Title: The Human Faces of God – What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It)
Author: Thom Stark
Bibliographic info: 248 pp
Cover: Soft
Publisher: Wipf & Stock, 2010.
ISBN-10: 160899323X
ISBN-13: 9781608993239
Buy it at Amazon
With thanks to Wipf & Stock for the review copy!
See Part I of the review here.
As I said at the end of the first part of this review, the most interesting chapter of this book, as well as perhaps the most controversial, is titled Jesus Was Wrong. Basically, the thesis of this chapter is that Jesus himself believed that he would return in power and glory within the lifetime of the disciples. This didn’t happen, hence the title of the chapter.
Some Christians (such as myself) may be more than willing to forsake the inerrancy of the Bible and even believe that Jesus possessed inaccurate knowledge (e.g. that he probably did believe in a flat-earth geocentric cosmology). After all, that is just part and parcel of Jesus being human and it reflects that he was a product of his time and culture as much as we are of ours However, to say that Jesus was wrong about something theologically-related (e.g. predicting his return and being wrong about it), that is indeed a harder pill for a Christian to swallow (and something I admit to having qualms about).
Stark begins this chapter by providing an overview on the nature of ‘apocalyptic’. While I would agree that the apocalyptic worldview expected a restored paradise wrought by a decisive display of divine deliverance, I am not so convinced to attribute that worldview to Jesus (in its entirety), as I think the synoptics show that Jesus had an alternative and quite unconventional idea regarding the nature of the kingdom of God and what it would entail (e.g. Luke 17.20-21).
Stark anticipates this perspective of mine and says,
Thus, those who appeal to sayings such as Matt 12:28 (“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you”) as evidence against an apocalyptic Jesus fail to understand the modified paradigm. What sayings like Matt 12:28 indicate rather is the idea of a proleptic presence of the kingdom through the agency of Jesus. In other words, his minstry was seen as a sign that the kindgom would arrive on a cosmic, global scale within a short period time. (pg. 167)
Fair enough point, though I am not fully convinced.
To support his argument of the failed apocalyptic Jesus, Stark examines Jesus’ prediction of his coming (Mark 9.1, Matt 16.28, Luke 9.27), as well as the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matt 24, and Luke 21). Regarding Jesus’ prediction in Mark 9.1, I agree with Stark that the transfiguration account which follows could not have been the fulfillment of Jesus’ words, even though the authors of the gospels seemingly demonstrate that they thought it was the fulfillment by their placement of the transfiguration directly after Jesus’ prediction.
Stark then deals with the Olivet Discourse (which I think is clearly referring to the same event mentioned in Mark 9.1). After laying out the synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse in parallel and summarizing the data, Stark says that,
There seems to be no getting around the fact: if Jesus said what the gospels say he said, then Jesus was wrong. Admittedly, he was right about a lot of it. The good news did spread throughout the world. Wars, famines, and plagues did occur. His disciples were persecuted. Messianic hopefuls did attract followings, all of which were squelched. Nation did rise against nation. The temple was desecrated, and Jerusalem was destroyed. He got all of that right! The only part he got wrong was that little detail about the end of the world as we know it. But nine out of ten isn’t that bad. (pg. 184)
Note that Stark is addressing this from the inerrancy perspective. In other words, he is arguing that if inerrancy is true (and hence the gospel narratives are accurate) then Jesus must have been wrong (because he predicted his return in glory and it failed to happen). Thus, if Thom is correct in his reading of the gospel narratives, then Jesus mistakenly thought he would return in power and glory within a generation, which did not happen, hence the Bible is not inerrant.
Stark engages with an increasingly popular interpretation of the Olivet Discourse as put forward by everybody’s favorite British theologian, N.T. Wright. It is with Wright’s presentation in Jesus and the Victory of God that Stark tackles head on (see pp. 339-368 of Jesus and the Victory of God by Wright). Wright presents a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse that sees it being fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem (I also hold to a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse). The preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is not new – the author of Luke interpreted it this way (see Luke 21, especially verse 20). Unfortunately, people have come up with all sorts of bizarre systems to make the Olivet Discourse (or portions of it) refer to a still yet future end of the world (e.g. dispensationalism and its associated Left Behind tripe). The preterist interpretation recognizes that the apocalyptic language Jesus used is thoroughly Jewish and should be seen as such, rather than being over-literalized by the modern Christian mind. Stark likewise recognizes the use of apocalyptic language and says:
The apocalyptic language used may sound strange to us: the sun and moon go dark, stars fall from the sky and the waves roar. But this would not have sounded strange to the disciples. They knew exactly what Jesus meant. Jesus was using traditional language the prophets employed to fortell the fall of Israel’s enemies. (pp. 180-81)
Stark did raise some pertinent critiques of Wright’s exegesis of the Mark 13, a couple of which do seem to point towards Stark’s argument that Jesus was mistaken about his return in glory and judgment. I guess this is still an issue I need to examine more (I tend to neglect eschatological matters nowadays).
