Comments on: The false flow of the Biblical Jesus stories http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/ Happiness, Atheism and Life Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:35:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Rodney http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36461 Rodney Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:17:43 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36461 Michael, you should try reading Geza Vermes: he's a very competent scholar, and has an interesting perspective: a former Catholic priest who returned to his Jewish roots. I am just reading "The Changing Faces of Jesus". He is very readable, enormously knowledgeable, and with his background he has fascinating insights into the Jewish background of early Christianity. Another good writer (who tends to produce big books) is Larry Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ, One God One Lord). E P Sanders 'The Historical Figure of Jesus" and Paula Fredriksen's "From Jesus to Christ" are also good. Michael, you should try reading Geza Vermes: he's a very competent scholar, and has an interesting perspective: a former Catholic priest who returned to his Jewish roots. I am just reading "The Changing Faces of Jesus". He is very readable, enormously knowledgeable, and with his background he has fascinating insights into the Jewish background of early Christianity. Another good writer (who tends to produce big books) is Larry Hurtado (Lord Jesus Christ, One God One Lord). E P Sanders 'The Historical Figure of Jesus" and Paula Fredriksen's "From Jesus to Christ" are also good.

]]> By: Kevin Hargaden http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36260 Kevin Hargaden Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:36:14 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36260 Michael, I think you have a fine (if quite populist/conservative) range of books there to get eating into and you will find much to continue to criticise. In further reading beyond Ehrman, you will also find that Biblical studies is not the hotbed of fundamentalism one (not you I presume!) might think it is. I'd also advise losing the KJV translation for something closer to the original intent like the NRSV or TNIV. But nor is it at all settled that the Gospel narratives are composed in a patchwork quilt generations after the fact. In fact, that is a view I have never found in modern scholarship (outside Ehrman). If you were open to suggestions then I would strongly encourage you to read two Anglican New Testament scholars who are widely respected: Richard Bauckham and NT Wright. In fact, Wright is probably the pre-eminent New Testament scholar in the world today. His work is engaged with by both "conservative" and "liberal" scholars. His 7 volume God and Christian Origins Series is 3 books in. Vol I "New Testament and the People of God" is an excellent introduction with 200 beautifully written pages on the philosophy undergirding contemporary Biblical scholarship. Vol II is called "Jesus and the Victory of God" and that locates Jesus in the context of the Judaism of his day. Vol III is called "The Resurrection of the Son of God" and in terms of the business your in it might be most relevant since it becomes quite apologetic in the end. Volume IV is coming and its on Paul. Anyway, I have no doubt you are aware of the scepticism that serious scholars of all persuasions hold for Ehrman's polemics and am delighted to see you are reading more widely. If nothing else, you'll keep us God-botherers on our toes! Michael, I think you have a fine (if quite populist/conservative) range of books there to get eating into and you will find much to continue to criticise. In further reading beyond Ehrman, you will also find that Biblical studies is not the hotbed of fundamentalism one (not you I presume!) might think it is. I'd also advise losing the KJV translation for something closer to the original intent like the NRSV or TNIV.

But nor is it at all settled that the Gospel narratives are composed in a patchwork quilt generations after the fact. In fact, that is a view I have never found in modern scholarship (outside Ehrman).

If you were open to suggestions then I would strongly encourage you to read two Anglican New Testament scholars who are widely respected: Richard Bauckham and NT Wright. In fact, Wright is probably the pre-eminent New Testament scholar in the world today. His work is engaged with by both "conservative" and "liberal" scholars. His 7 volume God and Christian Origins Series is 3 books in.

Vol I "New Testament and the People of God" is an excellent introduction with 200 beautifully written pages on the philosophy undergirding contemporary Biblical scholarship. Vol II is called "Jesus and the Victory of God" and that locates Jesus in the context of the Judaism of his day. Vol III is called "The Resurrection of the Son of God" and in terms of the business your in it might be most relevant since it becomes quite apologetic in the end. Volume IV is coming and its on Paul.

Anyway, I have no doubt you are aware of the scepticism that serious scholars of all persuasions hold for Ehrman's polemics and am delighted to see you are reading more widely. If nothing else, you'll keep us God-botherers on our toes!

]]> By: Michael Nugent http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36123 Michael Nugent Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:05:54 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36123 I agree that it is hindsight, and pretty clumsy hindsight. The problem is that these supposed "different sides of Jesus" are not complementary, they are often contradictory. I agree that it is hindsight, and pretty clumsy hindsight. The problem is that these supposed "different sides of Jesus" are not complementary, they are often contradictory.

