It seems that now days, Christianity is constantly under attack. One of the hottest, and probably the most popular fore-front debate, is the constant discussions between theists and atheists on the topic of science vs. God. Dozens of public debates have took place where famous scientists and thinkers have pitted against each other, arguing for what they believe is right. Hundreds of books have been written about science vs. God where atheists and theists have presented their views on this topic, finally, tens and thousands of debates have been held on internet, where ordinary people have also expressed their views about science vs. God.
What an interesting phenomenon! Sometimes I really wonder why did science become the "supposed" only method of knowing the truth? When did the human society elevate science to the golden throne where it is viewed as the superior way of knowing and understanding, while ranking all other methods of knowing and understanding as second class knowledge? Is science the only way of knowing and understanding? I think not, but this is beyond the topic of discussion in this book review.
I follow Stephen Hawking's writings quite closely, not only because I think he is a great physicist, but I also admire his ability to write popular science books in styles that is readily accessible to the general public. Hawking have previously stated in his book, "The Grand Design" that laws of physics has made God redundant. In my previous book review on "The Grand Design", I have expressed my humble opinion as why Hawking's argument is weak. But after reading a vast amount of literature on this topic, and even participate in a few debates about science Vs. God myself. I finally arrived at this conclusion: Science, cannot be used to prove the existence of God, but neither can science be used to prove that God does not exist. How people view science, is dependent on what they believe. For example, as a Christian, I believe that science is God's wonders. While atheists will believe that science, is the root explanation for existence.
So I realized, perhaps the question cannot be simply answered by science. In order to determine if Christianity is the truth, one would have to look at history, and examine the Bible to come to a conclusion in yourself.
The book I am reviewing today, is written by Bart Ehrman. He is an American New Testament scholar, who is also an agnostic. Ehrman has written various books previously and is well known for his argument against Christianity.
However, this book captured my interest as Ehrman wrote this book to argue for the existence of a historical Jesus, and today, I will like to present a book review for Ehrman's new, interesting book.
Notice:
Before I start the actual review, I need to say that I do not possess any academic qualification in any history related subjects, therefore, I can only base my review on what Bart Ehrman said in the book, and the small amount of knowledge I've acquired during my concurrent research while reading this book.
Synopsis:
In this book, Ehrman used various historical evidence and formidable arguments to establish the high probablity that Jesus was a real person who lived in the 1st century, Jewish, a spiritual teacher and was later crucified by Pilate. As Ehrman stated in his book, he wrote this book mainly to debunk the mythicists (those who believe that Jesus never was a made up figure who never existed).
The book has nine chapters, and is categorized into three parts, here I will give a brief summary for each chapter:
In chapter 1, Ehrman briefly described the popular mythicists views on Jesus. He talked about the history and the development of the mythicists views, and listed a few main ideas of such views: For example, one of the mythicists view Ehrman talked about was the view that Jesus is based on ancient pagan religions for a dying and resurrected God. After listing the different mythicist views, Ehrman gave some arguments why these views are invalid.
In chapter 2, Ehrman listed historical evidences to argue for the existence of historical Jesus. Referencing to historical documents from non-biblical sources, such as the writings of Josephus (Testimonium Flavianum), Pliny the Younger, Seutonius (which doesn't directly refer to Jesus, but mentioned Christians), Tacitus. In this section, Ehrman mostly talked about non-Christian sources that mentioned Jesus. Where Ehrman paid particular attention to the writtings of Josephus, arguing that although the writings of Josephus could have been edited by later Christian scribes, but it can still be used as historical evidence for the existence of historical Jesus. In the conclusion of chapter 2, Ehrman concluded that these non-biblical historical document are not only evidence for the existence of historical Jesus, but we can also get an idea of the life of Jesus, that he really was a Jewish person, a religious teacher, and died by crucifixion under Pilate's reign.
