Rating: 
Summary: The first Millerite?
Review: The author compares Jesus with the Millerites. I first had to read up on Millerites to understand the reference. Till then I had no idea that the Millerites are at the root of Weiko and Koresh. I know these things are as American as power-tools and apple pie - but from a European perspective this is just ... oh well. What intrigued me most, was the fact that the movement didn't die after that first prophetic flop - on the contrary, after a few quiet years came Ellen White, then Adventists and 7th day Adventists (whatever all this means - had these people no jobs?) and finally the Branch Davidians, and there are even people who still continue writing "rebuttals!Ó I am not playacting - but I was under the impression this is the twenty-first century ... . However it IS actually quite interesting to see the pattern: 1) prophesy of a new millennium creates a movement 2) prophesy fails, movement loses support but doesn't completely collapse 3) guy or gal comes and gives it a slightly different spin 4) movement picks up again 5) movement branches out into heresies and orthodoxies. DoesnÕt this look exactly like what had happened 2000 years ago with Paul impersonating Ellen White? However the indictment nailed over JesusÕs head (or between his ankles as was the practice) doesnÕt exactly say ÒCrucified for false Prophesy.Ó Something seems to be wrong with the scholarly consensus on the order of the canonical gospels. In my opinion John and Mark predate Matthew and Luke and all 4 gospels deal mainly with the problem of "missing (messianic) credentials." Apparently Davidic lineage was required for the messianic job-description but John and Mark don't even try to bring Davidic lineage into the equation: Jn. 7:41; 52 defends his champion against the valid objection that Jesus is neither of Davidic stock nor born in the right place. (ThatÕs the guy history has to look for.) Mark evades the problem by referring to his heroÕs magical prowess (Mk 8:11; Lk 11:20; Mk 3:27 and parallels.) If you look at it, this is really Jesus' only defence, when asked. In other words Davidic lineage and the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are just poppycock. In fact these 2 "gospels" are no gospels at all but the earliest apologies on record and meant to answer early criticism from Jews and Gentiles. Matthew is probably the last ditch attempt of a reconciliation with the Jewish communities before Bar-Kokhba, and Luke addresses the Hellenistic middlebrow who after business-hours used to read the Stoics. So you have them not only adding the Davidic lineage out of their own generosity (though badly bungling it) but they also incorporate the 'Q' document, (which makes it contemporaneous to the Gospel of Thomas) because it became necessary to present Jesus more as a (rabbinical) teacher. And to discredit myself once and for all: I consider the identification of Jesus with the illegitimate son to a Roman solder, that Syrian Archer Pantera from the Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, XIII, 7514 (= Dessau, Inscriptiones selectae, 2571) a serious proposition. The existence of that tomb that meets all the qualifications and is one of a kind would be an awfully long shot for a mere coincidence. So we have a Jesus who announced the arrival of the new millennium as a fact born out by his own presence. John 2:7 creates a very apt metaphor. But since nothing had really changed and John himself had trouble to fit in the execution and find an appropriate spin, ways had to be found to explain this away, such as Paul does in his letters, or Mark in his popularized account. The emphasis shifts from "it has already happened because I am here" to "I came to warn you - the end of times is at hand, and I am the gatekeeper to salvation." Matthew and Luke address different issues, but historically it seems clear that from the very beginning Christianity focused more on Jesus's as a person than on the teaching, which might not be JesusÕs teaching at all. Which brings us to the resurrection business. Technically the transfiguration scene in Mark 9:2-10 was no different from Paul's conversion at Damascus. But I don't support conspiracy theories which suggest a staged hoax. The resurrection was first proclaimed in Galilee and within a small inner circle of loyal companions. Apart from such revival-events there is only this mix-up over an Òempty grave.Ó The interment in Jerusalem in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb was of course meant to be temporary from the beginning; the plan was to remove the body for burial in his hometown after the holidays. Joseph of Arimathaea's ad hoc intervention and offer of his own tomb suggests nothing else. The anointing of the body doesn't make much sense either, except you want to preserve it for later transport. Anointing was not really a custom, not in this period, nor in this part of the country. Obviously there was a mix-up in the communication between Jesus companions, and for some the empty grave came as a surprise, which created the rumor. (We have archaeological evidence for such practices and even of a man who had been crucified in Jerusalem, but for interment was transported to his place of residence, where the ossuary had been excavated. It is now on display in Haifa. As an additional complication one has carefully to consider why Pilate should have released the corpse at all? The law states that a convicted criminal has to be left at the cross till the corpse has rotted away. Of course in places of very frequent executions this might not have been feasible for practical reasons. And who knows, in Jesus case there might have been danger of rioting if his corpse was kept on display like that. Anyway if you look for remains, go to Nazareth or Capernaum - but hire yourself a few good body guards or walk in bulletproof. Tallyho!) A good conservative summary.
