[Title Page]

A Lexical Analysis of “Fundamentalist” in Ehrman’s HoPo Piece

by Charles Halton

Submitted to the Faculty of the Blogosophere

In partial fulfillment of my blogging duties

[Body]

Introduction

The term “fundamentalist” appears twice in Bart Ehrman’s recent piece in the Huffington Post.¹ Even though he only uses the term twice, it is pivotal for his purpose in writing. Ehrman contrasts his view of peudepigraphical writing to that of “the fundamentalists.” In order to understand who comprises this elusive group and how Ehrman conceives of it, a thorough lexical analysis is in order.

Historical-Etymological History of “Fundamentalist”

The historical and etymological history of the term, “fundamentalist,” has been charted before so a only a brief survey is in order.² As Robert Glass outlines, Curtis Lee Laws  “coined the term ‘fundamentalist’ to denote the party within the Northern Baptist denomination that sought to reaffirm the core of Christian orthodoxy while resisting control by theological liberals of their Church.”³ Therefore, word originally referred to those that adhered to the so-called “fundamentals” of the Christian faith as identified by conservative religionists.

As we all know, later usages often stray far from a word’s original etymological origin and so it is with “fundamentalist.” While this word originally referred to Christians who were devoted to certain traditional doctrinal confessions such as the historical resurrection of Jesus, “fundamentalist” gained a larger semantic range within common usage. No longer do people employ the term to designate Christians but also Muslims⁴ and Jews.⁵ As the word has expanded to include other faith communities it nonetheless has retained some of its original connotation since it is associated with conservative groups that adhere to more traditional formulations of their respective religions. However, within more popular use and journalistic reportage “fundamentalist” often carries an added patina of violent and extremist tendencies.⁶

Not only is the term “fundamentalist” used to connote a particular ideological position but it is often used for rhetorical effect as a slur. Alvin Plantinga provides a memorable treatment of this term that is on par in its combination of wit and lexical dexterity as Harry Frankfurter’s most famous lexical exploration:⁷

On the most common contemporary academic use of the term, it is a term of abuse or disapprobation, rather like ‘son of a bitch’, more exactly ‘sonovabitch’, or perhaps still more exactly (at least according to those authorities who look to the Old West as normative on matters of pronunciation) ‘sumbitch’. When the term is used in this way, no definition of it is ordinarily given. (If you called someone a sumbitch, would you feel obliged first to define the term?) Still, there is a bit more to the meaning of ‘fundamentalist’ (in this widely current use): it isn’t simply a term of abuse. In addition to its emotive force, it does have some cognitive content, and ordinarily denotes relatively conservative theological views. That makes it more like ‘stupid sumbitch’ (or maybe ‘fascist sumbitch’?) than ‘sumbitch’ simpliciter. It isn’t exactly like that term either, however, because its cognitive content can expand and contract on demand; its content seems to depend on who is using it. In the mouths of certain liberal theologians, for example, it tends to denote any who accept traditional Christianity, including Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Barth; in the mouths of devout secularists like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, it tends to denote anyone who believes there is such a person as God. The explanation is that the term has a certain indexical element: its cognitive content is given by the phrase ‘considerably to the right, theologically speaking, of me and my enlightened friends.’ The full meaning of the term, therefore (in this use), can be given by something like ‘stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine’.⁸

So, we have seen that the term, “fundamentalist,” can refer to a traditionalist Christian, a conservative Jew, a violent Muslim, or a stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine.

Ehrman’s Use of “Fundamentalist”

Now we move to consider the precise meaning of “fundamentalist” within Bart Ehrman’s HoPo piece. The first appearance of the word is in the very first sentence:

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors — a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place.

There are several elements in this sentence that shed light on Ehrman’s usage: 1) rabid is normally a term with a negative connotation (e.g. a rabid dog) and 2) these “fundamentalists” are implied to believe in a literalistic interpretation of the creation story [sic]. Accordingly, the first usage should be regarded as rhetorically charged and implying that those that make up this group are inept at genre detection and interpretation.

On the surface, Ehrman’s second use of “fundamentalist” appears different from the first:

But scholars everywhere — except for our friends among the fundamentalists — will tell you that there is no way on God’s green earth that Peter wrote the book.

At first glance, it seems that Ehrman has a positive regard for fundamentalists. After all, he calls them “our friends.” Yet, other elements hint at a different interpretation. For example, he invokes the universal witness of “scholars everywhere” to buttress his position which he contrasts with “our friends among the fundamentalists.” He follows this with a rather sarcastic statement (particularly for an agnostic to use such a theologically charged idiom) to indicate the far fetchedness of the position to which the “fundamentalists” cling. Therefore, it seems that the use of “our friends among the fundamentalists” is a patronizing reference.

Lastly, a brief bio at the end of the piece includes the statement:

His latest book, ‘Forged: Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are’, is now available from HarperOne.

The fact that Ehrman wrote this piece to coincide with the release of a new book that sensationalizes generations-old ideas within biblical studies gives insight into his use of “fundamentalist.”

Since the presumed purpose of writing behind this piece is to stir up media attention and spur book sales (and nothing does this better than to rile up the easy and politically acceptable target that is religious conservatives) it seems that Ehrman uses “fundamentalist” to construct an ideological opponent that he can then demolish. However, his rhetorical usages suggest that Plantinga’s definition “stupid sumbitch whose theological opinions are considerably to the right of mine” is the specific meaning in play here. Furthermore, since few would self-identify as “stupid” and we can always find someone whose theological opinions are to the right of us, then the group to which Ehrman refers must be small indeed.

Conclusion

In light of Ehrman’s use of the term “fundamentalist” as “that incredibly small group of people who know that they are stupid sumbitches of whom there is no one to the theological right” this author wonders if the opponents that Ehrman has created as his rhetorical opposite really exist in sizable number since the other groups within the semantic range of “fundamentalist”–traditionalist Christians, conservative Jews, and violent Muslims–are not intended. In other words, instead of a discussion that mainstream thinking people are engaged with, it seems that Ehrman’s camp and the ideological opponents that he constructs comprise merely a tiny handful of people at the very periphery of theological discourse. With this in mind, how is he going to sell any books?

(NB: This has been a parody of the genre of a second year seminary lexical assignment, Bart Ehrman, and probably many other things as well. So, read it with a grain (or, better yet, a jar) of salt. As I am a connoisseur of all things parody and satire, feel free to parody, pillory, or spoof me in the comments.)

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html [back]
2. George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). [back]
3. Strangers in Zion: Fundamentalists in the South, 1900-1950 (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2001), xii. [back]
4. Youseff Choueiri, Islamic Fundamentalism (London: Continuum, 1997). [back]
5. Motti Inbari, Jewish Fundamentalism and the Temple Mount (Albany: SUNY, 2009). [back]
6. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/europe/31dagestan.html [back]
7. On Bullshit (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005). [back]
8. Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 245. [back]