In chapter 3, Ehrman used the New Testament books and letters as historical evidences, to argue for the existence of the historical Jesus. Ehrman said most historians have agreed that each books in the Gospel, can be used to testify the existence for the historical Jesus. Ehrman mentioned that although the four Gospels are written decades after Jesus was crucified, but these books are written based on oral accounts that have been circulating since the early 30 ADs, right after Jesus was crucified. In additional, Ehrman also stated that most historians believe that the earliest Gospel written was Mark, around 70AD, followed later by Luke and Matthew, and John. While Matthew and Luke are believed by most historians to be based on a hypothetical document called Q, that contain information not found in Mark. while Luke and Matthew could also be based on other hypothetical documents called L and M, while John can be treated as an independant source by itself. Therefore, Ehrman argued that in the Gospel section alone, there are all together 7 sources that testify the existence and the life of historical Jesus. Furthermore, Ehrman also provided arguments and historical evidence that there are indeed, oral accounts of the life of Jesus that can be dated all the way back to early 30AD's. Ehrman argued that we can trust that although the Gospels were written in Greek, decades after the crucifixion of Jesus, but we can trust that they are written based on reliable oral traditions around the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Ehrman supported this argument by observing that in the book of Mark, there are keywords in the sentences where it does not make sense in Greek, but makes perfect sense once it is translated into Aramaic, which is a language that Jesus and his followers spoke in the region where Jesus lived and was active. The most striking example is in Mark 2:27-28. Where Jesus used two lines to silence his critics. This is when some of Jesus' disciples were walking through the grain field on Sabbath, and because they were hungry they started eating the grain. The pharisee (a group of Jews observe the laws very strictly) saw this and protested to Jesus because the disciples were breaking the Sabbath. Jesus' response was to say that Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath, and according to Ehrman, the Greek version of this passage is: Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath, Therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of Sabbath. Ehrman said, the last sentence doesn't make sense, because even if Jesus is referring to himself in the last sentence, it doesn't add up because the pharisees are complaining about the disciples, not Jesus. However, Ehrman stated that the senetence makes sense when the key word is translated back into Aramaic, because in Aramaic, it uses the same word for man and Son of man, the word barnash. So the original sentence in Aramaic should read: Sabbath was made for barnash, not barnash for Sabbath. Therefore barnash is the lord of Sabbath. And all of the sudden, the "Therefore" in the sentence makes sense, because the reason why human are the lord of Sabbath is because of what Jesus just said. Ehrman continued to state in the original Gospels written in Greek, there are "punchlines/keywords" that are remained in Aramaic, or make better sense when it is translated into Aramaic. This is an indication that the Gospels are based on oral traditions that can be dated all the way back to 30AD's, just after Jesus was crucified.
In Chapter 4, Ehrman argued for the existence and life of Jesus by using the non-Gospel sources. He started by discussing the Christian, but non-biblical historical writings from early Christians: Papias , Ignatius of Antioch, 1 Clement. Ehrman argued that these early Christian writings, can be used as evidence to show that Jesus was a historical figure who really was crucified by Pilate. Following the reference to the non-biblical Christian sources, Ehrman comes back to the New Testament, and used the non-Gospel writings in the NT to argue for the existence of historical Jesus. According to Ehrman, in the Book of Acts, the narratives of the Apostles about the life of Jesus, especially the speeches in the book of Acts, are good testimony for the life of historical Jesus. The reason is because these speeches are based on the oral traditions about Jesus that existed before the Gospels were written. Ehrman then moved on to discuss the non-Pauline NT epistles (e.g. 1 and 2 John, Jude, James, 1 and 2 Peter etc..). Here, Ehrman believes that 1 Timothy is not written by Paul, and there is a non-Pauline source in NT. Nevertheless, Ehrman stated that the non-Pauline epistles in the NT are indeed independant, historical records that testified the life and existence of Jesus. Following this, Ehrman moved on to what I think is a particularly interesting argument from Ehrman, the witness of Paul. Ehrman stated that the earliest NT writing, is probably 1 Thessalonian, which can be dated back to 49AD. This means it is less than 2 decades after the crufixion of Jesus when Paul wrote this letter. Ehrman stated that Paul (also known as Saul), who was a persecuator of the Jews, after some events in his life, converted to Christianity in the early 30AD's, approximately in the same time period when Jesus was crucified. Another historical fact we know, is that Paul is close with Cephas (Simon Peter), and James (the brother of Jesus, both mentioned in the Bible and in the writing of Josephus). This means Paul based his knowledge about Jesus on these two actual disciples who knew Jesus before he was crucified. This makes all of Paul's letters (1 Thessolonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Phillipians etc..) another independant source to testify the life of Jesus, Ehrman argues that the fact that Pauls' writings pre-dates the first writings of the Gospels, coupled with the fact that Paul knows 2 out of the 12 actual disciples of Jesus, makes Paul's testimony about the life of Jesus highly credible, this is because Cephas (Peter) and James would have seen, known, heard and spoke with Jesus personally. Not only that, Peter and James would have be around when Jesus was crucified.
