Deconstructing Jesus

Rating:
Summary: physician, heal thyself
Review: "Deconstructing Jesus" presents, once more, the thesis that even if Jesus did exist, which no one can be sure about, what we can know about him is virtually nothing and useful for even less. Thus, historical Jesus scholars are little short of ventriloquists animating the inanimate or engaging in shadowplay. By a method of analogy utilizing various mythic paradigms, especially the Mythic Hero Archetype, and the extravagant use of intertextuality, Price wants to show that any specific is really just an example of the general. In effect, everything reduces down in the end and Jesus, in particular, reduces down to mythic categories "without anything left over". Price, seemingly, can find no non-mythical information which might might leave a chink of light by which to describe Jesus as "historical" rather than "historicized". To support him, various theories previously presented, from the "diversity of Christianity" theory of Walter Bauer to the "Christian cult" theory of Burton Mack to the "cruci-fiction speculations" of John Dominic Crossan, etc, are represented and exceeded cheerfully by Price as he aims to present a cogent case for extreme skepticism towards the historical Jesus. We may note here this is not so much "Deconstructing Jesus" as deconstructing Jesuses. (There is no exploration of how historical figures might look WHEN mythicised for example and how this might compare with the presentations of Jesus and what this comparison might demonstrate or mean. Similarly, we might ask Price where we may find non-mythicised characters from the past analogous to Jesus.) But we should not let his presentation of multiple sources and numerous apparently analogous stories deter us from realising that "you get what you see". The presentation of evidence has already within it the argument that what is presented IS evidence for something. Price doesn't get round that and, in his own way, simply argues for skepticism towards the historical Jesus which is fine if you want to do it. But I don't. If you aren't convinced by Burton Mack or John Dominic Crossan then you won't be convinced by Price and "Deconstructing Jesus" either. Maybe that's a good thing.

Rating:
Summary: Best book on the "Historical" Jesus
Review: Against all the books that purport to show what Jesus was "really" like, be it itinerant preacher, marginal Jew, radical zealot, etc., this book shows how the level of mythologizing has left it impossible to reconstruct a genuine biography. It leaves open the strong possibility that in fact there was no historical Jesus, or that there was more than one -- Jesus as a composite character.

Among books skeptical of Christianity, it is the best documented, with examples of similar beliefs in preChristion religions, Greek philosophy and early rabbinic Judaism contemporary with the New Testament writers.

Rating:
Summary: Probably the Best Treatise to Date
Review: Dr. Robert Price is the most significant and accredited scholar to present the Christ Myth thesis to date. His two Ph.D.'s are in systematic theology and New Testament studies respectively; which makes him more than qualified to comment on the historicity of the Jesus Christ character.

Although his presentation is not perfect, it is quite probably the best published thus far. His two works (Deconstructing Jesus, and the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man) have served to anchor the legitimacy of the Christ Myth thesis, despite the debaucheries committed against it by self stylized scholars such as Acharya S.

The Christ Myth thesis is quite plausible and is backed by a large body of historical, anthropological, and archaeological data, as well as a (slowly) growing body of academia. Unfortunately the efforts of legitimate scholars like Dr. Price are greatly undermined by an unfortunate paradigm of popular fiction by authors such as Dan Brown and Acharya S. If you are interested in educating yourself about the mythological foundations of Judaism and Christianity, stick to Dr. Price, Dr. Hoffmann, Dr. Pagels, Dr. Wells, Dr. Leeming, and Earl Doherty for the time being.

Rating:
Summary: A REAL SNORE FEST!
Review: How do we know Jesus existed? Obviously, the four gospels and Paul's letters mention him, but since they are full of amazing miracles, we have to consider the possibility that they are not wholly reliable. Fortunately for scholars, Jesus' existence is independently verified from the brief mention of him and his brother in the Jewish chronicler Josephus. Although Christians added interpolations to these passages in their copies of Josephus, there is a clear consensus that Josephus wrote the core stating that Jesus was a religious man crucified by the Romans. This is all discussed in considerable detail in the first volume of John Meier's exhaustive "A Marginal Jew."

