Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ

Rating:
Summary: A fresh look at some familiar material
Review: Alvar Ellegard's book, "JESUS, One Hundred Years before Christ" provides a fresh look at some familiar material. For those who are not familiar, the thesis is that Jesus did not live in Paul's recent past, and that the Gospels are creative fabrications. Professor G.A. Wells has published several excellent books on this subject. Professor Kamil Salabi has written a strange book entitled, "Conspiracy in Jerusalem: The Secret Origins of Jesus". Salabi's unconvincing ideas (that Jesus and Isa of the Koran were two different people)have been resurrected in recent books by Douglas Lockhart. Earl Doherty's website is even stronger. He maintains that Jesus did not exist at all, but developed from a "Theology of the Son". Check that site out! The argument rests on several premises. First is the argument from silence. Because Paul does not mention many biographical detail's of Jesus' life, the details had not yet been invented. This includes an "explaining away" of Pauline verses that indicate otherwise. This effort is aided by limiting the number of epistles genuinely written by Paul. The Gospels and Acts are then dated unusually late, pushing the dates of composition well into the second century. Dean Ellegard's contribution is to date several non-Canonical sources as unusually early. These include "1 Clement", "The Pator of Hermas", "The Teachings of the Apostles", and "Barnabas". These works are dated as early as Paul's epistles, rather than the late second century dates that are more commonly assigned. The point is that these books have few if any biographical details of Jesus' life. Alvar Ellegard then rounds it all out, by identifying the Essene Teacher of Righteousness as the distant historical origin of Jesus.

Rating:
Summary: Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ
Review: Ellegard forcefully puts forward his theory of the mythical Christ, and defends his negativity about the human Jesus. But his proof is thin, generally based upon six documents. Then, he fails to support his theory that the myth of Jesus Christ was based upon a reality of the two century earlier Teacher of Righteousness of the Dead Sea Sect.

Rating:
Summary: The Messiah Who Wasn't There.
Review: Ellegard points out many of the right problems in the "orthodox" view of Christian origins based on a scientific study of the early texts. But his postulation that the Jesus belief came from some corrupted tradition about the Essene Teacher of Righteousness seems unnecessary to me. It's quite possible that Jesus was a mythological savior-god from the beginning, along with Mithras, Hercules, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, and all the similar figures worshipped by Mediterranean peoples at that time. (Refer to the book, _The Jesus Mysteries_.)

It's quite possible for a totally false belief system to arise from some misunderstood event or story. In our time we've seen one emerge from the crash of a "Project Mogul" scientific balloon near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. An unusual event with a prosaic explanation has turned into a quasi-religious cult about the crashed alien spaceship, dead aliens, massive government coverup and conjectures that modern technologies were in fact reverse-engineered from alien artifacts recovered from that event. If a story that preposterous could gain adherents in our society, it's not hard to see how something similar could have happened on a much larger scale in a much less knowledgeable society like the declining Roman Empire.

Ellegard's book is worth reading for the background information on the problems surrounding Jesus' historicity, but I don't find his solution all that persuasive.

Rating:
Summary: SADLY OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE
Review: How sad that Professor? Ellegard fails not only to take into account extra-Biblical historians which include Josephus and Tacitus among others who document not only Jesus existence but crucifixion and resurrection under Pilate. These historians worked for Rome and had nothing to gain by documenting falsehoods about Jesus.
In addition to the questionable dating problems that point serious fingers at Ellegard's motivations, seemingly determined to come to an OJ verdict in spite of the overwhelming evidence, is the fact that tens of thousands of first century Christians who knew the truth either first or second hand willingly went to their deaths in the Roman arenas with smiles knowing that death had been conquered. They would not have died for a lie, having only to refute their previous allegiance to live....but the truth was far too powerful....and nobody dies that way for a lie when a few quick words can save you.
How sad so many would rather believe in aliens, the mall and all kinds of New Age mumbo jumbo including evolution (which is a faith not a science as it depends upon missing links which are not there and assumes an animal or creature can survive disastrous genetic mutation and live, etc.) rather than the simple but glorious truth of the Gospel. Our society is in shambles today because everyone is taught they are cosmic accidents rather than the special creation of a God that loves you so much He paid for you with His only Son that you might be His children as well. I am so sorry Mr. Ellegard that you find it so hard to believe...why oh why are you so mad at God, what could He possibly have done to hurt you so??? Or are you shaking your fist up when it should be down?? But He waits for you to return to His fold and care....and all the other "seekers" as well....He knows each and every heart....and calls you by name.

