A little quiz for Richard Dawkins, super-duper Scripture scholar

You may have heard that the illustrious Scripture scholar, Richard Dawkins (also known in some circles as Richard Dawkins, bedazzling philosopher, ahem), recently pronounced the following finding, based on years of, well, being a humility-challenged atheist:

"Jesus was a great moral teacher," Dawkins said. "Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist if he had known what we know today."

That's surely debatable, especially since it's not evident in the least that the sinless Son of God would be willing to sacrifice his perfect humility for a pot of prideful porridge made by the preening professor (Quick! Say that ten times, very quickly: "A pot of prideful porridge made by the preening professor".)

William Oddie remarks in The Catholic Herald about Dawkins' most recent statement:

I love this kind of thing; I have a taste for the grotesque. Here is Jesus, a “moral teacher”, the authority of whose entire teaching derived, from the beginning, from the fact that he didn’t just believe in the existence of God the Father as a kind of add-on, compulsory at the time, but from the fact that he Himself and the Father were one: and Dawkins says that if Jesus had only known what we know today, he would have been an atheist. Of course, he is well aware of the “oxymoronic” nature of his statement; as he explained in an essaywritten in 2006, “In a society where the majority of theists are at least nominally Christian, the two words are treated as near synonyms. Bertrand Russell’s famous advocacy of atheism was called Why I am not a Christian rather than, as it probably should have been, Why I am not a theist. All Christians are theists, it seems to go without saying.” (He later points to the example of an atheist bishop, the former Anglican Bishop of Edinburgh, Richard Holloway, to prove that it ain’t necessarily so, though the preposterous Holloway describes himself as a “post-Christian”, even as a “recovering Chistian”).

Oddie points to a 2006 essay by Dawkins in which the British biologist/Biblical scholar wrote the following:

Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was. Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus. What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh's vengeful nastiness. At least in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him.

I did a search for "niceness" and "nice" in various translations of the Bible, but couldn't find any examples. However, a search for "kindness" did turn up several results, including:

• "He who withholds kindness from a friend forsakes the fear of the Almighty."
• "He who pursues righteousness and kindness will find life and honor."
• "He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
• ""Thus says the LORD of hosts, Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy each to his brother..."

Of course, those are from the lips of Jesus, who—uh, no, wait a second. Actually, those are from the Old Testament: Job 6:14, Proverbs 21:21, Micah 6:8; and Zechariah. 7:9, respectively. And, to take just one of many possible examples, here is an example of the "Sharia-like" utterances found in the Pentateuch:

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him and cleave to him, and by his name you shall swear. (Deut. 10:17-20)

Granted, the phrase "fear of the Lord" (and variations thereof) usually causes a knee-jerk reaction among those who immediately think of the "Old Testament God" as a hulking, angry spirit-being who simpy cannot wait to destroy, pillage, and otherwise do away with everything and everyone in sight. Yet this fear of the Lord is closely connected in the Old Testament (and the New, as well) with a true and abiding love of the Lord. A foundational text is Deuteronomy 6, in which the Hebrews are told three times to “fear the Lord your God” (Dt 6:2, 13, 24), but are also commanded to love the one true God: “… and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (Dt 6:5). This loving fear of God is also closely intertwined with wisdom—“Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov 1:7) and with true life—“The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life” (Prov 14:27; cf. Prov 19:23). It is, as a note in the New American Bible explains (Prov. 1:7), this fear is “primarily a disposition rather than the emotion of fear; reverential awe and respect toward God combined with obedience to God’s will.”

But, I slightly digress. I actually wanted to re-present a little quiz I first posted a few months ago in response to the claim that hell is an Old Testament idea and that the tolerant, loving Jesus would have no part of it. In fact, in that same post, I mentioned Dawkins:

The ol' "nasty God of the OT vs. the non-judgmental Jesus of the NT" is common fare among skeptics, liberals, and people who never read the Bible, which includes, alas, a lot of self-described Christians.

One of the more memorable instances of this is the description by atheist Richard Dawkins in his best-selling book The God Delusion of the God of the Old Testament as “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” As I wrote in one of my "Opening the Word" columns, "That remark indicates far more familiarity with the dictionary than with the Bible." To make this point, here's a quick quiz: which of the following statements is made by or about God in the OT and which were made by or about Jesus in the Gospels?

1. "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire."

2. "But thou, O Lord, art a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness."

3. "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell..."

4. "Light rises in the darkness for the upright; the LORD is gracious, merciful, and righteous."

5. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell..."

6. "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness..."

7. "And you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."

8. "I will recount the steadfast love of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD has granted us, and the great goodness to the house of Israel which he has granted them according to his mercy, according to the abundance of his steadfast love."

9."There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out."

10. "Nevertheless in thy great mercies thou didst not make an end of them or forsake them; for thou art a gracious and merciful God."