As Stark points out, the inerrantist also has to deal with the imminent expectation of the end as portrayed in the rest of the New Testament (epistles and Revelation). For the inerrantist, it is a somewhat inconvenient predicament to have Jesus predicting an imminent return in glory within a generation, coupled together with Paul and John (in Revelation) also proclaiming an imminent return with all its trimmings (resurrection, final judgment, etc).
For me, however, once I dropped inerrancy it helped things make a whole lot more sense. What I mean is, I do not hold all the New Testament authors to the same standard, as they may very well have had conflicting ideas and so I am sure that some of them did expect an imminent end of the world as we know it. Though, I strongly suspect that this was the result of a misunderstanding of the apocalyptic language Jesus used (at least it was in some early Church writings). Whereas, for someone like Paul or the author of Revelation, both of whom seem thoroughly steeped in Jewish thought, perhaps they were just wrong regarding the imminent return of Jesus and its accompaniment with the general resurrection and final judgment.
The book ends with two more chapters. The first chapter argues against various methods which have been utilized to answer the moral, theological, and ideological problems of the Bible (such as allegorical readings, canonical readings, etc). Stark thinks that instead of using these methods to sidestep the problematic texts, we should face them head on in what he labels “textual interventions.” That is to say,
In order to save such texts, they must be confronted, their troublesome nature must be truthfully characterized, and they must be branded for life. Only then will they be able to serve a useful function within the life of the community. (pg. 217)
What is the value of these problematic texts? How now shall we look at the Bible after having dropped inerrancy? That is what the final chapter seeks to answer. Instead of excising these problematic texts in a Marcionic fashion, Stark asserts that we should retain them as scripture, because to do otherwise “is to hide from ourselves a potent reminder of the worst parts of ourselves” (pg. 218). Also, he contends that the authorial intent of these problematic texts should not be allegorized or trivialized away, but that we should instead read between the lines of what they depict so that they can be accurately used as object lessons in the Christian community.
Throughout The Human Faces of God, Thom Stark skillfully makes biblical scholarship relevant to those who have not had the time or resources to study it for themselves. Yet as he points out, the findings of biblical scholarship are not exactly compatible with biblical inerrancy. Should we continue to cling fast to the modern tradition of inerrancy, or should we finally put it to rest? The latter option will no doubt be hard to those who are married to tradition and reluctant to question the status quo of orthodoxy. Ultimately, I think that all Christians who read this book will no doubt find it provocative, challenging, and perhaps ultimately beneficial to developing a deeper understanding of the Bible’s nature.
It was only relatively recently that I stop trying to make the Bible conform to the unwarranted demands of inerrancy and to just let it be what it simply is – a sacred, but also thoroughly human, text.
Well it appears Stark is at least taking the errancy issue to a higher level than Ehrman (who sounds like a whiny, imploded fundamentalist who can’t get over his past follies, as far as I can tell).
I myself am looking for something between inerrancy and the so-called ‘higher criticism’ because I think the ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ discounts the value of much 19th cent higher criticism. We have to start over without simply refunding the fallacies of Reimarus, Strauss, and Feuerbach.
In my view the possible errancy of the texts is open to discussion to believers wherever we get a ‘confused Jesus’ as a result of literal interpretation. That’s the extent of my dogmatism. I am a dogmatist when it comes to the divine-human incarnation and ascension (not so much the mateialism of ‘techniques’ like virgin birth and bodily resurrection). The human-ness of Jesus does not need to extend to human cluelessness about the will of God.
I think the true Jesus is still available to us, and represents a far greater reality than Peter could ever really have apprehended under the burden of his Jewish presuppositions.