Rating:
Summary: Valuable information...
Review: I value Professor Allegard's views because he is a historian, not a biased religionist. His facts and research are immense, but I felt his approach was slightly convoluted. What I mean is that sometimes his train of thought would wander to other topics, or he would allude to another issue not yet presented, only to jump back to topic abruptly. Like I said, his scholarship is very impressive, especially concerning Paul. It is his approach that I found to be less appealing, considering the other books I have read.

Rating:
Summary: Original research. Worth a close read.
Review: I've read several books representing "minority" views on the historical Jesus, and this one seems the most thought-out to me. The others are "The Jesus Mysteries" and "Jesus Christ, Sun of God," both of which are interesting, but more speculative than Ellegard's. Ellegard acknowledges when he is being speculative, but also sets forth in welcome detail the evidence for his ideas. He is deeply aware of counterarguments and deals with them at every turn. His linguistic analysis, while not conclusive (can any evidence about the historical Jesus be conclusive?), is quite convincing in my (amateur) opinion. Perhaps the most fruitful line of study would be some combination of Ellegard's thesis with the "purely mythical Jesus" thesis. Has anyone pursued that?

In any case, if you want solid arguments raising serious doubts about the existence of the 1st century Jesus, and a well-considered and careful hypothesis as to who Paul was actually referring to, Ellegard deserves serious consideration.

Rating:
Summary: SADLY OVERLOOKED EVIDENCE
Review: I've read several books representing "minority" views on the historical Jesus, and this one seems the most thought-out to me. The others are "The Jesus Mysteries" and "Jesus Christ, Sun of God," both of which are interesting, but more speculative than Ellegard's. Ellegard acknowledges when he is being speculative, but also sets forth in welcome detail the evidence for his ideas. He is deeply aware of counterarguments and deals with them at every turn. His linguistic analysis, while not conclusive (can any evidence about the historical Jesus be conclusive?), is quite convincing in my (amateur) opinion. Perhaps the most fruitful line of study would be some combination of Ellegard's thesis with the "purely mythical Jesus" thesis. Has anyone pursued that?

In any case, if you want solid arguments raising serious doubts about the existence of the 1st century Jesus, and a well-considered and careful hypothesis as to who Paul was actually referring to, Ellegard deserves serious consideration.