In chapter 5, Ehrman discussed what he thinks are the two main historical sources for the existence and life of historical Jesus. Peter and James (brother of Jesus). Ehrman provided reasons and debunked the mythical view that James was not really a brother of Jesus. Following this, Ehrman made another powerful argument to prove that Jesus really was a historical person who was crucified by Pilate, and that the testimony in NT that Jesus is the messiah is actually not based on Pagan religion. Ehrman stated that the ancient Jews never believed that the messiah would die. Actually, the ancient Jews believed that the Messiah will go on living, and never die (this view is confirmed by a pastor who preached at our church camp as well). Ehrman argued that the reason why Paul (Saul) persecuted Christians before his own conversion was because, the idea that a messiah can die is a highly offensive concept to the Jews, so someone who is very high up in the Jewish religious order as Paul, will find it highly offensive and blasphemous, leading to his persecuation of the Christians. Ehrman argued this means the concept of a a dying/suffering messiah in Christianity, is actually not based on some ancient pagan religion, but an original concept at the crucifixion of Jesus, an event that actually took place in history.
In chapter 6 and 7, Ehrman provided discussions and arguments against the popular mythicists views about the non-existence of Jesus. Ehrman debunked the common mythicists views that the Gospels are non-historical sources, in which Ehrman took the view that although the Gospels contain what he called "legendary materials", but can still be used at parts, as historical sources. Ehrman then debunked the mythicists view that "Nazareth doesn't not exist", by providing archeological findings and historical data to show that Nazareth was actually a small town that existed in 1st century, when Jesus walked the earth. The third mythicist view debunked by Ehrman was the view that "The Gospels are interpretative paraphrases from OT". In general, Ehrman focused his arguments to debunk the mythicist view that Jesus is based on ancient pagan Gods and myths.
In chapter 8 and 9, Ehrman focused his discussion to formulate what he thinks is the "real" life of the historical Jesus. In this section, Ehrman used a set of criterions commonly used by NT scholars, namely Criterion of Dissimilarity, Criterion of Multiple Attestation , and Criterion of Contextual Credibility (I can't find a scholar article for reference here, but basically it is saying that traditions are more likely true if they conform to what is known). Ehrman applied these three criterion, and concluded that the historical Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet, who was heavily influenced by John the Baptist, and believed that the end of days was going to occur in his time, then taught that in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, one must keep the laws in the Torah. Ehrman, in his conclusion, said that Jesus died 6 hours after his crucifixion.
My thoughts on the book:
What do I think about this book?
Personally, I think Ehrman definitely has an in-depth knowledge about NT history, the background, ancient culture and history in general. Personally, as someone who did not study any history or biblical history, I have learnt a lot of news things about the Bible. I particularly find it useful to know that the ancient Jews did not believe that a messiah would ever die. Because this is a very powerful apologetic point for Christianity, and not only that, a very powerful argument for the existence and the life of historical Jesus.