Sounds a lot like C.S. Lewis and his ‘most embarrassing verse in the Bible’ (Matthew 24:34). I am finding more and more of those verses of late.
I am of the opinion that the partial preterist approach is the correct one when it comes to the Olivet Discourse and related verses. The problem is deciphering which portions to view as having been fulfilled in 70 C.E. and which ones have yet to be fulfilled. The only options that I have come up with so far are:
a. Adopt a full preterist hermeneutic. (which I can’t quite accept)
b. Realize that Jesus was not Omniscient and therefore could have been wrong. ( I have no problem with admitting that Jesus was fully human and therefore not omniscient, but I would think that Jesus would have simply not spoke about something that He was unsure of rather than mislead His disciples in such a critical doctrine as His second coming)
c. Accept that the Disciples got it wrong/misunderstood Him and therefore passed on erroneous information about the parousia that got inserted into the Gospel accounts.
d. There were some serious scribal errors in the Olivet discourse.
e. The dispensationalists got it right and the Great Tribulation is right around the corner.( I have serious problems with this option too)
f. There is something that none of us quite understand about what Jesus was saying here.
Let me know when you have it figured out, because I have been scratching my head for a couple of years now.
Pingback: The Human Faces of God
Digs,
Thanks so much for this great review. I’m really in your debt.
I have responded to your criticisms here: http://humanfacesofgod.com/?p=293
Even though I push back on the Olivet Discourse, don’t mistake that for ingratitude on my part. This is the right argument to be having!
Randy Olds, I challenge preterism in a chapter for my book, “The Christian Delusion.” Thom Stark said of the case I made that it “cannot be ignored by Christians” (footnote 15, p. 168). You ought also read Ed Adams’s book “The Stars Will Fall From Heavens.”
Well, speaking of whiny, imploded fundamentalists! Mr. Loftus, I have only been to your blog a few times and have not read your book, but I really have a problem with your thoroughly negative assessment of everything Chri … (wait, until the day comes when I can budget time to pay attention to you, I am obviously not qualified to say anything more).
John Anngeister what evidence do you have that I’m a whiny, imploded fundamentalists? Sound to me like you have a habit of believing things without evidence, and I find that quite interesting. Carry on then. Don’t let me stop you.
Cheers.
Very sorry if I’m wrong but I’m almost sure I read in your blog that you originated in one of the inerrancy cults.
By ‘imploded fundamentalist’ I mean one whose religious attitude self-destructed when their theology crumbled. I think it were better if these new kinds of atheists had found it within themselves to re-construct their theology. The fact that so many fail to re-construct is I think only another indication of how bad fundamentalism is as a system.
So if I am wrong about Loftus, I am again very sorry, but I want at least to avoid being misunderstood in my giving a name to this phenomenon.
John Anngeister, I was a liberal for about six years, then became an agnostic for six more years before becoming an atheist, an agnostic atheist. I studied with liberal Catholic scholars at Marquette University for a PhD program in theology. So I do understand liberals enough to criticize then. It’s just that my target is the conservatives for strategic reasons.
For future reference John here is a review I did of Karen Armstrong’s book published in Philosophy Now magazine:
http://www.philosophynow.org/issue81/81loftus.htm
Here is a series of posts about John F. Haught’s book (and his response):
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/john-f-haught-responds-to-my-review-of.html
And here is where I criticize Cheryl Exum and Dennis MacDonald at last years Annual SBL meeting (toward the ending):
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/11/my-comments-at-sbl-today.html
Cheers.
Oh, one other thing. Do not think this of Bart Ehrman either, or Robert M. Price or Hector Avalos or Dan Barker or Ed Babinski or the former Christians who write in my books. We know about liberalism. We just reject it too. Ask us. We’ll tell you why it is wrongheaded. I plan on writing a review of Thom Stark’s book and will point this out one more time.
Hi John,
I’ve dropped by your blog a few times and have found a number of entries of interest. A couple of posts that I found of interest were earlier this year on the Christian doctrines concerning Hell of which I am engaged in a very lengthy blog series
.
I found your post about Tertullians views on Hell as well as Shelby Sprong’s video of good use. I drop in from time to time to see what you are discussing, and although I don’t always agree I do appreciate your perspective from time to time.