Rating:
Summary: No, no, no. Jesus was a dinosaur!
Review: This book stands unique in Jesus scholarship. Non-theological scholars claim either the story of Jesus, the first century Jew, was either a fabrication of crucified criminal, or that his very existence was a fabrication and did not actually live. Ellegard proposes that the first century Jesus, did not exist. Rather, it was founded upon the Essene Teacher of Righteousness. A generalization of the theory goes like this. The Teacher lived in the 2nd century B.C., seen as a great prophet and teacher, however not a divine Messiah. In the first century, Christianity first arose when Paul convinced the Diaspora Essenes that this figure was the Promised Messiah, whom he had experienced through visions and revelations. The historical gospels are downright fictional works of 2nd century Christianity, and make all of modern Historical Jesus scholarship a horrendous anachronism. He points out that Paul and all first century Christian writers never claim to have either known Christ or even known anyone who knew him, to them, he was a voice from the distant past. The gospels were constructed not out of eyewitness oral tradition, but an array of outside sources like the Greek Cynics. But I think that a theologian could argue here that, suppose that he (Paul) HAD recieved his writings from the risen lord, and then why should he prefer secondhand tradition. Nevertheless Ellegard solves the widely acknowledged enigma of why Paul never mentions details from the life of the Pre-Easter Christ. The first half of this book examines the earliest Christian documents: both canonical and non-canonical. And there he really redates everything. Some of his precepts are a bit too shaky however, or interdependent. Or to say more clearly, once he twists in his redates everything falls into place and looks OK for him, but even if one of those conclusions is inaccurate, certain parts of his theory could be annihilated. As I just said, some of his own redressing is questionable, and he purposely modifies things to make his theory look like the clear truth. Here's an example. Jesus didn't live in the first three decades of the first century A.D. and therefore was not crucified by Pilate. But Tacitus, an extrabiblical historian, tells us that Christus was crucified by Pilate in the first century. Hmmm. Earlier in the book, he tells us that since "Christ" only refers to a Messiah, and that there was not only one alleged Messiah in that era, that it need not refer to ours here. He forgets to mention that its a CRUCIFIED Christ written of. I think it would not be responsible on a historian's part to assume that this did not allude to Jesus. But later in the book, he claims that it would not be trustworthy FOR a historian to base their first century dating on this reference, since Tacitus published his work in A.D. 110 and the bands of Christians were already spreading propaganda about their Savior. But according to him the gospels were not written yet, and this seems weak unless he wants to admit that he is being more harsh on Jesus than anyone would on anyother ancient figure. So, I repeat, Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness. How does he explain their differences when proposing this argument? Well, he says, its their position as held by their followers that makes the connection. But wait, he just admitted that there were so many Messiah-cults in the day, so how is their leadership only unique to them. If its not unique to those two, then there is no connection. Okay, now the Essenes. He advocates the "Sectarian Hypothesis." I usually slam this down. But indeed Ellegard has read Norman Golb's book "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" So he does make the point, which is true, that although each of the 800 scrolls are not sectarian, the majority of them hold a consistent theology. However, that does not vindicate the notion that celibate monks lived in Qumran and wrote a mass library there, though I admit that that part has not much to do with his theory. With Golb's theory, Khirbet Qumran is a military fortress. Since this contradicts the notion that Essenes were pacifists, as reported by Philo, Josephus, and Pliny, it is unlikely that they were the last inhabitants. But no, Ellegard thinks that the 3 records we have could have been biased mis-representations. Though he weakly corroborates this, I doubt that 3 historians would have done this and all in the same description, and that he was just finding extra support with all the minor modifications he could scrounge up. But in the general outline, these are MINOR tenets. So.... he says the Teacher of Righteousness looks like the first century, not second century (who was fiction), Jesus. He also has read Carsten Thiede, who argued that Mark's gospel was used at Qumran, awarding it with a very early date. Though he gets around this justifiably, he is silent on Thiede's other work, which finds an Egyptian Magdalean (Matthean) papyrus earlier than the Egyptian John fragment. (which he says might not have been from John but from its source) The ending.. is weird. He says that his theory would not destroy Christianity, since it doesn't really matter when Jesus lived. Does he realize though that it destroys the bulk of the New Testament's reliability? But he was not saying that he personally still believes in Christianity. In fact he says it is simply "impossible for us to arrive at the ultimate truth" and then in the final paragraph he says that there is no ultimate truth. This work though, has definitely given me some motivation to research a few additional odds and ends, mainly deeper into Essenism... Give Alvar Ellegard a whirl!

Rating:
Summary: Clarity on how the Myth of Christ started
Review: This easy-to-read book is a must for those interested in the historical search for Jesus Christ. Ellegard's method of dating ancient Christian texts is very unique. He puts forth a convincing case for placing the Gospels in the 2nd century AD. He also argues an early date for several non-canonical Christian texts. I especially enjoyed the chapter on Ignatius, a 1st century church leader whose role in Church history was possibly more important than anyone could imagine. However, Ellegard's main thesis of equating Jesus with the Essene Teacher of Righteousness could be better supported. The texts studied in this book can easily support an entirely spiritual Jesus within the realm of the 1st century Platonic universe. But this does not take away from the premise that Christianity could ultimately be based on a myth. Ellegard's book as a whole provides a firm argument against an historical Jesus.

Rating:
Summary: Clarity on how the Myth of Christ started
Review: While this book can be quite technical at times, it is indeed a very logical and well explained hypothesis on how the myth that a man can " rise in the flesh" to heavan could have started. In particualr, it is interesting how the author uses his linguistics background in chronologically dating the earliest chriostina texts to come to a logical, coherent hypothesis on the origin of the Christian myth and the conversion of its first (jewish) adherents.