Home > The Book Page > Archives > 2008 > February > 25 > Entry
Garry Wills and the Gospels
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
In just the second paragraph of his new book “What the Gospels Meant,” noted Bibllical scholar Garry Wills is going to turn off a number of Christians. The Gospels, he writes, “are not historically true as that term would be understood today. … They do not draw on first-hand testimony or documents.”
Biblical literalists believe otherwise, that every word of the Bible is literally true. Wills is a Catholic who studied for the priesthood, and has taught ancient and New Testament Greek. He is not a literalist, but he is a Christian, one who believes that Christianity is capital-T Truth, and he wants to help us understand the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
“What the Gospels Meant” is the third in what’s turning out to be a series, following “What Jesus Meant” and “What Paul Meant.” Wills, who’s also a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian on American history, works from the original texts, and does his own translations. He says they are much closer in spirit and detail to the “marketplace Greek” in which they were written, rather than the “prettified Bible English” in which we usually read.
His explanations and arguments are fascinating and complex, and I’m not going to do them the disservice of trying to sum them up in a blog.
But I am planning on hearing Wills speak tonight. He will be at the Decatur Presbyterian Church, 205 Sycamore St., next door to the Decatur Library. The Georgia Center for the Book and Wordsmiths Books, which are sponsoring, thought the library’s auditorium wouldn’t be big enough for the anticipated crowd. Doors open at 6 and Wills’ talk starts at 7:15 p.m.
Permalink | Comments (34) | Categories: Atlanta Events
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Jeff
February 25, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
Phil:
If the Gospels didn’t mean exactly what they say, why didn’t ANYONE disprove them 2K years ago??
Furthermore, Luke in particular was written along the EXACT same lines as a documentarian today would use: He interviewd COUNTLESS witnesses to the events, including those that could deny that they took place or the significance of them.
The Gospels - and particularly Luke - even include both events that would make Jesus and/ or the Disciples look bad - both in the era and today - AND things that wouldn’t be admissable in a court of law for hundreds, if not thousands of years. (Namely, the testimony of the women at the Ressurection.)
There have been COUNTLESS books out there to debunk Mr. Wills. The two that I found most useful were both written by former atheist journalists-turned-Christian apologist. (FYI, look up the word before you comment. It does NOT mean ‘apology’.) Those would be Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ in particular, but also The Case for Faith. I haven’t read his other two: The Case for the Creator and The Case for Christmas) and Josh McDowell (The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, among others.)
BTW: Since you’re talking about a Christian Fiction work, I’ll throw in a plug for one as well: Jeremy Robinson’s The Didymus Contingent. Time travel yarn that proves very interesting very early: What if Apostle Thomas was actually a modern Jew that doubted Christ and developed a time machine specifically to go back and disprove Christ, then somehow got stuck in Jesus’ time? I personally am only 80 pages into it right now, but I can’t WAIT to see where this one goes. Unfortunately, I’m at work and can’t read it right now!
By Phil Kloer
February 25, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
Jeff: I know what an apologist is. Also, since “What the Gospels Meant” is brand new, I’m not sure how many books have been written that could debunk it. Have you read this particular book?
By Jeff
February 25, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Phil:
Apologies, the ‘apologist’ remark was less directed at you than those who will read this later. I myself made the mistake when I first heard the word.
I just scanned the TOC at Amazon and read the Intro to Mark and the first chapter dealing with Persecution in Syria. And I can emphatically state that according to my memory of the books I cited earlier, much of his work can be debunked outright, as I suspected.
Now, since I do in fact HAVE 3 of the works I cited earlier, assuming I can find a copy of What the Gospels Meant here in South GA, I’d be more than happy to write up a summary of his arguments and where they are wrong and get it back to you.
Phil, I took on the Jesus Seminar itself in discussions in a Scriptural Literature class I had in college. I know where to go to debunk this guy, and honestly from what I’ve seen thus far he’s nowhere NEAR the level of the Seminar.
