Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says about the End by Bart D. Ehrman
My rating: 1 of 5 stars
With a much fuller review of this book now, I can say that each time I think that Bart Ehrman can't write a book worse than his previous ones, he proves me wrong, he can, and he does.
First, this book is not, NOT, a historical-critical overview of the composition of Revelation, which limits its utility beyond fairly low-level anti-fundagelical popular exposition.
Second, this is 50 pages or more shorter than his previous two books, neither of which were themselves very good. His "The Triumph of Christianity" book was two stars and in hindsight that may be generous; it exemplifies one strain of Ehrman's recent problems on full display here. His "Heaven and Hell" book, or JW book as I call it elsewhere? Flat 1 star.
And now this.
Third, unlike some books like this, there’s no quasi-endnotes lists of biblical verses cited, so, my desire early on to know if Bart referenced Mark 13:22 — “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” — was frustrated. (Turns out he never cites this simple refutation of fundagelical end-times predictors.)
OK, off to the races.
Bart tries to say that if you include vs 38-39 of Mt 24, that changes the whole complexion of that passage. I don’t see it that way. “As in the time of Noah” is a time of judgment. See “Noah preacher of righteousness” in 2 Peter, an idea that surely was around long before its writing. Also see Hebrews 11:7, that Noah by building the ark “condemned the world.”
Second? Why does Bart insist on translating “δούλος” as “slave”? Does he do that elsewhere in the NT? I highly doubt it; I know that it’s something he’s not fixated on in his many other books. More on this below.
Next? Doesn’t Jesus himself talking about a “lake of fire” contradict Bart’s claims in his previous, JW book? I quote, Revelation 20:10, 15: “(T)he devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. … Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.” It DOES but Bart REFUSES to accept that. He claims that verse 15 shows this IS “annihilation.” Nope. Nope. Nope. "Tormented day and night forever" is "the second death."
So, at this point, just one-quarter through, we’ve already got on full display two issues Ehrman has shown repeatedly in his last few books. Those are his idiosyncrasies, here over “δούλος,” and his tendentiousness, over the annihilation issue.
And, while I hadn’t yet run into the “Marcionite” issues others mentioned when this book came out, right here, we’re already down to 2.5 stars.
Next? The history of the “classical” understanding of Revelation. Several issues here. First, Augustine was NOT NOT NOT “without a doubt the greatest theologian of the ancient church.” He may have been. He may not have been. Ehrman doesn’t tell you that he’s listed on a second tier by Orthodoxy, and is probably even further back in the Coptic/Miaphysite and the Church of the East traditions. Related? He does NOT mention why the “Church of the East” does not include it, nor does he mention the Syriac Orthodox not including it until modern times. He eventually discusses this a small bit near the end, but no details. It's funny, or "funny," because near the end, he talks briefly about its poorer reception in the East.
Moving forward? No, “Koresh” is not an English version of “Cyrus” and even Wikipedia will tell you that Bart basically got that one exactly backward. “Kurush” is listed as the transliteration in to English of Cyrus the Great’s name in Old Persian, but that it may originally have been “Kurash.” Further related? I would not call J. Philip Arnold a “scholar” and I wouldn’t rate Tabor as highly as one as does Bart. See my review of Guinn’s bio of Koresh.
Next? Although he notes that 2 Thessalonians’ “man of lawlessness” is not “the Beast,” and correctly so, he yet links them together, ignoring, as he knows, that there is no such thing as a “theology of the New Testament,” only of individual books. See my extensive discussion of this issue.
Next? The next BIG fail, a Not.Even.Wrong. Bart claims Nero persecuted Christians. He did not and I have the receipts. First, that "famed" Tacitus passage is almost certainly an interpolation and, per that link, we probably know not only that it is, but who the interpolator was. Second, as I mentioned to classicist John Drinkwater in an email exchange about his Nero biography, Christians in Rome were almost certainly no more than 1/10 of 1 percent of the population in Nero's time in 64 CE. Without even newspapers, let alone electronic media, they would not have been on his radar screen. Plus, CONTRA Drinkwater, and as Ehrman would know, they weren't called "Christians" and identified as a separate movement then.
As far as Pliny and emperor worship? Also wrong, and Bart knows this, too. First, the imperial cultus wasn’t “pushed” until Decius and the Decian persecutions. Second, even then, up until Diocletian and beyond, there were provincial variations. That link above shows how nuanced and evolving this issue was. Remember, it was 200-plus years from Pliny to Constantine.
Even in as urbanized a province as Bithynia, a proconsul like Pliny simply didn’t have time to go to the forums and agoras in any but the larger cities to enforce the burning of incense. But, this ignores the full reality of what was happening with Pliny, anyway. His letter to Trajan makes clear that, in general, he’s dealing with Christians who were narked on by their neighbors, not the general populace. Ehrman SHOULD know that; it’s clear, from Pliny’s letter. In addition, just a few years later, Hadrian modifies even that, says that Christians should only be persecuted based on overt acts and that false accusations should themselves be punished. From there on to Decius, there was no overriding imperial policy. And, that's a period of more than 130 years.
