abraham came from the Sumerian city of Ur (though by his time it was likely overtaken by the Chaldeans, it depends on the timeline you use) where we’ve found the oldest (and quite advanced) code of laws to date. I’ve could go own for hours, but it is clear to me that we can thank the Sumerians for inventing the first writing, the first code of laws, the wheel, the plow, irrigation, the Zigurrat (think Tower of Babel), and western religion. If you’ve never read it, you should at least read Eridu Genesis if not Enuma Elish, and my person favorite, the Epic of Gilgamesh. The roots of the tree of western religion all come from the same place, maybe we should just role with it and quit being so bigoted. Once I’m done studying ancient Sumeria and Egypt, I’m reading the whole Bible (though I won’t be able to resist the urge to research individual concepts). I’m either going to read the Qu’ran or Buddhist teaching next, probably the Qu’ran. I think all religions have something to offer, if nothing else to help us understand ourselves. We keep finding that the temple has always come before the city, so I think we have to credit belief in the divine for civilization itself. Most of my training has been in science, mathematics and engineering. Religion provides a whole dimension of the human experience that is intentionally missing from science. I credit Bart Ehrman for kindling was has become sort of an obsession with religion in general. The fact is, who really knows what it all means, so I need to study it for myself.
Log in to Reply  
 



shuhan  January 18, 2015
As a Muslim I find what OUP was stupid and unnecessary, but on the other hand what Duke university did was admirable and courageous.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
Really? Do you think it was admirable not to allow Muslims to have a public call to prayer?
Log in to Reply  


shuhan  January 19, 2015
I meant before they retracted their approval
Log in to Reply  
 
 



countybaseball  January 18, 2015
Well here’s my 2 cents worth. I live in what you would call a bible belt area. I asked people all the time about Islam and they think they are all alike. Everyone I have spoken with even in my own family thinks that all Muslims agree with ISIS. There is no talking to them and they dont care what you say. I dont take up for any religion but I dont think all Muslims agree with ISIS. When I tell my family that, they ask why am I taking up for them. It’s aggravating. Everyone in this area thinks if your not Christian you are whats wrong with this Country. I have to deal with this shit everyday. And to go with it no one in my family goes to Church. They just say they believe. And dont live by what the bible says about anything. Very screwed up around here. Just wonder in anybody else has to deal with this.
Log in to Reply  


jbjbjbjbjb  January 19, 2015
Hi – I definitely do not live in a bible belt (Marseille, France’s most muslim-populated city). I bought a car last week from a North African who is actively demonstrating a third category I was not aware of. It basically goes a bit like this, and is based on conspiracy plots.
“The west organised the terrorism in Europe, both Paris and Belgium suspects.
 Ok some innocent people got killed, but it was paid for by the west.
 There’s a documented story X (sorry can’t remember the details, I was feeling too incredulous to listen attentively)
 And there’s a now-deleted video of Coulibaly apparently already handcuffed when he was shot
 20 years from now you will look back and see that I am right”.
He texted me a link to a video of an outraged Muslim at an American broadcast of a political leader declaring that this is a war on Islam [and not just terror or Islamic extremism].
I found this very far fetched indeed needless to say! But what is interesting in it is a third category existing of strong anti-west, conspiracy types, that place ultimate blame for terror in the west with the west. Anyone else come across that?
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 20, 2015
There is definitely a culture of “9-11 Truthers” in the United States who believe the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration as an excuse for Middle Eastern wars. Many in the Middle East also assert Israel and the West started ISIS as an excuse to invade Iraq and defame Islam. (Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei asserts this regularly on his Twitter account.) I’ve seen it about the Charlie Hebdo stabbings, but I don’t recall where.
Log in to Reply  
 



Slydog1227  January 25, 2015
North Mississippi here. And it is the same thing. I’m of a minority of about …maybe 10 people that I know personally. I’m probably the only really vocal one out of that bunch. I get prayed for a lot…..
Log in to Reply  
 



