Well done to Ben Witherington for writing this response to ideas put forward in past books, and recently made widely known through the best-seller - The Da Vinci Code. Having read many of these - I would offer the following (naturally subjective) appraisal.
One of the things you learn early on, when studying 1st century Christianity, is that no one seems to agree with anyone else. Theories abound, some put forward as theories, some as fact - and there is always someone out there who can claim to be able to disprove these. I was delighted that an established theologian has produced a response to the issues raised in Dan Brown's book. I approach the subject as a Christian, but also as a part-time historian, and recognise the fact that this area of history is nearly unique, in that no one can really write about it from an objective viewpoint. Ben Witherington's book starts off well - logically and convincingly refuting many of the claims made. Where he started to lose me, however, was about two-thirds of the way in, when his own, highly subjective beliefs tended to be increasingly intrusive - more so than I have found in any of his other writings. I appreciated the first part of the book, but by the end was saying to myself "he's missed the point." There was a long discussion towards the end on the use of "Father" in the old and new testaments when referring to God - in a response to feminist claims of the patriarchal leanings of the Scriptures. From my own point of view, this argument isn't so much about the use of the word "Father" - but that all the main players - Father, Son and 12 disciples - were men. I don't have a problem with the Father and the Son aspects - but do with ALL 12 disciples, as I was taught, being male. I realised from an early age, that something wasn't quite right - and Ben Witherington briefly alludes to the possibility that the writings were "adjusted" to a more patriarchal world view. Yes - information on the role of women in the ministry is there, but it was never overtly brought to light in the standard teachings of the church, and you do have to dig down to find it. And as women were the largest oppressed group at the time (and still are), their lack of presence stands out in this narrative of one who fought for all the oppressed - thus ... something's wrong.
I believe that much of the revisionist and fringe writings that have been produced over the last couple of decades, are in response to the "something's not quite right", feeling. When human's know something is missing, they have a tendency to try to fill in the gaps - and this is the real point.
In fact, once you start to strip away the man-made layers of aspects of faith and dogma, which have built up over the centuries - you find in the Gospels something that is very right. No one can do this, however, by listening to one person, or even two. Ben Witherington appears to put forward the view that we should seek the answers purely from the writings of the Gospels - that ideas about finding them inside ourselves are wrong. I can't agree with this - as surely it is listening to men telling us what the Scriptures mean, spinning their own interpretations, that has led the Church into the difficulties it faces today, and led many to searching for answers outside the orthodox views. My approach has always been a mixture of common sense, logic, and gut feeling - all of which come from inside. The message of Christianity is very, very simple, and yes, it is there, in plain sight in the Gospels. I sometimes feel it has almost been studied and analysed to death, and entangled with the complexities of biography, political and social agendas, the history of the time and the 2 thousand years since, and finally the whims of translators - who are affected by all of the above.
I give this book 4 stars - it is well written, well argued, and answers many questions - and who knows, may be he's right in his outlook? I do wish, however, that the author had managed to stay on track, and been a little less evangelistic towards the end, regarding his own world views.
(Rating 4 of 5)