Finally, we’re at the Marcionite area. Frankly, contra early reviews, while this is not good, it's not horrible, not in and of itself. From what I originally wrote about this book per a review I had then just read, this sounded almost as bad as his previous JW book. If that were the biggest problem, the book would get two stars for sure. But, it's not a nothingburger, so let's dive in, begining by looking at how he's wrong on Christianity. First, there are hints of violence on behalf of the gospel outside of Revelation. Bart ignores that Jesus said “I have come to set father against son and mother against daughter,” and that two swords were enough. He also ignores Matthew 25 (including its talk of everlasting torment, which he tried to explain away in his previous book). Paul wished that circumcisers would castrate themselves.
Or, better yet? Best yet? Bart knows that the best Greek textual tradition in Mark's version of Jesus being asked for "healing" by a leper in Mark 1 is:
40 A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” 41 Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”
Interestingly, the NIV is about the only modern translation to chose the variant, ὀργισθεὶς, based on the verb ὀργίζω. But, I stand by it. It's a MUCH harder reading textually. Second, while the criterion of embarrassment is overstated at times, I wouldn't toss it, and this is more than "embarrassment" anyway. There's fairly solid contextual reasons to go with this reading. And, "indignant"? In the active, it is "angry," or stronger yet, going back to classical times. "Exasperated" is among other possibilities suggested by Liddell, Scott and Jones, or Strong's, in the passive. This actually good piece at r/AcademicBiblical notes two other things. One is that Mark may have been playing off Elisha's healing of Naaman. Two is that the same word is in Mark 10, where Jesus was indignant at his listeners before saying, "Bring the children to me." Oh, Ehrman admits "Jesus was angry." While this may not be last judgment angry, Matthew 25, with the Son of Man mentioned, is. (Angry to the point of condemnation unto eternal death and not annihilation, Bart.)
More angry Jesus? Calling Peter Satan comes immediately to mind. Matthew 24:2, though in a passive-aggressive middle tone of voice, if not actual middle mood, where Jesus says "stone will not be left on stone."
Or, another oldie but goodie, Bart! Jesus cursing the fig tree in Mark 11:
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
Boom.
On the Tanakh side, this ignores Yahweh's חֶסֶד, or "loving-kindness," spoken of repeatedly in Psalms. There's plenty of other low-hanging fruit on that side, too.
Bart then misses discussing the Euthyphro dilemma in “The lamb becomes a lion.” This, along with similar issues in his “triumph of Christianity” book, indicate to me that Ehrman just doesn’t come off as THAT widely read. Yes, he later mentions D.H. Lawerence's "Apocalypse," but if that weren't about Revelation, would he have read it?
As for Revelation and wrath? He misses that, in Latin Western Christianity, by 200CE, Tertullian was already talking about how one of the joys of heaven would be watching the damned in hell. It's a riff on Luke's story, in old title, of Lazarus and Dives. And, per discussion above, Dives seems to be in eternal torment. Not annihilated. I can't think of anything quite that stark, and certainly not that early, in what became Orthodoxy, but there are strains.
Beyond that, Bart misses the psychology of heaven and hell in general. Look at Dante. Everybody reads, and loves the unique, varied and macabre punishments of the Inferno. The Purgatorio is OK. The Paradiso comes off as saccharine when not outrightly boring. But, it's more than medieval Christianity. Look at Buddhism. Whether it's a one-off Amida type paradise, or non-existence via nirvana (the Hindo-Buddhist version of Bart's annihilation but on the other side of the coin!) nobody is interested in that. But look at Buddhist hells and Tibetan Buddhist demons and people are reading. Maybe that's why Muhammad (if he actually wrote that, and that's not a misrendering of Syriac instead of Arabic) populated heaven with virgins for the ghazis. Or look at Mark Twain's "Captain Stormfield" — his heaven is literarily popular in part because it's not saccharine, it's not conventional, and it has plot twists.)
On wealth and power? I’m first surprised that Ehrman didn’t go Marcionite there, too, with the Tanakh from the Torah on talking about this-life blessings for the faithful of Israel. Second, the Parable of the Talents, even if a parable and not a proclamation saying, shows that Jesus didn’t hate the rich per se. Also note “poor in spirit” in Matthew’s version of the Beatitudes. All of this was just in snippets. Note elsewhere Jesus talking about taking the Kingdom of God by force. Pseudo-Paul talking about battles with cosmic powers.
Does he discuss why other apocalyptic books were NOT added to Christian canons of either old or new testaments, other than the Ethiopians including 1 Enoch? No. He mentions, but does not discuss.
Speaking of "other apocalyptic books," he also nowhere mentions Ezekiel, which was almost as big an influence on Revelation as Daniel. Gog and Magog come from Ezekiel, not Daniel. And, per things like Jack Chick's comics, Gog and Magog are big with the fundies. And, Ehrman never talks about them. And, if he went to Moody, he knows this, too. Seriously, discussing Revelation without this? Indeed, Gog and Magog are in a Chick from earlier this year. (Surprisingly, given the now dead Jack Chick's anti-evolution stance, the tract accepts the reality of climate change.) I'm sure they were in older ones.
Side note: There's a LOT of people at Reddit's r/academicbiblical who have a hard-on for Ehrman. Ditto Gary the ex-Lutheran, whose blog may disappear from my blogroll, which needs other tweaking, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment