Martin Urban (1)

Urban is not a theologian. He is an author who tries to make recent findings in various fields accessable to the public. This is a high purpose, but there are traps there for the unwary, and he falls into most of them.

First, he writes as a Lutheran, and barely seems aware of other points of view except when repeating arguments against Roman Catholicism. He even insists on using the 1984 update of the Luther Bible for all his quotes. Now there could be arguments for also quoting the Luther translation when talking about sayings that have become German idioms, but for making the text understandable there are many recent, clear translations. Using this outdated one is a sign that he is really only interested in reaching traditional Lutherans. And if he can't say anything nice about the Catholics he shouldn't mention them at all.

Second, he relys on a few authors and writes as though their positions are certain. He also ignores the nuances in their positions and turns them into sound bites. A certain amount of this is to be expected in any popularization, but he goes way over the line of what I consider acceptable.

Third, he should have found an informed copy editor. Bad mistakes slipped in in a few places. Yes, if Matthew was written in the 80s, it was written over half a century after Jesus' death, but not very much over half a century. (p. 195) Mark didn't use 'Q'. That is part of the definition of 'Q'. (p. 204) This sort of thing makes me suspicious of everything else he writes.

Fourth, there is no context to much of what he writes. Minor (but fun) details are given long background information, but important issues are given only a sentence or two, and the background is ignored.

As he follows the influence of the Bible up to the present day he finds more and more reason to ridicule the beliefs of others. That he includes Luther at times does not make this acceptable. It is obvious that he knows little of the various groups except that he thinks them ridiculous. While I often agree in general with his aesthetic judgements, I find his tone unacceptable, especially when he at the same time shows his ignorance of the groups involved. (For example throwing all pentecostal and charismatic groups into one page as though they all teach the same things. Also using only Paul's negative comments about speaking in tongues, and not his positive ones.)

Informed readers won't learn from this book. Others will end up exchanging uninformed for misinformed.… (mais)