Robert Price has written a book that expresses his belief in "Jesus Agnosticism." He is agnostic not about whether Jesus was God, but whether Jesus actually existed. So what does Price say in response to Josephus and Meier? Absolutely nothing. So he has provided no reason why we should believe Josephus to be wrong. That Jesus' followers wrote little about him for four decades after his death is not surprising. There weren't that many of them, most of them were illiterate and they thought the world was going to end soon. Notwithstanding this simple solution Price argues that maybe people combined ideas from Greek Cynicism, Jewish scholars, classical heroes and cults of dying and resurrected Gods and projected them into a quasi-mythical Jesus who lived decades before the Gospel version did. In other words we are about to embark on a very complicated solution to a non-existent historical problem. Occam's razor anyone?

This is compounded with several fatal problems. (1) Inadequate sources: In search of "independent" traditions about Jesus, he spends thirty pages on a Sufi mystic versions of his sayings. The mystic lived ten centuries after Jesus, and obviously isn't independent proof of anything. Likewise Price uses dated authorities like Lord Raglan and Sir James Frazer's overstated theory of "dying and ressurrected Gods," (the most popular cult, that of Attis, clearly developed after Jesus). Meanwhile he cites a 1937 book by the discredited Hugh J. Schonfield to try to argue that Jesus lived 100 BCE. (2) Systematic anachronism: to show that Jesus was a Cynic, he compares verses to thoughts of Seneca and Musonius Rufus, who clearly lived after him. In searching for analogies for the empty tombs he quotes Chariton (first century CE), Longus (c. 150), Iamblichus (c.300), Philostratus (c.220) and Tatius (second century). Clearly the Gospels were not written that late, and so these Greek and Latin sources did not inspire them. (3) Confused comparative method: there are bound to be similarities in narratives, but this does not prove a common origin. "Macbeth," "Hamlet" and "King Lear," are all about monarchs who die because of the perfidy of someone they trusted. But they are obviously not the same story and have no common origin. And so there is no reason to believe that a legend in which the Greek healer Asclepius healed a person while in disguise was the basis of the story of the road to Emmaus. Likewise Price compares Jesus' order "Let the dead bury their dead," to several Cynic sayings. But he ignores the obvious difference. The cynics could care less about their corpses, while Jesus states that the Coming Kingdom of God is more important than the duty to bury one's father.

(4) Incoherent use of theoretical models: Price relies on Burton Mack's theory of Jesus and the Q Community as Cynics. But he also agrees with E.P. Sanders' view that Galilee was not a place likely to be open to Cynic (or Greek) influences. Rather than concluding that Mack is wrong, he uses this to argue that Greeks came up with the Q sayings and it was incorporated (how?) into Jewish thought. Price quotes with approval William Wrede's classic account of the Messianic Secret in Mark. But Wrede argued that Mark had Jesus keep his messianic status secret because people knew the real Jesus had never made such a claim. Such a contortion makes no sense if there was never a real Jesus to begin with. Price also ignores simpler solutions. He uses the ambiguities in the Gospels over who executed Jesus as proof that the actual event was far off in the past. He ignores the more obvious alternative: Jesus was executed by the Romans and the Gospel writers tried to get around this embarrassing fact by blaming the Jews. (5) Failure to explain the Jewish connection: all the early sources of Christianity are quite clear. The early Christians were Jews, not Greek philosophers or members of Pagan mystery cults. That Paul would come up with a theology of atonement to explain Jesus' death is one thing. But given that Jews did not expect a slain Messiash, why would he make up a crucifixion as well? Why indeed would Price's funky group of cosmopolitans try to convince the Jews that this non/barely existent Jesus was the culmination of their religion while at the same time using such ideas such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation and the Crucifixion they were most likely to reject? It just doesn't work.

Rating:
Summary: When rationalists lose their way
Review: How do we know Jesus existed? Obviously, the four gospels and Paul's letters mention him, but since they are full of amazing miracles, we have to consider the possibility that they are not wholly reliable. Fortunately for scholars, Jesus' existence is independently verified from the brief mention of him and his brother in the Jewish chronicler Josephus. Although Christians added interpolations to these passages in their copies of Josephus, there is a clear consensus that Josephus wrote the core stating that Jesus was a religious man crucified by the Romans. This is all discussed in considerable detail in the first volume of John Meier's exhaustive "A Marginal Jew."