In addition to this, I also find knowing that Paul's writings are amongst the earliest NT literature is very useful information. I find Ehrman's argument very convincing, in that because Paul knows Cephas and James personally, this makes Paul's testimony on the life of Jesus highly credible.
Furthermore, I am also very intrigued by Ehrman's proposition that the Gospels, although written in Greek and at a much later time, but are based on oral traditions about Jesus that can be dated to 30AD's. The most intriguing and convincing point was that certain words and keywords in the original written Gospels remain in Aramaic, indicating that they are written based on oral accounts (narrated by eyewitnesses who lived in 30AD's, in the regions where Jesus was active) who actually have witnessed the life of Jesus, his teaching, death and resurrection (the resurrection was ommitted by Ehrman in this book, I have something to say about this later).
I think Ehrman definitely provided some sound, reasonable and if I may say, formidable arguments that pretty much demolished the mythicists view that Jesus never existed. On top of this, Ehrman was able to support all of his argument with his vast knowledge in ancient Greek, Aramaic, NT literature, early Christian history and history in general. I am thoroughly impressed with this well-learned scholar.
However, in the later parts of the book, after much thinking, research and reflection, I decided that my views departed from Ehrman's views on the "real" historical Jesus in chapter 8 and 9, and I will like to discuss them below.
First of all, although I am not a NT scholar. Neither does my educational background grants me qualifications to say much about NT history. However, I noticed that two of the key arguments for Ehrman against Christianity are:
1) Ehrman says that the world wide census mentioned in Luke, there are no historical evidence to support the event recorded in Luke, therefore Ehrman calls this an error in the Bible. Upon reading Ehrman's argument, I was brought to think about this problem. After some research, I found this internet article quite useful. (article). This article explains why the census mentioned in Luke is highly plausible, and although I have not personally checked all 7 references listed in the articles, but I find the arguments constructed by the author highly sound.
2) Another of Ehrman's argument against Christianity, is that the conversation between Jesus and Nicademus in John 3:3 couldn't have happened. In John 3:3, Jesus said to Nicomedmus "unless you are born "anothen" you will not be able to enter the kingdom of God". Ehrman argued that, the greek word "anothen" has two meanings: a) second time and b) from above. Ehrman argued that this conversation is centred on the double meanings of the Greek word "anothen", where Jesus is saying that unless you are "born again", from the spirit that comes "from above", you cannot enter the kingdom of God (this conforms with our NIV and ESV translation if you read from John 3:3-6). The problem, according to Ehrman, is that when this passage in John 3:3 is translated back into Aramaic (the language that Jesus probably spoke), the aramaic word for "born again" is not the same as "second time" as the Greek word "anothen" has double meaning. And without the double meaning of the word "anothen", the entire conversation from John 3:3-6 doesn't flow. Therefore, Ehrman argued, that this conversation in John 3:3-6 never really happened. When I first read Ehrman's argument, it does look very challenging, but once again, after some research, I found this article that shed light to debunk Ehrman's argument about the problems of John 3:3 (article). It turns out, that in the ancient Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic version of John 3:3 does contain the word "again" in the sentence. This means the original Aramaic version (which is probably what Jesus said to Nicodemus) doesn't require a double meaning word such as the Greek word "anothen" to make sense. Anyway, click on the link I provided above, the explanation to debunk this particular argument from Ehrman is very well done.
Finally, I cannot help but find Ehrman's proposition for his version of the "real" Jesus a bit weak. To start with, Ehrman used the three criterion used by NT scholars to some degree, wrongfully. The criterion of dissmilarity, the criterion of multiple attestation and the criterion of discontinuity, are meant to be used jointly for strictly positive means to support a historical claim, not in a negative way to reduce the historical relability of a claim.
But as I am not a qualified historian, perhaps some would accuse me of over stepping my field of qualication by criticising Ehrman's argument about these criterion.
However, even if I step out of scholarly criticism against Ehrman's negative use of the criterion of authencity. There is still one big problem that I can see in Ehrman's argument in his use of criterion. From a non-scholarly perspective, but from a common sense view.