As to your book, I may get to it one day. I currently have about two years worth of reading materials in my Amazon wishlist. Perhaps I’ll get to your book one day. I consider myself a follower of Christ and concur with the basic claims of my faith, however I do not fear taking critical looks at my faith.
Randy Olds
Randy, thanks for your kind note. Your discussion of hell seem quite extensive. I’ll have to do more than skim it like I just did. I stood in hell when I visited Israel in 1989.
I envy you for your experience in hell. My research into the Valley of Hinnom would have been much easier if I had the opportunity to spend a few weeks in the area. There are some seemingly unsubstantiated claims regarding the origins of the use of Gehenna that I would like to get to the bottom of and a trip to Jerusalem would be helpful.
Randy, when I was there it was a garbage dump and there were plenty of fires and smoke. It looked as if it was that way for years but then I didn’t think to second guess it.
And I will of course write a response, John.
Pingback: What do Christian theologies look like without an inerrant Bible? « Next Theology
Thom’s insistence that Jesus predicted an imminent return is something I heartily applaud. In this regard, he follows in the notable footsteps of Albert Schweitzer. Indeed, they are both very much on point here as the entire New Testament bears overwhelmingly witness to this prediction.
However, they both err by viewing the prophecies through the flesh and not the spirit – a paradigm shift that you see urged first by Jesus and subsequently by the apostles.
The kingdom of God came first in the singular earthly life of Jesus. It came subsequently on the clouds of heaven and has been present with us ever since. To the degree that we seek it instead of church and other things, we shall find it.
I of course respond to the preterist position also, Mike. The text doesn’t allow for a preterist reading, as I’ve argued at length, though preterists like yourself will no doubt demur. I used to be a preterist, until I began to study Second Temple apocalyptic Judaism and realized that preterism doesn’t fit. It’s a later construct developed for apologetic purposes. Once again I’ll say it: until you actually read the book, you’re not actually going to be addressing my actual arguments. Actually.
Thom, let me see if I have this straight: until I actually read your book, I’m not actually going to be addressing your actual arguments. However, you can dismiss my arguments without having read my book?
My book on the Second Coming is at http://bit.ly/fuuGkM
Just because it sounds “preterist” to you doesn’t mean that you actually know and understand its arguments, anymore than someone who thinks your position is “liberal” will actually know and understand your arguments. Actually.
Mike,
I wasn’t aware you’d written a book on the Second Coming. So your attempt to paint me as a hypocrite is disingenuous.
As it happens, I’ve read your unpublished book on universalism, and I must say it was riddled with fundamental problems based on an apparent lack of familiarity with mainstream biblical and ANE scholarship.
Honestly, as I’ve said multiple times now on Steve’s blog, I don’t believe your engaging my book is going to be fruitful for either of us, so feel free to let it go at your pleasure.
Thom,
I’m amazed that you would write the kind of book you did and yet recoil at any reasonable engagement on the subject. Even the comment you made about my book was no engagement at all. You merely opined that it didn’t comport with your idea of mainstream scholarship.
Out of deference to your wishes, I will try to keep in mind your distaste for challenge. However, I cannot promise that I will always remain silent when you use public venues to undermine the reliability of the Scriptures with your book or comments.
Jesus Christ is Lord, and it is the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles that tell the truth about Him. There is more to understanding the Bible than what you’ve found in the Fundamentalism you’ve left or the Liberalism (or whatever other label you want to attach to it) you’ve embraced. I pray you find it…for He can make a world of difference.
The comment I made on your book was charitable. But nothing in your book (on universalism) posed a challenge to anything we’ve been discussing, so your claim that I have a “distaste for challenge” is as amusing as it is demonstrably wrong. This will be my last attempt at communication with you.
I wish you all the best.
Kevin,
I have since read Thom’s book and written a 12-part review of it. I’ve notified Thom as well.
The review begins at http://wp.me/p1eZz8-vI
Holy moly, Mike, all that time spent writing those reviews you could have done something more productive, like snorting cocaine. Just saying Thomas is wrong over and over isn’t an argument.
Ah, but when he is wrong over and over, it is a duty to say so.
As for my arguments, they are there. It just sounds like you don’t like them. I don’t imagine Thom does either.
While Thom is deft with a pen, it was tedious to read him because he incessantly flogs dead horses in pursuit of his lost cause. A measure of that tedium surely bleeds through to any review of his book.