Robert Price has written a book that expresses his belief in "Jesus Agnosticism." He is agnostic not about whether Jesus was God, but whether Jesus actually existed. So what does Price say in response to Josephus and Meier? Absolutely nothing. So he has provided no reason why we should believe Josephus to be wrong. That Jesus' followers wrote little about him for four decades after his death is not surprising. There weren't that many of them, most of them were illiterate and they thought the world was going to end soon. Notwithstanding this simple solution Price argues that maybe people combined ideas from Greek Cynicism, Jewish scholars, classical heroes and cults of dying and resurrected Gods and projected them into a quasi-mythical Jesus who lived decades before the Gospel version did. In other words we are about to embark on a very complicated solution to a non-existent historical problem. Occam's razor anyone?

This is compounded with several fatal problems. (1) Inadequate sources: In search of "independent" traditions about Jesus, he spends thirty pages on a Sufi mystic versions of his sayings. The mystic lived ten centuries after Jesus, and obviously isn't independent proof of anything. Likewise Price uses dated authorities like Lord Raglan and Sir James Frazer's overstated theory of "dying and ressurrected Gods," (the most popular cult, that of Attis, clearly developed after Jesus). Meanwhile he cites a 1937 book by the discredited Hugh J. Schonfield to try to argue that Jesus lived 100 BCE. (2) Systematic anachronism: to show that Jesus was a Cynic, he compares verses to thoughts of Seneca and Musonius Rufus, who clearly lived after him. In searching for analogies for the empty tombs he quotes Chariton (first century CE), Longus (c. 150), Iamblichus (c.300), Philostratus (c.220) and Tatius (second century). Clearly the Gospels were not written that late, and so these Greek and Latin sources did not inspire them. (3) Confused comparative method: there are bound to be similarities in narratives, but this does not prove a common origin. "Macbeth," "Hamlet" and "King Lear," are all about monarchs who die because of the perfidy of someone they trusted. But they are obviously not the same story and have no common origin. And so there is no reason to believe that a legend in which the Greek healer Asclepius healed a person while in disguise was the basis of the story of the road to Emmaus. Likewise Price compares Jesus' order "Let the dead bury their dead," to several Cynic sayings. But he ignores the obvious difference. The cynics could care less about their corpses, while Jesus states that the Coming Kingdom of God is more important than the duty to bury one's father.

(4) Incoherent use of theoretical models: Price relies on Burton Mack's theory of Jesus and the Q Community as Cynics. But he also agrees with E.P. Sanders' view that Galilee was not a place likely to be open to Cynic (or Greek) influences. Rather than concluding that Mack is wrong, he uses this to argue that Greeks came up with the Q sayings and it was incorporated (how?) into Jewish thought. Price quotes with approval William Wrede's classic account of the Messianic Secret in Mark. But Wrede argued that Mark had Jesus keep his messianic status secret because people knew the real Jesus had never made such a claim. Such a contortion makes no sense if there was never a real Jesus to begin with. Price also ignores simpler solutions. He uses the ambiguities in the Gospels over who executed Jesus as proof that the actual event was far off in the past. He ignores the more obvious alternative: Jesus was executed by the Romans and the Gospel writers tried to get around this embarrassing fact by blaming the Jews. (5) Failure to explain the Jewish connection: all the early sources of Christianity are quite clear. The early Christians were Jews, not Greek philosophers or members of Pagan mystery cults. That Paul would come up with a theology of atonement to explain Jesus' death is one thing. But given that Jews did not expect a slain Messiash, why would he make up a crucifixion as well? Why indeed would Price's funky group of cosmopolitans try to convince the Jews that this non/barely existent Jesus was the culmination of their religion while at the same time using such ideas such as the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation and the Crucifixion they were most likely to reject? It just doesn't work.