Rating: 
Summary: Best popular book on Jesus
Review: There are an awful lot of books about Jesus, but in three years of divinity school I didn't find any as clear and readable as this one. Ehrman takes the view generally prevalent in top American universities, that Jesus was a Jewish apocalypticist who believed that the world was about to end, and consequently preached a message of extreme morality to ensure one a blessed existence in the afterlife (an idea which apocalypticism probably introduced to the Judeo-Christian tradition). This view holds that the common Christian ideas, that Jesus was the divine Son of God who was born from a virgin and died for the sins of humanity, were all later traditions invented as the early Christian community tried to make sense of the crucifixion and the fact that the world had in fact failed to come to an end.
Rating: 
Summary: Full of fun and speculation
Review: This book is a lot of fun! Devoid of the stuffy, stilted, and oppressive scholarspeak that characterizes NT studies, Ehrman's work is readable, funny, and stimulating. While I disagree with many, in fact almost all, of his conclusions, I found myself rethinking certain positions which I had perhaps come to too hastily. Ehrman's Jesus is a revamped version of Schweitzer's mistaken Jewish apocalyptic prophet. The focus on the Jewishness and apocalypticism of Jesus are especially welcome today where Jesus is popularly portrayed as some New Age guru figure. Indeed, the current situation is akin to the one confronting Schweitzer. Harnack's Jesus as ethicist is a perennial temptation for the dehistoricizing Platonic West, it seems. One thing sure to be frustrating to anyone with a background in Jesus studies is the way that Ehrman totally fails to answer his opponents' views. One example is his contention that Jesus speaks of the Son of Man in third person because he actually expects another person, the Son of Man, to come! This, of course, has virtually no basis in fact. Indeed, one finds that Ehrman's conclusions often appear to be sheer speculation. This should keep most readers from taking Ehrman's current offering too seriously. But, like I said, it is fun!
Rating:
Summary: This book is both needed and not needed
Review: This book rehashes the thesis that Jesus was first and formost an apocalyptic prophet, a very reasonable conclusion to draw from centuries of scholarship and a close reading of the bible. However there is no reason to believe that this book will be any more persuasive than many others in the past in convincing people of something they do not wish to be convinced of. Granted Ehrman has a writing style which could appeal to a general audience but the bible thumpers who need to read this book wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Rating:
Summary: A bottomless well of ideas
Review: This book successfully walks a slippery tightrope indeed. So many books about Jesus either presuppose the inerrancy of the Bible or dismiss Christianity as a set of useless myths. A few, such as those by John Shelby Spong, try to "rescue" the Christian Church from fundamentalism by reinterpreting the message of Jesus in the 21st century. All these books are very interesting to read, of course, but only a few approach this subject from the historian's angle while appealing to general audiences. Into this messy tornado of ideas comes Bart Ehrman, who brings anew the tools of modern historiography to the New Testament. People have been doing this for decades, of course--Ehrman is the first to point this out--but Ehrman is a little different because he lets us watch as he dissects the historical Biblical and non-Biblical sources. Reading his book reminded me of the time I watched a Caesarean section of our family dog. The veterinarian showed us his surgical instruments, explained their uses, and then twirled his scalpels and plunged into the surgery. All my predicted reactions (recoiling at the sight of blood, turning away as puppies were squeezed through tubes of tissue, etc) were swept away and I found myself watching the entire process in disbelief, amazement, and utter fascination. Bart Ehrman's book was like that veterinarian. The book introduced three "surgical" techniques or criteria (contextual credibility, dissimilarity, and multiple attestation) by which historians can at least partially judge the historical accuracy of the Gospels. And, as the back cover says, the book is a "superb example of how scholarship can be as full of suspense and surprises as a well-plotted mystery" (L.A. Times). Ehrman peppers his narrative now and then with delectable little anecdotes, digressions, and dryly humorous observations that had me laughing out loud. The story of Simon of Cyrene and Jesus' powers of transfiguration (near the very end of the book) ended with a wry comment that made me cry with laughter. Given the premise of the book--that written records of Jesus' words and acts can be approached as historical documents--I'm certain that the two extreme ends of the religious spectrum (fundamentalist Christians and fire-breathing atheists) will find something in the book to yowl over. Readers in the middle, however, who neither engage the New Testament as courtroom transcripts nor dismiss Christianity as nonsense, will find Ehrman's book a bottomless well for understanding Jesus and how he saw the world two millennia ago.