Yep, you guessed it: 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are statements made by Jesus in the Gospels, and 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are statements by or about God found in the Old Testament. The basic point is that both the Old and New Testaments speak of judgment and mercy, punishment and love, communion with God and separation from God. And the word "hell" is just one way of describing or referring to eternal separation from the presence, life, and love of God, just as "heaven" is one of many ways to refer to everlasting communion with God. While the Old Testament does not contain the word "hell", it most certainly describes the painful, everlasting punishment that comes upon those who rebel against God and reject his commandments.

Now, there is no doubt that Jesus interpreted and understood the Law and the Prophets in ways that were viewed as radical or unsettling by his first-century Jewish audiences. But—and this is crucial—it wasn't because he "publicly advocated niceness" or rebelled against the "Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac"; on the contrary, he said, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and he also made the startling claim, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am", thus claiming divinity and aligning himself fully with the afore-mentioned "Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac".

The key point is this: the radical and startling nature of Jesus' statements about the Law and Prophets is rooted in his clear claim to be the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets, his insistence that he was the definitive and final interpreter of the same; and his belief, in sum, that he was, in his very person, the New Law and the final and great Prophet promised by Moses. In other words, the "interesting and remarkable about Jesus" was not that he rebelled against aspects or characteristics of Yahweh (since he didn't), but that he claimed to be one with Yahweh, who he addressed as "Abba": "I and the Father are one" (Jn. 10:30). And the reaction to such words?

The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?" The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God." (Jn. 10:31-33)

Those angry Jewish scholars and religious leaders, in other words, understood Jesus far better than the learned Prof. Dawkins. Let's put it this way: if Jesus had been a mere mortal and a mere moral teacher, we would not know of him today. Christianity would not exist. Period. He would have died, and his little band of followers would have dispersed. End of story. The question is: why didn't that happen? But I'm sure that is something that Richard Dawkins, preeminant historian, will address soon enough.

• Professor Dawkins and the Origins of Religion | Thomas Crean, O.P. | From God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins
• Dawkins' Delusions | An interview with Fr. Thomas Crean, O.P., author of God Is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins 

Comments

[Jeff Grace]

Good job, Carl! Dawkins' hubris seems to be growing faster than his bitterness... but I'll claim agnosticism on the subject. :) It's simply mind-boggling that he'd have admiration and good things to say about Jesus (in his own twisted way) yet at the same time be totally ignorant of the fact that, without the Church, he wouldn't have any idea who Jesus was. Kinda like praising a cure for a disease while trashing medicine and science. :)

[Peter l]

There is nothing wrong questioning whether God exists or not,lets face it we all have done it.Dawkin's will never find the truth because he has convinced himself and dare i say others as well that he is the "Truth".Someone else once said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

Sorry MR Dawkin's,you are not the truth.

Good post as usual,Carl.

[beng]

WHAT IN THE WORLD???!! THE DUDE IS OUT OF HIS MIND??!

He's a sensationalist.

That quote must be amongst the top ten dumbest quote ever in the history of the world.

[Tony]

I agree with your emphasis on Christ's "clear claim to be the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets" in response to Dawkins' apparent claim about the actual content of his teaching. But isn't Dawkins really arguing that Christ's divinity claim was either (1) nothing more than a theist trying to come to (traditional) terms with his religious/moral/political genius, or (2) just a deceptive but necessary strategy (since theism was in the air) for promulgating his moral teaching. For Dawkins, no great teacher of any kind could be a theist today because the ground for moral persuasion has apparently shifted (and no one would believe in the miracles).

Was Muhammad a "mere mortal"? We know about him today. It's possible that what a Christian thinks about Muhammad is very much like what Dawkins thinks about Christ (though, of course, the content of the teaching is different).

[Carl E. Olson]

Tony: All of this still comes back to my concluding argument, which is that a distinctive feature of Jesus' teaching is the claim to divinity/oneness with the Father/complete authority over the Law (itself a strong claim to divinity). Muhammad never claimed to be divine, nor did he ever say, "I and Allah are one"; in fact, such a statement would be considered an abomination by Muslims.

If Jesus were "nothing more than a theist trying to come to (traditional) terms with his religious/moral/political genius", then we should ask, "What, exactly, does that genius consist of?" To say, as Dawkins indicates, that it was in "being nice" and rejecting the more perplexing aspects of God's actions/words in the Old Testament is a decidedly shallow reading of both the OT and the Gospels. Dawkins would do well to read some of N.T. Wright's books that address all of this in detail, such as Jesus and the Victory of God.

The same goes for point #2, which again goes back to my concluding remarks: the Enlightenment-era attempt to separate Jesus the "moral teacher" from Jesus the Christ/Incarnate Word/Son of God ultimately ends in frustration, for it empties the actions and words of Jesus of their meaning by avoiding his insistence, to put it awkwardly but directly, that He is the essence and means of his moral teaching—for example, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (Jn 14:6). Buddha and Muhammad, to take two big examples, articulated teaching and/or revelation that does not rely, in the end, on who they are (mortal messengers/teachers). The same cannot be said for Jesus. To separate the content of the teaching from the claims of the Teacher is to destroy the teaching.