RonaldTaska  January 18, 2015
Thanks for the post. Another example of Christian extremism is the KKK.
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  January 18, 2015
I’d seen a headline about Duke rescinding permission it had previously given for that Muslim call to prayer. I thought their rescinding the permission was regrettable, and I was sure you’d feel the same way. I hadn’t known they’d let themselves be pressured by wealthy donors – that’s shameful!
On the other topic…”cultural sensitivity” is important, but it can go too far. And it should be considered all the time, not just as a response to terrorism. (I still don’t understand whether OUP really has a new policy, or exactly what they may be changing in children’s books.)
But I’ve been having a hard time recently, understanding why some things are considered permissible. On a non-religious topic, I thought it was “the extreme of poor taste” to make a movie, comedy or not, about a plot to assassinate any real, living person.
And I can’t help agreeing with the Pope that it’s wrong to deliberately mock and insult anyone’s religion. It’s my understanding that most if not all Muslims are grievously offended by any “portrait” of the Prophet Mohammed. (What I learned years ago – it may not be correct – was that the original purpose of that was to discourage people’s wrongly *worshipping* him.) So I can’t applaud “Charlie.”
Log in to Reply  



Jana  January 18, 2015
I read about Duke University and came to a similar conclusion. As you know, I live among the Maya who were brutalized during the Inquisition and held as slaves for over 300 years and to this day are denied financial help unless they denounce their pagan God Cha’ac. The Oxford demands I did not know and yes it is censorship. Thank you for posting.
Log in to Reply  



prairieian  January 18, 2015
Bart;
I had not heard of the Duke situation, although I had heard of the OUP matter. I must say I find the Christian fundamentalist response, embodied by Franklin Graham, disappointing, albeit no surprise. The OUP response is bizarre.
Observing that the situation with Islam is complicated is true and unhelpful. True because the geo-political aspects touch on all of us to greater or lesser degree. Unhelpful because much of the energy invested is internal within Islam itself, about which we have nothing much to offer. It is a civil war between various interpretations of the religion, and it has notions of world domination and the elimination of all faiths but its. This approach is unlikely to win it friends to state the obvious, even if this notion is scarcely mainstream.
One problem that Islam has not resolved is the intersection of the faith with the public square. Western nations have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to separate church and state. The US famously made the separation a formal part of the consititution, but nevertheless the Christian church is central to US political life, One cannot imagine an American politician running on an atheist or even agnostic platform, notwithstanding the notional separation of church and state that is part of the consititution. In brief, separation is de jure, but certainly not de facto. The US is, as is common knowledge, quite out of step with the rest of the Western world on this. Indeed, for a European politician to make known his religious views is unusual. Tony Blair’s overt Christianity, for example, is considered odd and Blair is not positively regarded for this aspect of his persona.
Where I take offence is the whole concept of someone with special knowledge dictating what I am to believe, and that if I resist they will take it upon themselves to inflict God’s wrath. Frankly, leave God to inflict his wrath on me without human assistance, thank you very much. The state of my soul is my business, no one elses.
I am discouraged at the current state of affairs and live in hope that the fury of jihadist Islam burns itself out. It likely will, as such movements have in the past, but the meyhem imposed on all in the way is distressing to witness.
Log in to Reply  
Rick

Rick  January 22, 2015
I hope you are correct – that it will burn itself out. However, a number of authorities point to the youthful demographic throughout the Middle East, their high unemployment, and the presence of many Wahhabist madrassas financed by the Saudi’s to suggest it will be an ongoing problem.
Log in to Reply  
 



Zoomama  January 18, 2015
My concern with the Duke plan was not that “OMG, they’re allowing MUSLIMS to pray”, but that it’s amplified prayer in a public space. That differs somewhat from church bells. Yes, church bells are a call to prayer. But they are not in themselves a prayer. If Islam used music to call to pray, I would have no problem with that. What bothers me is the verbal call. It’s more equivalent to a preacher standing in the bell tower and calling, “Everyone who worships Jesus, come now and pray, and that should be all of you”.
So I’ve had mixed feelings about it: total disgust with the Christians criticizing it because it’s Islam, yet my civil liberties sensitivities not feeling that people should be forcibly exposed to the religious beliefs of others.
Duke shut it down before I worked out my conflicts, so I’m still conflicted.
Log in to Reply  