Matter of fact, there is a professor at Emory that goes toe to toe with prominent members of the Seminar face to face, though I can’t remember his name. William something. He’s cited (and interviewed) in one of the Strobel texts. It would be interesting to see Wills and this guy in a debate…
By Phil Kloer
February 25, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
I think debates about topics like this can be illuminating, if everyone comes wanting to speak the same way, either scholar to scholar or rabble rouser to rabble rouser. Wills is a serious scholar with a deep knowledge of the original language and the historical context. If someone else brings the same, then sure, I would like to see the debate.
By Jeff
February 25, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Phil:
Maybe you could get something going here:
The guy I mentioned earlier is William Lane Craig. Turns out, he is still based in ATL - at Johnson Ferry Baptist Church. His site says that he is no longer at Emory and that he is now at some school in California, but his website is based in GA and the audio says it comes from Johnson Ferry.
By Jeff
February 25, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this
Oh, and Phil:
If I personally took Wills on, it WOULD be as equals. Degrees don’t equal knowledge. In fact, many of the great Christian apologists of old would be considered nothing more than country bumpkin ‘rabble rousers’ today. They didn’t have a degree to their name, but MAN did they have the knowledge.
I don’t have a degree in ancient studies, but I do know far more about the eras and areas in question than one might think. Hence the comment earlier about the legal admissibility of a woman’s testimony.
By Tom
February 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
Surely “Jeff” isn’t serious. Look back at his very first comment. There we find out that, contrary to Wills’s assertion, the Gospel of Luke was based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, “interviewed” by the writer. And how do we know this? Well, apparently, Jeff just “knows” it. Even the preamble to the Gospel in Lk 1 doesn’t say that Luke was an eyewitnesses or even talked with eyewitnesses; it only says they’ve been “handed down” or “passed down” from eyewitnesses or that “many others” have written accounts that derive from the testimony of eyewitnesses.
By Jeff
February 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
Tom:
Luke was an associate of Paul, also called Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee leader. In fact, Luke traveled with Paul on one of the missionary journeys.
With such connections, it is CLEAR that many of those it was ‘passed down’ from - another term for ‘I talked to these people’ or ‘I interviewed these people’ - were in fact eyewitnesses to the very events described.
By Kate
February 25, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this
Oh my GAWD, Jeff, you are insufferable, sanctimonious BORE! You must be impossible to be around in real life.
And I’m still p** at you for being an assclown last week.
Kate
By FCM
February 25, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
OK I am going to get FLAMED but I am ok with that….Jeff is spouting what I found to be a very southern Baptist party line (insert your flame here—fortunately I am wearing my flame proof garments today). This where Phil’s point “is going to turn off a number of Christians” is proven true. A large number of Christians (and I have attend Johnson’s Ferry Baptist several times myself) are taught not to question the bible, their ministers, or even the heads of their household.
I grew up in a different tradition and my godfather asked me who told me we could not question the bible, the ministers etc….He pointed out that Jesus was 12 and questioned the rabbi’s. Now, because qualifications are important, my godfather is both an ordained minister and dean of English of a small college in WVA.
Jeff further argued that the Gospels are taken from interviewing. Which unless I misread the quote Phil gave us…is precisely the author’s point?
While I do believe that the Bible holds much historical accuracy…I also believe it holds (in the current cannon) an agenda of the editor(s) and those who canonized it. I also do not believe that all the apocrypha literature is literal.
I do not believe that in reading the Bible text we are to check our brains or hearts at the door. We are to come with both open and be led, not like sheep (Jesus’ context of shepherd was always as finding the stray) but to a higher understanding of what we are to be.
By FCM
February 25, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
OK I am going to get FLAMED but I am ok with that….Jeff is spouting what I found to be a very southern Baptist party line (insert your flame here—fortunately I am wearing my flame proof garments today). This where Phil’s point “is going to turn off a number of Christians” is proven true. A large number of Christians (and I have attend Johnson’s Ferry Baptist several times myself) are taught not to question the bible, their ministers, or even the heads of their household.
I grew up in a different tradition and my godfather asked me who told me we could not question the bible, the ministers etc….He pointed out that Jesus was 12 and questioned the rabbi’s. Now, because qualifications are important, my godfather is both an ordained minister and dean of English of a small college in WVA.
