The Origins of Christianity Explained!
I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus: An Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I don't know why it took me so long to get around to it, but it is awesome! In my opinion this is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity in print. If you also want to understand the rest of Erhman's writings this is the book that puts it all together. I've added this book to the the Debunking Christianity Challenge, which, if you haven't yet taken, I highly recommend that you do.
16 comments:
You just got around to reading that? Wow. Yeah, for anyone else reading this, if you read only one book on New Testament scholarship, read that book by Ehrman.
I couldn't agree more with John and hallq: if you read any book on the historical Jesus, read Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium". It's the most lucid and powerful summary of the dominant view of the historical Jesus among New Testament scholars. Head-and-shoulders above anything by conservatives, the Jesus Seminar, or the Jesus Myth crowd, by a long, long shot. Not even close.
I liked it OK, but I didn't love it and I'll tell you why. I think Ehrman just takes the gospels far too seriously as historical narratives.
For instance he concludes that Jesus must have predicted the destruction of the temple because he said "Not one stone will be left upon another." Since the west wall remains to this day this is proven false and is embarrassing, so it is likely authentic. I don't know how embarrassing that is. It could be just another way of saying the temple will be destroyed.
You have to be careful with this criteria because you have to ask the question "embarrassing to who?" Is it embarrassing to have women discover the tomb? Not to Mark, because he doesn't even intend to be conveying history. Is it embarrassing that Jesus doesn't know the day or hour? Better to be ignorant than mistaken. This is a qualification on Jesus' failed predictions of his own return.
He concludes if he has material in Matthew that is from neither Mark nor Q then it must be from this independent M source. Why couldn't it just be that Matthew made something up? Why should we assume that he's such a careful historian, always checking for sources? Don't we have multiple instances of Matthew simply taking what's difficult in Mark and improving on it to make a better story? It's not about carefully checking what is true. It's about telling a story exactly as he would like it to be told.
Give me Robert Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man before Ehrman's book. Ehrman could certainly benefit from reading it. Unfortunately I think Ehrman has never even heard of Price. I guess when asked about Price on a radio interview he had never heard of him. Too bad.
Nice thesis. Too bad he has to gut the gospels to get there. "Let me see, I don't like all this stuff about claiming to be God in the flesh, so that must have been added. Ooo...I like this stuff about ethics, that obviously wasn't added and is genuine." Yeah...sounds like excellent scholarship to me without letting one's presuppositions get in the way.
I'm currently reading The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty. Would you recommend that I read this one too?
Damn! My local library has more than a dozen titles by Ehrman, but not that one.
Dan Wallace is my Hero!!!
Hi John Murphy,
do you have any specific criticisms of Ehrman or just a misrepresentation?
It seems to me that I can tell and good argument from the number of misrepresentations it generates from the other side.
Evolution is a good example of this. Plenty of straw men, but no coherent arguments against. That was just an example, anyone wanting to debate evolution is invited to to do it on Shygetz's article.
Hi Jon,
I'm fond of Price too, I was one of the fans that helped him with technological difficulties in getting his "Bible Geek" podcasts off the ground.
However, I think you are being unfair to Ehrman. Especially with the 'radio interview' comment.
I have thought of a real challenge.
I may start going to strip clubs and see if a stripper wants to fuck me.
She will have to have real great, firm round tits, to provide the best temptation.
I am single and have only had one girl friend so far and she did not put out, so I am still a virgin.
But I want to see if I can resist a challenge that bowled over a great man like you.
Sorry about Andrew's post folks, but he does this almost every single day. This is mild by comparison to the others, but I published it so that I could report it. And I have.
Andrew, I have a serious question for you: why are you here? Life can be beautiful, no matter what you believe. Help someone. Donate to a charity. Get out in the world. Use your intelligence: life is too short to waste. I guarantee it'll make you feel better than posting silly insults.
cheers and best wishes from overcast Vienna, zilch
I heard the Infidel Guy show (got it off iTunes, so no link, sorry) where Ehrman was on, and he was very dismissive of all other viewpoints but his own. He did make some comments on Dr Price that were disparaging (first he claimed to not know him, then he remembered, then he said Price didn't teach anywhere - he was certain of that- when he does, as his latest interview on Point of Inquiry admits).
He made a Scotsman fallacy (no real New Testament scholar thinks that....), and didn't state that his own book and thesis when defending it. I lost a lot of respect for Ehrman based on that interview alone. I think his scholarship is great, except when the historicity is involved. The straw that kinda broke my back was when he claimed that there is as much historical evidence for Jesus as there is for Julius Caeser! He may have been exaggerating, but from his rather intense defense of that, I am not sure.
From reading his books (and listening to his lectures from TTC) I disagree with him on several points, but the interview was a little surreal. Still, I agree that the book is useful, but I do agree with both Price and Schweitzer when they state that those who go looking for a historical Jesus often find exactly what they were looking for.
I have found Ehrman very helpful over the years, but I agree with the commenter Jon above.
Here's what I find to be his biggest limitation:
He mistakes the picture of Jesus as painted in the gospels (a picture he flawlessly and expertly discerns, reconstructs in detail and then conveys to the modern reader, stripped of christological significance but still recognizable as the Jesus of the NT) with a "historical Jesus."
In other words, he's mistaking the map for the territory. ("Jesus must have had a mole on his chin—we know this because there's the mole right there in Luke's sketch of him—see?")
As a result, he emphasizes historicity for things that (to my eyes) are but the theological ruminations of later devotees.
Other than that, I think he is right on target about the origin of the movement which grew out of this devotion, if not about Jesus himself. I think they are two completely different topics in fact.
Some of the books I found particularly insightful:
Primitive Christianity by Rudolf Bultmann
The Birth of Christianity by Joel Carmichael
The First Coming by Thomas Sheehan
From Jesus to Christ by Paula Fredriksen
The Misunderstood Jew by Amy Jill Levine
The Cross That Spoke and Who Killed Jesus both By John Dominic Crossan
Read these along with Ehrman and you'll have a decent foundation, I think.
peace
Ó
my 2 cents on ehrman and his apparent belief in a historical Jesus, or placing too much confidence in the gospels historical accuracy.
it doesn't matter. It serves the ball soundly into the court of the apologist.
I just consider him conceding the point that Jesus lived, no doubt, but all the messiah, christ, god stuff is legend. As I see that is his strategy.
Hi Quixie,
thanks for that list of books.
I put them on my amazon wishlist so I won't forget them.
Post a Comment