[Jeff Grace]

Tony's comments made me realize something. Dawkins has done nothing more nor less than what many modern "Jesus scholars" have done: Revisioned Jesus in his own image. If Jesus were alive today, says Dawkins, why he'd think about religion and God just like I do. And we all know what a genius Dawkins is... (cough cough).

[Carl E. Olson]

Exactly, Jeff. Albert Schweitzer, in the opening pages of The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906), wrote, “And so each subsequent epoch in theology found its own ideas in Jesus, and could find no other way of bringing him to life. Not only epochs found themselves in him. Each individual recreated him in the image of his own personality.” Bingo!

[David K. Monroe]

Isn't it funny how nearly everyone - even those most inimical to everything Jesus said, taught, and represents, feels compelled to insist that the REAL Jesus actually agrees with and affirms them?

Is there any other figure - historical, religious, or otherwise - that people of so many disparate allegiences feel so compelled to claim as their compatriot?

[Tom Hockel]

Well done, Carl!

[Carl E. Olson]

Thanks, Tom!

[Manwe]

Excellent point David K. Monroe! That pretty much wraps it up in a nutshell.

[Manwe]

Ah, Dawkins is at it again I see. But this 'Jesus thing' of his is not new (though the quote is), he has been saying stupid things like this for years. He has been an "Atheist for Jesus" for sometime now. Maybe his problem is that he actually likes Jesus (he was brought up an Anglican I believe), and thus he tries to reconcile his like of Jesus with his very anti-religious worldview. Who knows?

[Eamonn Gaines]

"A pot of prideful porridge made by the preening professor" might perhaps be better expressed as:
A pot of prideful porridge prepared by the preening professor! The more alliteration the merrier I say!

[Pelegrinus]

Every time we have discussion of Dawkins and Jesus, please start and end with our Lord's instruction: Pray for Richard, who believes himself to be our enemy. Pray for him seventy times seven times. Pray for him without ceasing.

[web development Florida, web design California]

It's simply mind-boggling that he'd have admiration and good things to say about Jesus (in his own twisted way) yet at the same time be totally ignorant of the fact that, without the Church, he wouldn't have any idea who Jesus was. Kinda like praising a cure for a disease while trashing medicine and science.

[Alecto]

There is only one way to deal with a Richard Dawkins...storm heaven with prayers for his conversion before he dies and finds out how wrong he is.

[Alecto]

One more point. I think everyone knows the Fatima prayer we all say with the rosary? O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those in the greatest need of Thy mercy? Well, I think the BVM gave that prayer to the Fatima children for the Richard Dawkins of the world! He needs mercy and prayers, and correction with kindness.

[Rooster]

Dawkins proposes the impossible: Jesus IS the Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6) Please, Dick, explain how He could not believe in Himself.

[enness]

...whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire."

Funny you should use that one...this alone is causing me to exercise restraint in what I might otherwise say about such a fine example of second-rate pseudoscholarship.

[Psalm 63]

MR. Dawkins is such great comic relief. I do believe that his statement, ""Somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist if he had known what we know today." will go down in the annals of (or anals) of history as one of the most idiotic statements ever made, hence one of the funniest. Mr. Dawkins has been carrying the enemys books for so long that he can no longer write or speak coherently. He has been coopted by the other side, which if Jesus isn't God, Satan isn't the devil. We know the truth, but that has escaped Mr. Dawkins. Only one who has a relationship with Jesus now can understand the bible, so let us not be too harsh on Dawkins. He has not been given that gift or grace that allows one to read the bible and understand it. Maybe he could start with short works by Clement or read the Didache or Justin Martyr. Something he could maybe get the idea of just by reading the words. In time, he could work himself up to the psalms maybe. Not too quickly as they are very powerful. I will pray for him. I hate to see anyone destined for hell, especially when they don't believe. Can you imagine the shock factor there? Wow. So, Let's all pray he lives a long life, long enough for him to answer the door.

[John Dunn]

I have maintained for some time that Dawkins would eviscerate someone as ignorant of biology as he is of theology. But apparently different rules apply, depending on who is conducting the argument. Dawkins? Well, in that case, his ignorance is not important, as theology is nothing but nonsense and who needs to argue with nonsense. (Making wonder why Dawkins is ferocious an atheist.) But if an opponent were to argue with Dawkins on biological grounds, you can bet that Dawkins would want to see his opponents cred's.

[Gabriel Austin]

Why do people continue to fret about Richard Dawkins? Mary Midgley disposed of his arguments and then refused to continue to argue with him. "It would be breaking a butterfly upon the wheel". Dawkins complained that she wasn't being nice.

[Carl E. Olson]

Gabriel: Fisking is not fretting. Besides, a ridiculous number of people apparently still think highly of Dawkins' pronouncements, so ripping his silly words to shreds in the streets isn't an altogether meaningless hobby.