Rating:
Summary: A bottomless well of ideas
Review: This book successfully walks a slippery tightrope indeed. So many books about Jesus either presuppose the inerrancy of the Bible or dismiss Christianity as a set of useless myths. A few, such as those by John Shelby Spong, try to "rescue" the Christian Church from fundamentalism by reinterpreting the message of Jesus in the 21st century. All these books are very interesting to read, of course, but only a few approach this subject from the historian's angle while appealing to general audiences. Into this messy tornado of ideas comes Bart Ehrman, who brings anew the tools of modern historiography to the New Testament. People have been doing this for decades, of course--Ehrman is the first to point this out--but Ehrman is a little different because he lets us watch as he dissects the historical Biblical and non-Biblical sources. Reading his book reminded me of the time I watched a Caesarean section of our family dog. The veterinarian showed us his surgical instruments, explained their uses, and then twirled his scalpels and plunged into the surgery. All my predicted reactions (recoiling at the sight of blood, turning away as puppies were squeezed through tubes of tissue, etc) were swept away and I found myself watching the entire process in disbelief, amazement, and utter fascination. Bart Ehrman's book was like that veterinarian. The book introduced three "surgical" techniques or criteria (contextual credibility, dissimilarity, and multiple attestation) by which historians can at least partially judge the historical accuracy of the Gospels. And, as the back cover says, the book is a "superb example of how scholarship can be as full of suspense and surprises as a well-plotted mystery" (L.A. Times). Ehrman peppers his narrative now and then with delectable little anecdotes, digressions, and dryly humorous observations that had me laughing out loud. The story of Simon of Cyrene and Jesus' powers of transfiguration (near the very end of the book) ended with a wry comment that made me cry with laughter. Given the premise of the book--that written records of Jesus' words and acts can be approached as historical documents--I'm certain that the two extreme ends of the religious spectrum (fundamentalist Christians and fire-breathing atheists) will find something in the book to yowl over. Readers in the middle, however, who neither engage the New Testament as courtroom transcripts nor dismiss Christianity as nonsense, will find Ehrman's book a bottomless well for understanding Jesus and how he saw the world two millennia ago.
Rating:
Summary: The only book on the subject you really need
Review: This is a great summary of the consensus reached during the past 200 years of New Testament scholarship: Jesus was a man with a false prophecy, to the effect that the world was coming to an end right away. An early Millerite, one could say. Of course, you could read the gospel of Mark and figure this out for yourself. Either book will serve the purpose.
Rating:
Summary: Great intro for newcomers
Review: This is a splendid short introduction to the mainstream scholarly view of Jesus. Ehrman emphasizes the evidence he uses and why it means what he says. This is a clear, witty, and convincing book.
Certain to shock a lot of people.