Zoomama  January 19, 2015
On the other hand, Duke is a private, not State, school, so allowing whatever forms of worship is not the equivalent of endorsement by the State.
Log in to Reply  



Helmut  January 20, 2015
The bells and church tower had also a secular function during the Middle Ages and even later as an alarm for fire and approaching enemies. I know of one instance where the church tower and its bells to this day are city property and not the property of the church. The elevated perch allowed for survailance and the bells functioned as an alert for the citizens.
 My comment is strictly informational and is not meant to endorse or justify a specific view or policy.
Log in to Reply  
Rick

Rick  January 22, 2015
The towers were also the markers for town to town horse races ,,, hence the steeple chase!
Log in to Reply  
 
 

gmatthews

gmatthews  January 19, 2015
I’ve thought for a long time that Franklin Graham is a dangerous politically motivated fundamentalist. I always looked kindly on his father though. From 4 years old to 6th grade I attended a private Christian school in SC just south of Charlotte that was founded by a church that Billy Graham had some hand in forming when he was based out of Charlotte in the 60s. I never met the man, but I always thought he was trustworthy when I saw him on TV. People tell me I’m a good judge of character so I have to think I formed the correct opinion of him years ago. He met with and advised presidents of both parties and I can’t recall anything he ever said that might be divisive. You might could say it was a different world when he was active, but I don’t think that’s true. He was in his prime during the late 60s when we had free love and Vietnam was raging. If he had any “true colors” to show I’d think they’d have come out then. His son, on the other hand, is a different animal altogether. He’s obviously conservative and from what I’ve seen he seems more likely to self-immolate and walk over broken glass than to cross the street to shake hands with a “liberal”. What gets me about these fundamental extremists and their attitudes towards Muslims in general is that they are behaving EXACTLY like Muslim extremists and they’re oblivious to it.
As to your publisher, I don’t find that surprising at all. Oxford Press is based in the UK which is the nanny state at its worst. You can’t even lift a finger there to defend yourself if someone breaks into your home because you might harm the poor burglar.
Log in to Reply  



barrios160679  January 19, 2015
The only question, I guess, would be: “Est-ce que vous etez Charlie, Bart?”
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
I fully believe in the right for Charlie to satirize anything it sees fit in any way it chooses. I myself do not choose to do so. I do not think it is appropriate (for me or others — though others should be legally allowed to do so) to make fun of other people’s deeply cherished beliefs.
Log in to Reply  


reillyjj  January 19, 2015
Something that is inappropriate (making fun of religion in a satirical newspaper) and something that is evil (murdering 12 people in cold blood that were at work minding their own business) are extremely different issues. The disturbing part of this whole issue, to me, is that many are focused on the what the newspaper printed and not the murders. I think it’s easy to hop on the media bandwagon when one hasn’t been forced to stare evil in the eye throughout their lifetime.
Log in to Reply  


nichael  January 20, 2015
Just a couple comment:
1] it goes without saying that these are two very different things, just as it goes without saying that no one –and most certainly no one here– has said anything, that in any way suggests anything different.
2] I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but with regard your curious comment about a supposed “media bandwagon” I’d be interesting in seeing any real world newspaper, magazine, or broadcast report that have been focused on anything _other_ than the murders.
Log in to Reply  
 
 
 



Goat  January 19, 2015
What a loaded subject. A matter along these lines comes up in my Sunday School/Bible Study classes (small dicusson groups) with some regularity. So many seem to be convinced that the government is driving religion (meant in this context Christianity) out of the public square. Most of my contemporaries think there is some sort of recent conspiracy against Christianity in the United States. They seem to be, for the most part, ignorant of the fact that prayer in public schools has been held unconstitutional since 1962, yet freedom of religion is alive and well, for those who wish to practice religion in the United States. I sometimes respond to these objections that I view restrictions against prayer in school and in other government sponsored venues as a tremendous guarantee of my right to practice my religion (Christianity) in accordance with my own beliefs and in the manner that I deem to be appropriate. Sadly, I rarely hear anyone in a chruch setting agree with me. While I respect Franklin Graham, I would not want to live in a world in which I was compelled to feign unqualified agreement with his theology anymore than I would want to live in a world in which I was prohibitted from chosing whether to eat bacon. Good luck with this post. Hope your computer does not blow up.
Log in to Reply  