Jeff further argued that the Gospels are taken from interviewing. Which unless I misread the quote Phil gave us…is precisely the author’s point?
While I do believe that the Bible holds much historical accuracy…I also believe it holds (in the current cannon) an agenda of the editor(s) and those who canonized it. I also do not believe that all the apocrypha literature is literal.
I do not believe that in reading the Bible text we are to check our brains or hearts at the door. We are to come with both open and be led, not like sheep (Jesus’ context of shepherd was always as finding the stray) but to a higher understanding of what we are to be.
By doobird
February 25, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
JUST BELIEVE … that’s all it says is required … BELIEVE ON JESUS!
By Jen
February 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
Even an ex-Catholic like me knows that a whole lot of Catholics would think Jeff to really, really off the wall.
And that’s besides the huge ego that makes him think he could debate a biblical scholar with Pulitzer Prize acknowledgin his work…while Jeff only recently entered adulthood.
By Jen
February 25, 2008 5:15 PM | Link to this
Oh…and since the Roman Catholic faith is, by far, the largest Christian sect…I think Jeff would have a hard time convincing all those people they should believe him and his Protestant dictation over their cranky Pope…
By f(x) = 36x^2
February 25, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this
Fundamentalists of whatever religion sacrifice thought and question the moment they become fundamentalists. It is indicative of this mindset that “Jeff” believes, after reading the two-page snippet of the book in question offered on Amazon, that he can reasonably discredit a highly-educated theologian with a Pulitzer Prize becuase he once was involved in a seminar.
Fundies aren’t required to think - they are simply required to reject anything that might conflict with their orthodoxy. Academic credentials don’t matter to a fundy - they just pull out that old saw “Degrees don’t mean anything”.
Yes, Jeff…I’m sure degrees don’t mean anything. I’m SURE that an academic who has spent his or her entire life studying a particular field knows nothing more than what you - a dilletant at best - has managed to “learn” reading a few books that agree with your point of view.
By lovelyliz
February 26, 2008 6:59 AM | Link to this
One thing I never got from the gospels was that God blesses those who deserve to be blessed with $$$$ and punishes those who deserve it with poverty.
By Me
February 26, 2008 7:11 AM | Link to this
I interviewed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They said they got drunk on all that water Jesus turned to wine and wrote all that stuff just to be funny. They also said they are the original Beatles and they want their royalty checks before they write a few more chapters for the gullible to believe.
By FCM
February 26, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this
@lovelyliz—your correct it doesn’t say that….Most people who think that way are basing their belief on the First (Old) Testament. It was largely believed that the rightous and ‘sinless’ received good things (wealth) and the evil or ‘sinner’ bad things (poverty/disease). The book of Job illustrates this points—-although I think Job is more a ‘theatric’ or ‘play’ to illustrate a story than an actual historical document—and Job’s ‘friends’ tell him to just confess his sins and his fortune will be turned around. The story of Jesus (sinless yet being crucified) tells this story again from another angle.
What you can learn in the Second (New) Testament is that God is not going to be happy until he reaches all of his people…which is to say all people…he has many avenues to reach them, and must grace and forgiveness to share. It is my most ‘fundamental’ belief that there are going to be a lot of surprised people in the hereafter…surprised to find that all kinds of people from all kinds of religious backgrounds are granted entrance.
If ‘Jeff’ or people who espouse the Literal accuracy of Bible are correct…why do they disagree with the Jehovah Witnesses? After all it quite clearly says 12,000 of the 12 tribes of Isreal in Revelations right?
(Yes, I purposely quoted the misconception of the 144,000 rather than the actual text of Revlations: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=7&version=31&context=chapter You have to read the full chapter to under why it’s a misconception….)