Rating:
Summary: Good Introduction to Historical Jesus
Review: This is an effective, well-written, and concise presentation of who the person of Jesus of Nazareth who walked and preached in 1st century Palestine actually was. There are a lot of historical Jesus works out there and it is easy to get lost and the author makes a great point that many scholars simply mold Jesus into a person of their time and place: a 60's radical, a social reformer, a magician, etc. Ehrman asserts that traditional scholarship since the 19th century is correct: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was expecting the present world to end in the very near future and be replaced by the kingdom of God. His healings, exorcisms, and exortations of radical, self-less love and care for the poor, destitute, and forgotten (the dregs of society), demonstrated that Jesus firmly held to the belief that God was a compassionate, just Judge who was going to turn the social, political, and religious order upside down in this new kingdom. This view is consistent with the traditional Jewish view of God, that primarly viewed Him as concerned with justice and righteousness that was most particularly demonstrated in an individual's/society's care for the widow and the orphan and fits nicely with the apocalyptic context of Jesus' day: people expected and believed God to radically alter history at any time. Jesus appears to have been non violent in this view, he didn't seek to effect the kingdom of God via a people's revolution but instead expected it to come about via a supernatural miracle of God. These arguments are well demonstrated and persuasive. Caution, however, is called for in some of these assertions. Ehrman too quickly dismisses the work of more recent scholars who have discovered new insights to Jesus from careful study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the study of Church father writings that shed some doubt on some of these conclusions. He flat out gives no consideration to Crossan's views that Jesus was primarly concerned with ethical eschatology and not apocalyptic eschatology. Although some of Crossan's arguments aren't particularly strong, I find it generally true that Jesus was ethical as well as apocalyptic. It could very well be that Jesus believed that the establishment and/or growth of a renewed ethic among the people would hasten the apocalyptic end of the present state and help to usher in the new kingdom which would, after all essentially be an ethical kingdom. I find no support, however, for Crossan's belief that Jesus was a social reformer with a clear socio-economic plan. There was no such plan: God Himself was going to rule and plan in the new kingdom. Ehrman does not give enough consideration to Jesus as zealous revolutionary either. Although there is no Jewish or pagan sources of the time to indicate this, the actions of Jesus' first followers reveal zealot tendencies. Acts narrates the immense trouble the apostle Paul had on his second visit to Jerusalem after he was seized in the temple by "the Jews". In his defense (Acts 22) before these obviously zealous Jews who, incidentally plot to kill him in the next chapter, he talks about his vision of Jesus and his Damascus conversion. The crowd listens patiently even as he relates what Jesus has said to him and the events subsequent to his vision. They violently react, however, as soon as Paul mentions his mission to the Gentiles. These are no ordinary Jews, they are Nazarenes, Jewish Christians, this much is clear. So, if Jesus was completely non-violent, why were his first Jewish followers so zealous to the point of plotting to kill Paul? Of course this doesn't agree with Jesus' "love your enemies" but it is highly curious. One other point. He accepts the gospel's claims that Jesus' family rejected him during his life. Further investigation doesn't support this however. His brother James was the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem assembly after Jesus' crucifixion. I find it hard to believe that having only become a believer after Jesus' resurrection that James would be chosen to lead the believers after having not spent time with Jesus while on earth. It seems much more likely that James was always intended to be the leader and was in fact the disciple called James. This suggests that James' brother John, another disciple, was also Jesus' brother. Mary's second husband after Joseph's death is accepted as Simon bar Clopas, who was one of the disciples Jesus first appeared to after his resurrection in Luke, and is most likely the son of Simon the "Zealot", another of Jesus' disciples and half-brother. There is good evidence to believe that Jesus' family played a quite prominent role in his ministry during and after his life. Also interesting is that his brother Simon was a zealot. Their is a clear pattern of obfuscation in the gospels when it comes to certain individuals, especially regarding family members of Jesus. This indicates that later writers and redactors purposely sought to downplay his family for theological reasons. Even though I disagree with some of the conclusions of this book, it is a very good presentation of classical beliefs on historical Jesus. If you are beginning to study this subject, I recommend it highly as one of your first readings.