Rating:
Summary: Let's sober up, shall we?
Review: I did research on the subject on my own as a sideline to Roman Archaeology, strictly from a historian's point of view. Unfortunately, whenever it comes to mythology I am helplessly engulfed in my own yawns, so I directed my research to more earthly matters. (Btw. I am of course aware of most of the literature that had been published on this proposition since the mid-eighteen hundreds of which Wells gives in his books a fair digest.) Price did all the boring work - because for people like me, myth is a terrible bore. The three main aspects which have convinced me, that we are facing fiction (or "myth") are these: (1) I analyzed in great detail the trial procedures strictly by the letter of the law, and it became evident, that even the seemingly "realistic" portions of the gospels are clearly fictional. I wouldn't say uninformed, but in a strange way misrepresenting the proceedings. (2) no matter how far back we follow the documents, they always come in the presence of an institution (such as the synagogue, or a churche) which acts as a custodian of the tradition. There is not a shred of evidence for an innovative phase that would precede the organized cult-activity. There is even no evidence for the existence of the apostles, (including Paul!) with the one exception of John (perhaps a very important exception) - who however cannot be identical with the Zebedee in the gospels. What we really have is a bundle of anonymous testimonies to a received faith, and perhaps in John the originator of the branch or heresy in this tradition which eventually became Christianity. (3) The fact of the "Easter-faith" is much more likely the testimony to a received faith. A testimony based on a historical precedent would soon be exposed to the strains of the reality thereafter. Faith in a myth is bulletproof - at least for people who are susceptible for this sort of thing. On reflection the entire movement may have originated among proselytized gentiles in the Jewish Diasporah, and from there have filtered back to the old country as an inspiration to actually impersonate the concept, but faced strong resistence. The documents, even in the form as they have been handed down to us, reflect on the to and fro of the argument and a developing heresy from the Jewish law. So what does this tell us about Jesus? Not much, I am afraid.

Rating:
Summary: Request for the historical Jesus
Review: In the vein of Burton Mack's _Who wrote the Old Testament?_ Robert Price's strong dose of Biblical Criticism pursues the phantom to deeper depths, resulting in something close to final skepticism about the Christ figure. The contructivist literature here that Price exposes is confusing in the extreme to anyone in the mainstream churches who is not a determined researcher or student of the literature. So many centuries after Spinoza, and the original deconstructions of Bauer of the Left Hegelians the disinformation game goes on and on, and on.

Rating:
Summary: A REAL SNORE FEST!
Review: It isn't that Robert Price hasn't studied the subject of Christian origins--he certainly has, and he's even been a born-again Christian. It isn't that he doesn't pontificate about the theories of this scholar and that apologist. That he surely does (the book seems to be a paean to Burton Mack). Price even makes a definitive statement now and again. But much of this book is not only boring--obviously designed to please his already-convinced peers of his immense erudition--but it goes nowhere, as Price is wishy-washy about his conclusions: "I'm not trying to say that there was a single origin of the Christian savior Jesus Christ, and that the origin is pure myth..." (p. 85) Blah, blah, blah. Price then proceeds to criticize the "Old Christ-Myth theorists," who, in fact, were not fence-sitters but who took a stand that sometimes became a bit wild but was never dull.

One area where this book is a bit more audacious than others in its genre is the section outlining other savior gods. Even though the perspective that the ancients--pagans and Jews alike--possessed practically every concept in Christianity, including the characteristics of its alleged founder, many modern scholars are simply terrified to touch the material brought to light in the past few centuries that reveal such facts of unoriginality through comparative religion. In other words, Jesus ain't original--he's a rehash himself of gods who already existed. At least Price has the courage to discuss these myths regarding dying-and-rising savior gods such as Baal, Tammuz, Osiris, Attis and Dionysus. Price reaches his zenith when he says, "It is very hard not to see extensive and basic similarities between these religions and the Christian religion. But somehow Christian scholars have managed not to see it, and this, one must suspect, for dogmatic reasons." (p. 88)

Also, Price displays some originality in his discussion of "ancient romances" and their correspondences to the gospel fable. ("The Cruci-fiction?") Price names a number of such texts and shows that their major plotlines are similar and "prefigure" that of the gospel fable as well. In the end, the Jesus myth could be considered another one of these "ancient romances," although it is not nearly as intriguing or edifying. In any case, Price highlights some "new" primary sources that reveal the banality of the Christian myth.

Unfortunately, despite some strengths the book is poorly organized and, again, appears to have been written for those who already know most of what is presented. It is certainly not for the lay public and will have little impact on the public in the long run.

If you are really interested in Christian origins, this book is not a bad read. But there are far better and more exciting ways to learn about Christianity and its alleged founder. The most readable of these is "The Christ Conspiracy" by Acharya S, who holds a number of the same views as Price but is able to present them in a far more exciting manner. Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle" is a well-written and necessary examination but it still can't reach the public like "The Christ Conspiracy." "The Jesus Mysteries" contains much of the same information found in Christ Conspiracy, but it is rubbery in its conclusions and focuses on spiritual experiences. Leidner's "Fabrication of the Christ Myth" is a pretty good work, with some interesting and unusual ideas. Price's "Deconstructing Jesus," on the other hand, contains little original and is mostly a rehash of other scholars' tedious and nitpicking opinions.