Matilda

Matilda  January 19, 2015
Honestly, I’m sick of religion. They should all just go to their corners and shut up. The sane people in the world need to be free form their crap. I’m tired of them all foisting their dos and don’ts and hurt feelings on society at large. I’m sick of their offences and their defensiveness. It’s like a bunch of little children fighting over who’s right and who’s wrong. Ironic since they are all wrong. Spank the lot of them and send them to their rooms. I for one will never “assume the position” to satisfy their silly sensibilities. I don’t care who eats pork or who doesn’t and I resent them making stuff like that everyone’s problem. Thanks for the rant time, Bart.
Log in to Reply  



paulmiller  January 19, 2015
I often have heard conservative Christians decry the mistreatment of their brethren in foreign lands which I have no doubt in some cases is true. However for them its okay if they do it here in the U.S to those they disagree with. Maybe while they’re cherry picking bible verses to suit their own agenda, they haven’t come across that whole love your enemies and do onto others thing…Perhaps they’re concerned that a different group of fundamentalists will set up American theocracy before they get the chance to create their Christian version of it first.
Log in to Reply  

Rick

Rick  January 19, 2015
“It’s wrong because it’s a different god,” Graham said …. oh really? Ok, I am the lay student here but I always thought that the Arabic Allah was the Hebrew El as in El Shaddai or God Almighty…. Some of what I have read in the (image of the) Koran seems to be pretty clearly talking about the God of Abraham. Now he (Graham) did go on to say “Using the bell tower that signifies worship of Jesus Christ, using (it) as a minaret is wrong.” So my question is … are there theological grounds ,perhaps in the trinity, for denying Allah is the same deity as YHWH/El/God the Father?
 By the way… if you thought what Franklin said in the article was a bit much… read the comments!
Log in to Reply  



reillyjj  January 19, 2015
it’s outrageous that anyone can actually propose, much less implement the censoring of free press in our great country. I also find it sad that people are yielding to radical islamists by censoring themselves and/or refusing to recognize the violence amongst this group for what it is – radical Islamists terrorism. Their ideology drives them. Their fundamentalism motivates them. There hate is a projection onto those who do not adhere to their religious commitments and practices. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of extremists is much larger than many of us want to believe. If I’m wrong, more Muslims should be making their voices heard in emphatic condemnation of the beliefs and the believers perpetuating this international evil.
Log in to Reply  



GokuEn  January 19, 2015
Prof. Ehrman, do you know if the Quran has been subjected to the same rigorous critical analysis that the Bible has? If so, do you know which scholars are the best to read on the topic?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
I don’t know of any books written on the topic!
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 19, 2015
There is a whole literature of historical Quranic studies. However, most scholars don’t see its text as complex in the way the Bible is. (There are exceptions.) The equivalent of critical Biblical studies in Islam would be hadith criticism. Jonathan Brown has two books for general readers. One, Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World, is a good introduction. More recent is is Misquoting Muhammad, which I have not read.
Those who doubt the Quran dates from Muhammad’s day usually try to explain it as a hymn book or lectionary for a Christian sect. During the 1970’s, John Wansborough wrote two books arguing that the text dated from the 800’s, but I don’t know of anyone who agrees with that today.
Log in to Reply  
 



Mhamed Errifi  January 19, 2015
you are asking the wrong person about koran. Muslims did critical analysis on koran right from the start they did not wait 1770 years. here is good like
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/#
Log in to Reply  
talitakum

talitakum  January 21, 2015
Sure. One of the article informs us that: “Newton and his buddy M. Rafiqul-Haqq published a list of grammatical errors in the Qur’ân in 1996..”
What? Grammatical errors in the Q’ran? How could *Newton and his buddy* dare to think something like that? The answer comes at the of the article, where finally Newton and his buddy are refuted (?!) and we are informed that:
“One can only presuppose that in the spirit of deception, such arrogant and authoritative charges are made possible through the suppression of facts and selective argumentation. And Allah knows best!”
Of course Allah knows best. I agree that when you already have the best textual critic ever onboard, you don’t Ehrman!
Log in to Reply  
 