Rating:
Summary: Good Introduction to Historical Jesus
Review: This is an effective, well-written, and concise presentation of who the person of Jesus of Nazareth who walked and preached in 1st century Palestine actually was. There are a lot of historical Jesus works out there and it is easy to get lost and the author makes a great point that many scholars simply mold Jesus into a person of their time and place: a 60's radical, a social reformer, a magician, etc. Ehrman asserts that traditional scholarship since the 19th century is correct: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was expecting the present world to end in the very near future and be replaced by the kingdom of God. His healings, exorcisms, and exortations of radical, self-less love and care for the poor, destitute, and forgotten (the dregs of society), demonstrated that Jesus firmly held to the belief that God was a compassionate, just Judge who was going to turn the social, political, and religious order upside down in this new kingdom. This view is consistent with the traditional Jewish view of God, that primarly viewed Him as concerned with justice and righteousness that was most particularly demonstrated in an individual's/society's care for the widow and the orphan and fits nicely with the apocalyptic context of Jesus' day: people expected and believed God to radically alter history at any time. Jesus appears to have been non violent in this view, he didn't seek to effect the kingdom of God via a people's revolution but instead expected it to come about via a supernatural miracle of God. These arguments are well demonstrated and persuasive. Caution, however, is called for in some of these assertions. Ehrman too quickly dismisses the work of more recent scholars who have discovered new insights to Jesus from careful study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the study of Church father writings that shed some doubt on some of these conclusions. He flat out gives no consideration to Crossan's views that Jesus was primarly concerned with ethical eschatology and not apocalyptic eschatology. Although some of Crossan's arguments aren't particularly strong, I find it generally true that Jesus was ethical as well as apocalyptic. It could very well be that Jesus believed that the establishment and/or growth of a renewed ethic among the people would hasten the apocalyptic end of the present state and help to usher in the new kingdom which would, after all essentially be an ethical kingdom. I find no support, however, for Crossan's belief that Jesus was a social reformer with a clear socio-economic plan. There was no such plan: God Himself was going to rule and plan in the new kingdom. Ehrman does not give enough consideration to Jesus as zealous revolutionary either. Although there is no Jewish or pagan sources of the time to indicate this, the actions of Jesus' first followers reveal zealot tendencies. Acts narrates the immense trouble the apostle Paul had on his second visit to Jerusalem after he was seized in the temple by "the Jews". In his defense (Acts 22) before these obviously zealous Jews who, incidentally plot to kill him in the next chapter, he talks about his vision of Jesus and his Damascus conversion. The crowd listens patiently even as he relates what Jesus has said to him and the events subsequent to his vision. They violently react, however, as soon as Paul mentions his mission to the Gentiles. These are no ordinary Jews, they are Nazarenes, Jewish Christians, this much is clear. So, if Jesus was completely non-violent, why were his first Jewish followers so zealous to the point of plotting to kill Paul? Of course this doesn't agree with Jesus' "love your enemies" but it is highly curious. One other point. He accepts the gospel's claims that Jesus' family rejected him during his life. Further investigation doesn't support this however. His brother James was the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem assembly after Jesus' crucifixion. I find it hard to believe that having only become a believer after Jesus' resurrection that James would be chosen to lead the believers after having not spent time with Jesus while on earth. It seems much more likely that James was always intended to be the leader and was in fact the disciple called James. This suggests that James' brother John, another disciple, was also Jesus' brother. Mary's second husband after Joseph's death is accepted as Simon bar Clopas, who was one of the disciples Jesus first appeared to after his resurrection in Luke, and is most likely the son of Simon the "Zealot", another of Jesus' disciples and half-brother. There is good evidence to believe that Jesus' family played a quite prominent role in his ministry during and after his life. Also interesting is that his brother Simon was a zealot. Their is a clear pattern of obfuscation in the gospels when it comes to certain individuals, especially regarding family members of Jesus. This indicates that later writers and redactors purposely sought to downplay his family for theological reasons. Even though I disagree with some of the conclusions of this book, it is a very good presentation of classical beliefs on historical Jesus. If you are beginning to study this subject, I recommend it highly as one of your first readings.
|
