Armstrong 8-9

Perhaps this is where the baggage comes in...

I'm not sure if I just didn't notice it before when Armstrong is describing stories and happenings from the Old Testament writings, but I was really struck while reading Chapter 8 how she treats the New Testament, especially the gospels. I can certainly sympathize with people who do not believe that any of the Bible is inspired or comes from God (most people don't), but Armstrong's diction caught me off guard. To me, Armstrong's bias showed through undeniably. She writes, "Matthew makes Jesus describe the catastrophe..." (160), "[John] makes Jesus go to Jerusalem" (160), and "Luke makes his hero Paul very respectful" (159), among other examples. Even when reading about fiction novels, I have never seen anyone describe an author as making one of their characters do anything. Perhaps I'm reading too far into it, but Armstrong's word choice communicates to me that she views these stories as completely contrived with no basis in history. Again, I understand that she is attempting to write without a religious bias, but she doesn't even seem to treat the gospels like they could have any historical merit.

I have the same problem with how she describes Matthew, Luke, and John's perspectives. She ascribes to each of them a certain like or dislike of the Jews and Jerusalem based on what's presented in their accounts of Jesus' life. I believe, however, that she is attributing way too much opinion to authors who attempted to record what they actually saw. Of course everyone has a bias and the authors certainly had to choose which events to include in their narratives, but to say that "Matthew and John, however, were far less positive about either Jerusalem or the Jewish people [in comparison to Luke]" (160) is simply unfair. In my opinion, it would be more appropriate to describe how each of the gospels differs and the perspectives that they give, rather than attribute such opinions to the men who wrote them (especially because so little is known about these me).

I just think that Armstrong has a shallow view of the perspective on Jews and Judaism presented in the Bible. Again, I can understand that the perspective would certainly be different depending on whether one views the Bible as only a collection of works from different people or a body of work all inspired by the same God. But if one takes the Bible as a whole, it is not difficult to see its perspective on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Armstrong does mention that Christianity is essentially the fulfillment of Judaism, which is true. But she leaves out verses like Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Also, I came across this verse the other day and thought it really applied to this class, and especially the theme of this response. Paul is describing the relationship between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians and says, "For He Himself [Jesus] is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity" (Ephesians 2:14-16). These verses (along with Galatians from above) illustrate that Christianity is able to look beyond all former religious persuasions, class, culture, race, and gender, and unite people in Christ. As I read these verses in Ephesians I was blown away by how radical this is- thinking about the nature of the conflict between Jews and Gentiles at the time it was written. I admit it... I'm somewhat of an idealist... but I couldn't help but think about the conflict in Jerusalem and how, if these ideas from Paul are really true, what an impact they could have.

Anyways.... I've gone on long enough. Food for thought though...