]]> By: Adam http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36114 Adam Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:04:55 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36114 This is true and even the staunchest Fundamentalists acknowledge this (ironically, some Appalachian denominations here in the States have based their doctrines on the viper and poison part in Mark 16). I've heard an interesting theory, Michael, that the four Gospels each present Jesus differently, showing a different side of his mission, and this aligns with verses early in Revelation (Rev. 4:7) about an angel with the face of a Lion (King, Matthew focuses on his kingship- hence the lineage), Ox (Servant, Mark focuses on Jesus' ministry), Man (Humanity, Luke focuses in Jesus being fully man, and an Eagle (Divinity, John focuses on Jesus being fully God). I too am an atheist as a consequence of my understanding of the world, so this argument to me seems like petty hindsight poetry.  But it is creative, and may not be mentioned in the books you listed. (I've only heard two Fundamentalist preachers make reference to it) This is true and even the staunchest Fundamentalists acknowledge this (ironically, some Appalachian denominations here in the States have based their doctrines on the viper and poison part in Mark 16).

I’ve heard an interesting theory, Michael, that the four Gospels each present Jesus differently, showing a different side of his mission, and this aligns with verses early in Revelation (Rev. 4:7) about an angel with the face of a Lion (King, Matthew focuses on his kingship- hence the lineage), Ox (Servant, Mark focuses on Jesus’ ministry), Man (Humanity, Luke focuses in Jesus being fully man, and an Eagle (Divinity, John focuses on Jesus being fully God).

I too am an atheist as a consequence of my understanding of the world, so this argument to me seems like petty hindsight poetry. 

But it is creative, and may not be mentioned in the books you listed. (I’ve only heard two Fundamentalist preachers make reference to it)

]]> By: Michael Nugent http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36110 Michael Nugent Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:32:04 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36110 The first part of Mark 16 (from 16:1-8) describes Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome going to the tomb of Jesus in order to anoint his body, finding the tomb empty, and being told by a young man that Jesus has risen and has gone to Galilee. The three women leave, flee from the tomb, and tell nobody about this because they are afraid. In the earliest versions of the Gospel later called Mark, the story ends there. The risen Jesus does not appear to anybody. The rest of Mark 16 (from 16:9-20) was added later by another writer or writers. This extra piece starts by contradicting the preceding part, saying that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdelene, who told his disciples but they did not believe her. He then appeared again to two of the disciples, and yet again to the eleven. Jesus then told them to preach the good news to all of creation, and that those who believed them would be able to handle snakes and drink poison without being harmed, and would be able to heal people with their hands. He then ascended into heaven, they went out and preached, and these signs came true. Not only is this (Mark 16:9-20) demonstrably untrue, but it is not in the earliest versions of the Gospel that was later called Mark. The first part of Mark 16 (from 16:1-8) describes Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome going to the tomb of Jesus in order to anoint his body, finding the tomb empty, and being told by a young man that Jesus has risen and has gone to Galilee. The three women leave, flee from the tomb, and tell nobody about this because they are afraid.

In the earliest versions of the Gospel later called Mark, the story ends there. The risen Jesus does not appear to anybody.

The rest of Mark 16 (from 16:9-20) was added later by another writer or writers.

This extra piece starts by contradicting the preceding part, saying that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdelene, who told his disciples but they did not believe her. He then appeared again to two of the disciples, and yet again to the eleven. Jesus then told them to preach the good news to all of creation, and that those who believed them would be able to handle snakes and drink poison without being harmed, and would be able to heal people with their hands. He then ascended into heaven, they went out and preached, and these signs came true.

Not only is this (Mark 16:9-20) demonstrably untrue, but it is not in the earliest versions of the Gospel that was later called Mark.

]]> By: Michael Nugent http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36108 Michael Nugent Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:11:41 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36108 Ehrman is the one I am most familiar with. I also have a general overview of the various attempts to identify the historical Jesus, many of which are outlined in David Boulton's book 'Who on Earth was Jesus?' Obviously I am approaching this from a perspective of not believing in the existence of gods, so I want to also familiarise myself with Christian perspectives on the Bible. To help me with this, I have purchased or ordered: Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell Unlocking the Bible by David Pawson The Bible by Karen Armstrong IVP Bible Background Commentary Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible John MacArthur Study Notes Thru the Bible - Complete Bible Commentary by J. Vernon McGee Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others. Zodhiates' Complete Word Study Bible King James Version with Strongs Numbers King James Version with Apocrypha International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Easton's Bible Dictionary Hitchcock's Bible Names Smith's Bible Atlas Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions Thayer's Greek Definitions If you have any suggestions to add to this list, I would be grateful to hear them. Ehrman is the one I am most familiar with. I also have a general overview of the various attempts to identify the historical Jesus, many of which are outlined in David Boulton's book 'Who on Earth was Jesus?'