Rating:
Summary: physician, heal thyself
Review: Price has done a very good job pushing skepticism to the limit. nevertheless, he fails at his own game--the first pages of the book take biblical scholars to task for each creating his own "personal savior", and price professes as a result agnosticism regarding the character and existence of Jesus--and then spends the rest of the book creating his _own_ portrait of a mythical Jesus! he chides other scholars for reasoning beyond the evidence, but his chapters are full of speculations which blatantly go far beyond any documentary evidence!

he's right to compare many of the gospel sayings with contemporary wisdom, and wisdom from Jewish writings post-dating the fall of Jerusalem, but many (even most) of his comparisons are a strech; often only the "flavor" of the sayings is at all comparable between them. couldn't it be that a real jesus might have said words as appear in the gospels, even if he did not create their syntax and meaning from whole cloth? isn't that the way _most_ people talk? surely Jesus (if he did exist...) walked and talked within a particular lingusic and cultural millieu, like most human beings...

Price's speculations are certainly invigorating, but in the end they're just as empty as the "original & authentic" Jesuses his opponents have been creating for the last 200 years. curiously, he chooses to ignore entirely the letters of Paul (perhaps he agrees w/ Mr. Sympson below that Paul, too, is an imaginary figure! perhaps Tacitus did not exist, either...) if Jesus was not a real figure, then what was Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians? Galatians? surely the Jerusalem leadership (whom Paul names in Galatians) would have had something to say about it when he visited them...now maybe Price has something to say about Paul, too, but it is nowhere to be found in this work.

his style is friendly and somewhat refreshing, but occasionally unprofessional (even sophomoric...) i feel he was trying to write in a less academic manner than many recent authors (John Crossan, for example...) but the effect is even a little amateurish sometimes. perhaps a little less rhetoric next time to flavor the scholarship. good scholarship speaks for itself.

in the end, i find Price's speculations stimulating, but as hard to swallow as the somewhat denuded Jesuses of other authors...true answers to the "Jesus question" will have to be found elsewhere.

Rating:
Summary: Hard work but worth it
Review: Robert Price's Deconstructing Jesus is a scholastic masterpiece of exhaustive research, carefully thought out arguments, and valuable insights into the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth. He does a fine job demonstrating, by comparing the Gospel accounts of Jesus' supernatural conception, miracles, death and resurrection with similar traditions found in the mystery cults of ancient Greece and the near East, that Jesus was probably a mythical figure created from a synthesis of numerous mythologies then in vogue in the ancient world. His relentless pursuit of ancient texts to make his point that Jesus was, essentially, a Judaized version of the ancient mystery religions that was later usurped by literalists in the Catholic Church, should leave the objective reader with little choice but to agree. I also found his demonstration that many of Jesus' teachings and parables'which I previously considered the strongest evidence for a historical Jesus available'to have parallels in the teachings of the Midrash and other rabbinical writings to be especially damning to the idea of a historical Jesus. While he remains open to the possibility of a literal historical figure existing behind the mythology, I had to agree with his assessment that such can neither be known nor, if it could be proven true, whether it would make any real difference.

While Price's conclusions and scholarship were flawless, that's not to say the book was not without some problems. Price is a scholar writing for other scholars. As such, this is a difficult book to follow and should not be attempted by the linguistically challenged. One classic "Priceism" should be enough to serve as an example: "Neusner was no longer willing to assume that such attributions meant much diachronically (actually going back in history to Rabbi X); no, instead they must derive their meaning synchronically: as it were, two-dimensionally along the picture plane of the particular document." (Pg. 99). Huh? But for those who enjoy that kind of theological techno-babble, this is a great read. As for myself, I found it akin to wading across a sea of molasses upon the back of a Rhino.

Price also has this irritating habit of dissecting the arguments of other scholars without fully explaining what their theory was or what he really found wrong with them. It was like walking into a foreign film with lots of badly translated subtitles. More than once I found myself lost and thoroughly uncomprehending what he was trying to say. In the last chapter, however, he redeems himself by pulling it all together and leaving us with the reasonable, articulate and seemingly objective conclusion that Jesus Christ was a mythical creation'one of many of the era'that rose to the top of the pecking order and survived into the modern era. I suspect most evangelical and conservative Christians will find much to take old Robert to task for in that, but that would be only because he's drilling too close to a nerve.