By charles corley
February 26, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this
gooooooood morning/ wait until we find out that god is a woman and the bible really is a novel written by homo sapiens better known as human beings. abe and sarah would make a good porno movie. mary magdalene is my favorite character in the novel. i can see j.c. walking up that dusty road and mary saying ye who j.c i’ve got something for you. websters says the devil is the chief evil spirit and is sometimes refered to as satan and lives in a firey pit called hell where sinners ? go after death for punishment. the devil is typically depicted as a man with horns, a tail, funny looking feet and is the #1 halloween costume and preachers are threatening you with it. these are just characters in the novel such as angels. the bible is still the #1 seller. the novel has many good ideas such as the sowing of the seed and proverbs 22:1. remember the bible was written by all men and so no wonder god is refered to as my heavenly father. boy have the jews, who wrote the novel, used jesus to make a living. my mother refered to this as the almighty $$$. if you don’t think jesus has been used how did we end up with santa claus and a rabbit. come on down you sinners.
By Jeff
February 26, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
f(X) and FCM:
Have either of YOU ever bothered to read the works I cited above or even - if you insist that ‘only academic credentials’ mean anything - the works of DR. Craig?
I am a scientist at heart, and I base my EVERY move on the most logical move with the information I have at the time. I’ve had to research the issue of exactly what to make of the Bible both for my own sake as well as to defend my faith in that ScripLit class against the best efforts of the Seminar and its sympathizers.
I have YET to find a SINGLE case where the available evidence disproves what the Bible says - and I doubt there will be any issue you can think of that I haven’t already looked into.
Mr. McDowell’s New Evidence that Demands a Verdict is something like 800 pages long and absolutely FULL of information that goes into nearly any topic you would want to examine.
Futhermore, according to Occam’s razor, the simplest solution is usually correct. Which is simpler: That God Created everything, or that random chemical interactions somehow built everything we know? Nevermind the fact that the likelihood of two simple chemicals randomly interacting to form even a SINGLE most BASIC protein molecule - that isn’t even anywhere NEAR the complexity of DNA - is something like a 1 in a (10 with 100 zeroes behind it).
By FCM
February 26, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Dr Robert Roper (retired from GA Tech)is/was a Physical Sciences professor. He stated 2 things in a class I attend with him (as a peer of Christian study)…1- that in his class when he asked on a test how the earth was created the students were welcome to say “The Bible says…..Dr. Roper’s and the scientific statement was…..” 2- that if you do think of the ‘days’ in the first 2 books of Genesis (one of which is a poem about creation more than a catalog of events)as 24 time periods then you find that Genesis account Earth’s creation and ‘The Big Bang Theory’ are actually 100% the same thing….the particals were not radom but that the big bang occurred (as science thinks it did) because of a divine plan/God (as the Bible asserts it did).
Dr. Roper is very well respected in his church. His daughter is ordained in the ministry, as is her husband. The family is well versed in both science and theology…and are among the most ‘Christian’ people I know…constantly pointing toward Jesus through all their ups and downs.
So yes, Jeff, I do think you have more growing to do in this area of your ‘expertise’.
By FCM
February 26, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
Lee Strobel was also the teaching minister at Willow Creek Community (non denominational mega church similar to North Point Community in Alpharetta)……”Willow Creek Community Church states that its mission is to, ‘Turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ.’ The church bases its belief on the Bible, asserting it to be inspired by God, infallible, and the final authority on matters which it covers.” OF COURSE if your a fundamentalist beliver espousing what I called the Southern Baptist party line (and I have a great many SBs in my inner circle that I love dearly)….you would believe everything this man said in his books….His books are written on an agenda of the fundmentalist belief your own values are written on.
Open your mind….read Rabbi Kushner (“To Life!” would be a good place to start) and David Klinghoffer (“Why the Jews Rejected Jesus” and “Discovering God: Abraham and the Birth of Monotheism”) and Edith Deen’s “All the Women of the Bible”….when you start to question the ‘teachers’ you truly open your mind to be taught…
By FCM
February 26, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
edit to comment @ 9:40 AM…..I meant to say “that if you do NOT think of the ‘days’ in the first 2 books of Genesis as 24 hour periods”
By Jeff
February 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
FCM:
Ad hominem attacks are all you have? Interesting, because only when you can’t prove your case using logic does one turn to ad hominem….