Hon Wai  January 19, 2015
GokuEn: See “The Quran in Its Historical Context (Routledge Studies in the Qur’an)”. The contributors to this book are leading scholars of Quranic studies and of early Islamic history.
Log in to Reply  
 



Joseph  January 19, 2015
Perhaps humanity as a whole has not yet evolved enough to deal with religion. Certainly, that is true of sausage, isn’t it?
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 19, 2015
I thought sausage had evolved significantly!!
Log in to Reply  
 



dragonfly  January 19, 2015
In the game of “my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend”, Franklin has pulled out all stops in trying to associate students praying, with terrorists.
“Islam is not a religion of peace.” Yeah? Well what are you doing to promote peace, Franklin?
Log in to Reply  



Wilusa  January 19, 2015
I may be naive, but I disagree with the person who seemingly doesn’t believe the U.S. would elect an agnostic or atheist President. If they were actually running on some sort of agnostic or atheist “platform” (whatever that might be), of course they’d be unelectable! But that would be true of a person championing *any* sort of “platform” excessively influenced by his or her views on religion.
Log in to Reply  

Matilda

Matilda  January 19, 2015
I’m back. I can’t help myself. It seems to me university is a place to learn not to pray. If you want to pray go to church/temple/ or your bedroom. As Christopher Hitchens would say, “Monotheists are supposed to pester their deity more times than that (every day), lest he be deaf.” Why does a place of learning have to be subjected to religious sensibilities? This should not be happening on a college campus.
Log in to Reply  

Jeff

Jeff  January 19, 2015
It will be tough for me to keep this short. Having read and reread no fewer than 26 books on Islam, studied the Koran and immersed myself in the principal a-Hadith, I could write a treatise on Islam.
The multiculturalist mantra, repeated ad nauseum and believed by many, is that the peaceful religion of Islam has been hijacked by crazed mass murderers to justify their butchery. It is a classic example of the awesome power of well crafted rhetoric. At least one US demographic won’t buy it: The good people of Hoboken, NJ whose peaceful loving Muslim neighbors filled the streets and danced in wild celebration as flaming bodies plunged from the WTC.
The people of Hoboken would not have been surprised if they had studied as I have. Horrified, yes, but not surprised. Their Muslim neighbors, along with “moderate” Muslims all over the world, were reacting precisely as their odious prophet taught them, by his word and example.
Muslim immigrant populations will wear the mask of reason, tolerance, even amity only for as long as it takes them to accrue enough social, economic and political power to smash their naïve trusting hosts.
Today’s global Islam is not a throng of peaceful, loving folks who want only to live in harmony with their neighbors. It is a smoothly transitioning continuum consisting of the following: those who commit mass murder for the glory of Allah, those who support said murder, those who merely approve of it and those who, while not admitting approval, sit back and watch, never dreaming of raising a hand or voice to resist it. The Muslims who have taken a stand, publicly, vociferously and unequivocally against it can be counted on one the fingers of one hand.
BTW, Bart, Chapel bells make music, beautiful music that pleases the ear and soothes the soul. Have you ever heard a Muslim prayer call? It is a shrill, piercing, ululating wail blasted out through loudspeakers every three waking hours—every single day. It is a perfect synecdoche for the most savage and coercive ideology the world has ever known.
Log in to Reply  



clarenceclutterbuck  January 19, 2015
Quote from gmatthews
Oxford Press is based in the UK which is the nanny state at its worst. You can’t even lift a finger there to defend yourself if someone breaks into your home because you might harm the poor burglar.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Citizens in the UK are allowed by law to use reasonable force to repel an intruder in their home, but not to use excessive force and shoot them to death. Mass shootings are rare here, but when such incidents happen (three times since 1987 including the Hungerford massacre that year), gun laws are further tightened. In effect, the right here not to be shot dead outweighs the right to possess the means to vent one’s disenchantment at the vicissitudes of life by murdering one’s fellow citizens in mass shooting sprees. Not to mention the constant daily deaths from gun violence that pass unremarked in the U.S. by a desensitized populace .
I’m quite happy with our outlook on these matters and don’t think they amount to the UK being an overprotective “nanny state”.
Log in to Reply  
Jeff

