I know, the debate over Bart Ehrman's
Did Jesus Exist? is starting to go stale. But there's
one further review out of MIT that's worth pointing to.
Bart D. Ehrman, a highly respected New Testament scholar, has taken on
the challenge of defending the mainstream view on the historical Jesus
from the seditious attacks from “mythicists,” new and old. In his new
book, Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman sets out to provide that single,
coherent theory in favor of Jesus’ historicity. Which he does, with less
than spectacular results.
Ehrman opens his argument by claiming that the question of Jesus’
historicity is all but settled from the start, since to his knowledge no
serious scholar — now or in the past — has ever doubted the existence
of the historical Jesus. By serious scholar, Ehrman means one holding a
PhD (exit Doherty) and currently tenured in the field of New Testament
studies (exit Carrier). The only bona fide exception Ehrman allows seems
to be Robert Price (The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, 2003).
Ehrman seems to have no problem with the possibility that holding a
counter-mainstream view may affect a scholar’s chances for obtaining
tenure in the first place.
And the concluding paragraph.
 |
| Nothing pale about this version |
The historical Jesus that emerges from Ehrman’s mainstream defense is a
purely human, miracle-free Jewish male with a very common name living in
first century Palestine, who after an unremarkable youth went on to
teach things that many others had taught before; one more apocalyptic
preacher, among many others at the time, whose predictions were proven
wrong within a generation; one more “troublemaker” crucified like
countless others by the Romans after a drive-thru trial during the
Pilate administration. Being such, the Jesus that can be reconstructed
from history with any certainty is, for all practical purposes, as
irrelevant as the mythical one, effectively shrinking the debate on his
existence from a grandiose quest with theological implications to an
inconsequential and endless exercise in academic hair-splitting.
A pale Galilean indeed. The more traditional make-believe, tutti-frutti flavoured saviour is much more fun.
'The historical Jesus that emerges from Ehrman’s mainstream defense is a purely human, miracle-free Jewish male with a very common name living in first century Palestine, who after an unremarkable youth went on to teach things that many others had taught before; one more apocalyptic preacher, among many others at the time, whose predictions were proven wrong within a generation; one more “troublemaker” crucified like countless others by the Romans after a drive-thru trial during the Pilate administration.'
ReplyDeleteSo why did the very early Christians claim him to be God's agent, through whom the world was created and through whom they all lived?
Did Bart explain?
Jesus is not human. A human is not revealed in vision by revelation from God as Jesus was to Paul. Not only to Paul but to the apostles too.
ReplyDeleteThese are con-men pretending to have heavenly visions. By performing the phenomenon known as "speaking in tongues" or glossolalia, people believe that they actually are receiving a heavenly gift of tongues.
I imagine some were very disappointed that the didn't also have visions of Jesus. But, perhaps a bunch of people did (1 Cor. 15) or at least pretended to have a vision. However, they all spoke in "tongues", like some Pentecostal churches do today. So, it's not a lost art yet and it is still seen as evidence of receiving the holy spirit.
And, every now and then, there will be someone who, like Joan of Arc, has a heavenly vision of the virgin Mary or of Jesus.
People's minds are susceptible to such things and it is a conman's playground.
Gal. 1:19 could mean a lot more than James being the brother of Jesus. After all, it doesn't say "brother of Jesus" it says "the brother of the lord". For all we know, the verse didn't even exist until after Marcion. Or, it may have even said "James, the brother of John" in the original letter. Who knows? There was so much forgery and editing going on that there is no way to tell.
Since VISIONS had such a key role in the genesis of the Christian cultus, I must now obtain Allegro's "Sacred Mushroom and the Cross". He may have solved the Jesus Mystery.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Mushroom-Cross-Christianity/dp/0982556276/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334140652&sr=1-1
Min, you're joking, right?
ReplyDeleteNo, I really think Paul may have had some help from toxic fungi for his 'Trip(s)' to the "3rd Heaven" . Anyway, the book is still available for $20 so I think it's a must-have.
ReplyDeleteAllegro was an adamant mythicist by the late 60s, before it was fashionable. A very qualified scholar despite modern talk that "no serious scholars are mythicists".
So after Paul's trip(s) - with or without the aid of chemistry - he went on to fabricate a theological system using the Grk OT (LXX). This may have remained an obscure Jewish cult if it wasn't for 'Mark' who then brilliantly historicizes this Christ using LXX & Hellenic lit.
This comes from S. Matthews on an Amazon.com review:
ReplyDeleteSoon after I received Allegro's book. In the introduction he reveals a crucial tidbit: all of the Sumerian words with an asterisk are hypothetical words that he feels probably existed (based on his theories) and that future archaeologists and linguists would discover. So then I skimmed through the appendix and found that roughly half of the Sumerian words he uses are hypothetical. And to top it off, the crucial section where he finally "proves" that Jesus is a symbol for the amanita muscaria contains a chain of at least 7 words, all of which are hypothetical. No wonder why Allegro was ostracized by his peers!
Another review pointed out that upon which mushrooms grow and called Allegro's beliefs (and I quote exactly), "garbage".
Hypothetical words used as proof of a questionable proposition?
I had enough of that with British Israelism and am not about to be conned by another kook.
Hmmm. Maybe there's a valid reason for Allegro's revelation: Being a mythicist may have a product of using the mushroom product.
ReplyDeleteAgain, an insane niche opinion -- and not the only highly regarded professional who went wonky kook (I have a book filled with them). I don't want another one.
Well, I've read the Bart Ehrman book. I hate to say it but it reads very much the same as any other Christian apologetic book that I've read. I'm disappointed, really, that Bart chose to attack only the silliest parts of the mythicist positions and ignores totally the possibility that Christianity is the work of religious con-men out to make some money.
ReplyDeleteI may be silly too, to think that Paul is a liar but I can point out several things that he says that I know are lies. I believe Paul is not writing his letters to enlighten people but to deceive people. Of course, that may be because I have personally known some religious con-men in my own lifetime and have heard of and know about so many more.
Too much depends on Gal. 1:19 when that verse may not have even existed in the original but was added in opposition to Marcion. Or, even if it existed, it may have originally said "James, the brother of John" and someone changed "John" to "the Lord". We simply don't know what might have happened but we do know that there was a lot of forgery and editing going on in the early church - even Ehrman has said that himself. So, I don't think he should just wave that away by saying that when Paul swears something is true that he generally believes it. That's more akin to faith than research and reason.
I don't know if Jesus existed or not but Ehrman's book doesn't convince me that all the so-called evidence couldn't have been either forged or is merely repeated hearsay. To me, the "evidence" only proves that there were Christians in the first century who believed in a Jesus who had actually lived and died for their salvation - which is impossible for a mere man to do, regardless of how righteous he may be and people who knew the Jewish scriptures would know that. That's why Jesus would have to have been God and not just an itinerant apocalyptic preacher. And, you know what? I don't believe Jesus was God.
Just ordered Allegro to give theory a fair hearing. After Peter, Paul, visions continued to be important for the Christ Cult: More crystalline visions of Heaven (and Hell) in Apocalypse of John, Ascension of Isaiah, Gospel of Peter...
ReplyDelete