By FCM
February 26, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Jeff your absolutely right…I gave no factual background (ie suggested texts to read to broaden your scope of the subject or other ligitmate scholars points of view) into the discussion…how silly of me to point out that the writer you were suggesting and basing your arguemnts on were from a specific church, a specific background, and a specific agenda…
By Jeff
February 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Link to this
FCM:
Mr. Strobel and Mr. McDowell intially set out to DISprove Christianity.
Your ‘suggested authors’ also have their own agendas, so pointing out that Mr. Strobel works at such and such a place has no bearing on this discussion.
By FCM
February 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Jeff…I have to agree and disagree….I whole heartedly believe that every document ever written (including the Biblical texts) has an agenda…something I asscerted yesterday…therefore, I agree with you that my ‘suggested authors’ have one as well.
I disagree that individual agendas have no bearing….if Mr. Strobel is being utilized to dispel the authenticity of the book in question, it has a great deal of bearing.
I suggested that you/people read other authors with an open mind and open heart…for it is not in any single volume where you will learn the ‘Truth’ but in discernment of all of them.
By Yeah right!
February 26, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
Occam’s razor only applies if you believe in it. I don’t. It’s lazy.
Several stories in the Bible have been disproved based on incorrect translations e.g., Noah’s Ark and Moses parting the Red Sea. I’m sure in a few dozen years the whole Bible will be debunked as parables and fables.
It’s good as a moral compass and that’s about it.
God is the solution for the weak-minded and those too lazy to find the real answer.
By Jeff
February 27, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
yeah right:
Noah’s Ark: If it didn’t happen, why does virtually EVERY ancient civilization have a similar tale involving a great flood and a lone survivor?
God is actually the most complex thing on the planet to figure out - it is why He had to leave an instruction manual in the first place. If we could figure it out on our own, what is the point of the Bible in the first place?
Evolution, now THAT is something for the weak minded. I mean, after all, a KINDERGARTENER with DOWN’S SYNDROME can understand THAT!
By chris jikeli
February 29, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Jesus came teaching in a way that the people would not understand. He was constantly explaining things to his disciples.
Jesus was not teaching religion.
Writers of the ‘Bible’ had to hide the real teaching in plain view, so they cloaked it in synonyms and scattering the teaching among a story.
http://jesusteachings.com/
It’s hard to learn all that work was in vain - I’ve had to do it a couple times in my seaking.
By chris jikeli
February 29, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Jesus came teaching in a way that the people would not understand. He was constantly explaining things to his disciples.
Jesus was not teaching religion.
Writers of the ‘Bible’ had to hide the real teaching in plain view, so they cloaked it in synonyms and scattering the teaching among a story.
http://jesusteachings.com/
It’s hard to learn all that work was in vain - I’ve had to do it a couple times in my seeking.
By chris jikeli
February 29, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
Jesus came teaching in a way that the people would not understand. He was constantly explaining things to his disciples.
Jesus was not teaching religion.
Writers of the ‘Bible’ had to hide the real teaching in plain view, so they cloaked it in synonyms and scattering the teaching among a story.
http://jesusteachings.com/
It’s hard to learn all that work was in vain - I’ve had to do it a couple times in my seeking.
By chris jikeli
February 29, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
Jesus came teaching in a way that the people would not understand. He was constantly explaining things to his disciples.
Jesus was not teaching religion.
Writers of the ‘Bible’ had to hide the real teaching in plain view, so they cloaked it in synonyms and scattering the teaching among a story.
http://jesusteachings.com/
It’s hard to learn all that work was in vain - I’ve had to do it a couple times in my seeking.
By chris jikeli
February 29, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
Jesus came teaching in a way that the people would not understand. He was constantly explaining things to his disciples.
Jesus was not teaching religion.
Writers of the ‘Bible’ had to hide the real teaching in plain view, so they cloaked it in synonyms and scattering the teaching among a story.
http://jesusteachings.com/
It’s hard to learn all that work was in vain - I’ve had to do it a couple times in my seeking.