Obviously I am approaching this from a perspective of not believing in the existence of gods, so I want to also familiarise myself with Christian perspectives on the Bible. To help me with this, I have purchased or ordered:

Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI
Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell
Unlocking the Bible by David Pawson
The Bible by Karen Armstrong
IVP Bible Background Commentary
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
John MacArthur Study Notes
Thru the Bible – Complete Bible Commentary by J. Vernon McGee
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge by Canne, Browne, Blayney, Scott, and others.
Zodhiates' Complete Word Study Bible
King James Version with Strongs Numbers
King James Version with Apocrypha
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Easton's Bible Dictionary
Hitchcock's Bible Names
Smith's Bible Atlas
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions
Thayer's Greek Definitions

If you have any suggestions to add to this list, I would be grateful to hear them.

]]> By: Michael Nugent http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36107 Michael Nugent Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:01:23 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36107 Thanks, Adam. I think it is fair to say that Paul, more than Jesus, founded what evolved into modern Christianity. But it was not inevitable. Given different circumstances, one of the other factions could have emerged as mainstream Christianity. Thanks, Adam. I think it is fair to say that Paul, more than Jesus, founded what evolved into modern Christianity. But it was not inevitable. Given different circumstances, one of the other factions could have emerged as mainstream Christianity.

]]> By: Michael Nugent http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36109 Michael Nugent Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:32:21 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36109 The first part of Mark 16 (from 16:1-8) describes Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome going to the tomb of Jesus in order to anoint his body, finding the tomb empty, and being told by a young man that Jesus has risen and has gone to Galilee. The three women leave, flee from the tomb, and tell nobody about this because they are afraid. In the earliest versions of the Gospel later called Mark, the story ends there. The allegedly risen Jesus does not appear to anybody. The rest of Mark 16 (from 16:9-20) was added later by another writer or writers. This extra piece starts by contradicting the preceding part, saying that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdelene, who told his disciples but they did not believe her. He then appeared again to two of the disciples, and yet again to the eleven. Jesus then told them to preach the good news to all of creation, and that those who believed them would be able to handle snakes and drink poison without being harmed, and would be able to heal people with their hands. He then ascended into heaven, they went out and preached, and these signs came true. Not only is this (Mark 16:9-20) demonstrably untrue, but it is not in the earliest versions of the Gospel that was later called Mark. The first part of Mark 16 (from 16:1-8) describes Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome going to the tomb of Jesus in order to anoint his body, finding the tomb empty, and being told by a young man that Jesus has risen and has gone to Galilee. The three women leave, flee from the tomb, and tell nobody about this because they are afraid.

In the earliest versions of the Gospel later called Mark, the story ends there. The allegedly risen Jesus does not appear to anybody.

The rest of Mark 16 (from 16:9-20) was added later by another writer or writers.

This extra piece starts by contradicting the preceding part, saying that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdelene, who told his disciples but they did not believe her. He then appeared again to two of the disciples, and yet again to the eleven. Jesus then told them to preach the good news to all of creation, and that those who believed them would be able to handle snakes and drink poison without being harmed, and would be able to heal people with their hands. He then ascended into heaven, they went out and preached, and these signs came true.

Not only is this (Mark 16:9-20) demonstrably untrue, but it is not in the earliest versions of the Gospel that was later called Mark.

]]> By: Nathan http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36087 Nathan Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:46:45 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36087 "The Gospel called Mark was written about 65-70 CE, and it has no virgin birth and no detail of the resurrection. " Mark 16 is all about the Resurrection of Jesus. "The Gospel called Mark was written about 65-70 CE, and it has no virgin birth and no detail of the resurrection. "

Mark 16 is all about the Resurrection of Jesus.

]]> By: Kevin Hargaden http://www.michaelnugent.com/2009/09/16/the-false-flow-of-the-biblical-jesus-stories/comment-page-1/#comment-36084 Kevin Hargaden Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:57:09 +0000 http://www.michaelnugent.com/?p=1348#comment-36084 Is Bart Ehrman the only "academic" textual critic that you are familiar with Michael? Is Bart Ehrman the only "academic" textual critic that you are familiar with Michael?

]]>