Jeff  January 20, 2015
Clarence, I don’t agree with your position but I do respect it and I intend no sarcasm whatever by this question. In all seriousness, how DOES a person, particularly an elderly, frail or diminutive female one, repel a home invader if he/she is w/o a weapon with injurious and or deadly potential?
Log in to Reply  


clarenceclutterbuck  January 26, 2015
Ideally I think the answer is that elderly, frail and diminutive women should have the right to live in societies that don’t aggrandize violence and promote revenge fantasies, so that confrontations with home invaders are less frequent, and when they do happen are less likely to involve life threatening violence. Peacetime societies don’t have to wait for the kingdom of God to arrive before they beat weapons into ploughshares, as per Isaiah 2:4 (says he getting all theological), and in practice societies where citizens aren’t armed with deadly weapons have lower murder rates. According to good ol’ Wiki, the UK has 1.00 murders per 100,000 to the U.S’s 4.7, and we’re less theistic too, which probably says something deeply instructive about the relationship between theism and naughtiness aka sin.
Log in to Reply  
 
 



FrankJay71  January 20, 2015
For a while I’d been meaning to ask if you were familiar with Christoph Luxenberg’s “The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran?” From what I understand he asserts that Islam is inspired by Syriac Christianity specifically. Recently I read Philip Jenkins, The Lost History of Christianity, which spends about a chapter discussing Luxembergs assertions. He points out the similarities of some of the Quraranic texts with Syriac apocrypha. One example that comes to mind, is from the infancy gospel of Thomas, i think, where Jesus gives life to some clay birds. Obviously, unless one accepts that Muhammad received the Quran by divine revelation, he must have had some connection or knowledge of both Christianity and Judaism. I’m currious about the connection, and would like to know if you think Luxenberg is reliable.
Log in to Reply  
Bart

Bart  January 20, 2015
No, I’m afraid I don’t know it.
Log in to Reply  


BrianUlrich  January 21, 2015
The Cambridge Companion to the Quran has a chapter dedicated to these interpretations.
Log in to Reply  
 

Jeff

Jeff  January 20, 2015
Hey, FrankJay. Quite true. The Koran and the a-Hadith are loaded with Christian and quasi-Christian references. There is even an explicit reference to the virgin birth of Jesus (but not his divinity). Virtually all such references can be traced, by their theology, to various heretical groups that had fled orthodox persecution and populated the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed certainly must have come in contact with many of them in his business travels as a merchant and caravan master.
Log in to Reply  
 



brcworks  January 20, 2015
The whole Duke thing is very complex. I completely disagree with Franklin Graham; I think he and his ilk are bigots and, frankly, quite stupid. I also agree with the constitutional idea that public institutions should not support any religion, but since Duke is a private university, I think their first decision was the correct one. Having said that, I have to counter with the idea that changing that decision is perfectly acceptable. If Frankin Graham made a racist statement and the NAACP threatened a boycott of any institution that hired him, that’s not censorship, that’s capitalism. Likewise, if enough of Duke’s donors are bigots and, frankly, quite stupid, then Duke has an obligation to reflect their views or stop taking their money.
Log in to Reply  



David  January 24, 2015
Here is an English translation of the Muslim call to prayer (Adhan) used in the Sunni tradition (the numbers following each phrase indicate the number of repititions during the call):
“Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest. x4
 I bear witness that there is no God but Allah. x2
 I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. x2
 Hasten to worship (salat). x2
 Hasten to success. x2
 Prayer is better than sleep. x2
 Allah is greatest. x2
 There is no God but Allah.” x1
There is nothing overtly offensive in those words, assuming that they are meant only for the believers to adhere to. As for the esthetics, that is a call for each individual to make. It’s not my cup of tea, but I suppose many are comforted and energized by the sound. I’m an atheist and pretty much disagree with any such publicly broadcasted creedal displays regardless of religious sentiment, but on their own time and dime and personal space, I could care less. If one was faith minded as a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc, I can see how the words of the Adhan might be construed as particularly offensive, especially when announced publicly for all to hear.
That said, Duke does have an alumni base to worry about, as do all universities and it calls the shots as it pleases, because it is a private institution. Muslims have a right to worship and speak as they will according to the First Amendment, but others have the right to counter their speech with their own, to include refusing continued support of Duke. Remember that the First Amendment applies to all, not just a few, select religious people. And while you can say what you want, you cannot compel others to broadcast or listen to your views.
Log in to Reply  



walstrom  January 29, 2015
Arguments for fairness only persuade fair-minded folk. The effectiveness of Martin Luther King’s passive resistance movement arguably lay in economic boycotts.
 Sauce for the goose.
 The mindset of beset, bothered and bewildered Christians is, at core, to be taken seriously without regard to the sobriety or probity of their message, so it seems.
 Variously, the U.S. uses economic sanctions to curb unruly rogue states.
 What other recourse did Jesus have but roughing up the money-changers? And the beat goes on. . .
 Perhaps what ultra-conservatives object to most strenuously is the ‘Banquo’s ghost’ of the double-standard of ‘Liberal press” quick to condemn all Jews for the hi jinx of Israel, but loathe to whisper “Islam” when Isis runs riot.
 Franklin Graham isn’t a patch on his old man. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad one.
Log in to Reply  

Subscribe to Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.




Search by Keyword or User Name


  

Bart’s Recent Posts

My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
April 22, 2015

My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
April 20, 2015

BBC Clip on “The Lost Gospels”
April 19, 2015

On Being Controversial
April 18, 2015

“The Same” Traditions in Oral Cultures
April 17, 2015

Differences Between Oral and Written Cultures
April 16, 2015

My Memory Book, Chapter 4 Again: The Death of Jesus
April 15, 2015

What Is A Memory?
April 13, 2015

Ramblings on Charity and Religion
April 11, 2015

Can A Made-Up Story Be A False Memory?
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, Ch. 4a
April 10, 2015

My Memory Book, ch. 3
April 8, 2015

My Memory Book, chs. 1-2
April 7, 2015

How I’m Writing This Book
April 6, 2015

Sketch of My Memory Book
April 4, 2015

Archives
Select Month April 2015  (17) March 2015  (27) February 2015  (21) January 2015  (22) December 2014  (26) November 2014  (23) October 2014  (23) September 2014  (26) August 2014  (26) July 2014  (25) June 2014  (25) May 2014  (42) April 2014  (42) March 2014  (39) February 2014  (37) January 2014  (45) December 2013  (45) November 2013  (40) October 2013  (45) September 2013  (42) August 2013  (44) July 2013  (48) June 2013  (45) May 2013  (40) April 2013  (43) March 2013  (44) February 2013  (43) January 2013  (52) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (44) October 2012  (55) September 2012  (51) August 2012  (46) July 2012  (54) June 2012  (51) May 2012  (38) April 2012  (18) 

Bart’s Latest Books
How Jesus Became God
Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection…
Learn More
The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction
Bart presents his long-awaited survey of the Bible. Comprehensive yet succinct, current in scholarship, rich in pedagogical tools, and easily accessible to students of all backgrounds…
Learn More
 

 



Latest Additions


My Memory Book, Chapter 6 on “Collective Memory”
The sixth chapter of my book Jesus Before the Gospels is tentatively entitled “Collective Memory and Early Recollections of...


My Memory Book: False Memories and the Life of Jesus
As I indicated in my previous two posts, the fifth chapter of the book I’m now writing, Jesus Before The Gospels, deals wit...

One Time Donation to Foundation

Since Jan. 1, 2013, CIA has collected $104,500 for charity. You can help too! Any one-time donation to the Bart Ehrman Foundation helps Bart’s select charities fight hunger and homelessness. The optional form on the right allows reoccurring donations of your preferred limit and choice!



This is not a membership registration. If you wish to become a full member, please click REGISTER from top navigation bar.

Monthy Reoccuring Donations



When Do Donations Recur?
DailyMonthlyYearly 
How Many Times to Recur?
Never End23456789101112 
Enter Your Donation Amount



Login

Username:

Password:


 Remember Me


Register | Lost your Password?
 

 
© 2012-2015 Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog by Innovative Design

Return to Top
                          



http://ehrmanblog.org/public-reactions-to-muslim-extremists/