My biggest protest against Erhman's argument in chapter 8 and 9 is, Ehrman was happy to use the criterion of dissimilarity, and the criterion of multiple attestation, and the criterion of contextual credibility to deduce the high probablity of the existence of historical Jesus. Because the various sources from NT (the Gospels, letters of Paul, and speeches in Acts) has testified that Jesus was once a Jewish religious teacher who lived in 1 century, but was crucified by Pilate, therefore it passes the criterion tests. But why is it that Ehrman is happy to admit the life and crucifixion part of the life of Jesus, but is completely silent about an equally, largely testified part of these historical sources, which is the resurrection of Jesus? Where is the integrity to examine all these historical accounts with an unbiased approach? Surely if Ehrman is happy to say that because multiple sources say that Jesus lived and died on the cross, then by integrity he should also notice that the resurrection account of Jesus should pass the criterion tests. In other words, the reason why Ehrman is completely silent about the resurrection account, is because he has a bias against historical records that contains supernatural phenomenon.
I would like to call for integrity to consider the life, death and resurrection of Jesus be considered in equal terms when analysed by the criterion of authencity tests, because all three parts of the records of Jesus are equally attested in the historical sources of NT.
Human beings, often like to think that just because we haven't seen something, so it cannot happen. But time and again, we have proven that this is an ignorant way of thinking. Even in the field of science and engineering. I will give an true example where we can deter ourselves from finding the truth because of our ignorance.
In the early to mid 20th Century, scientists and engineers used to think that supersonic flight is impossible. This is because in classical aerodynamics, the engineers use a graph called "drag polar", to determine the amount of drag on a moving object travelling in atmosphere. Scientists and engineers in those days (and today), when constructing the drag polar graph from pure mathematicaly and from classical methods, the drag will approach infinity as we approach the speed of sound (Mach 1). This is still an unresolved mystery in the field of aerondynamics and aircraft design. However, we all know that aircraft such as Concord, fighter jets, missiles etc.. can fly supersonically today (faster than speed of sound. We can determine the drag of supersonic flight by recording the coefficient of drag through wind tunnel testing. Do we have a theory to explain why the classical aerodynamics predicts infinite drag at Mach 1, while the reality is so different? No, we can't explain why. But if you were to say to aeronautical engineers back in the days that you want to design a supersonic aircraft, they will surely think your proposition is highly "implausible" because base on what they know, it is impossible to fly supersonically due to infinite drag that's predicted on the drag polar curve.
Yes, science is very differnt to history (well, aeronautical engineering is very different to analysing the credibility of biblical history), but at the core of analysis, human ignorance, ego and the little knowledge that we possess can often cause us to develop a bias, and rule out the critical elements that we regard as "implausible", simply we don't understand it and think it cannot happen. This can sometimes delay/deter us from finding out the truth, until we can see such "implausibility" occur in front of us. In the case of realizing that it is possible to fly supersonically despite what theory tells us, has relatively minor consequences to our lives. However, in the case of the resurrection of Jesus, well, discovering the truth too late will have eternal consequences, if what Bible says is correct. Don't you agree?
In the case of Ehrman's argument that the historical Jesus was just an apocalytpic prophet, I think Ehrman's bias against the things that he thinks as "implausible" has disabled his ability to treat all the evidences and data that lay before him with equal integrity, and that missing piece is obviously, the equally and multiple attested account of the resurrection of Jesus.
I have just spent the last 4 hours writing this exhaustive book review. It is now the 6th April 2012 at half past zero in the morning, it is Good Friday today. This is the day when Jesus was crucified, a multiply attested event in all the historical accounts that is in the New Testament. Equally as well attested event is the resurrection of Jesus, which, according to all historical tests and evidence, should be accredited as a real historical event despite the fact that we do not know how the dead can come back to life. But that is exactly why the resurrection is a miracle, because it is something extra-ordinary. No, the resurrection is more than just a supernatural stunt that impresses people, the resurrection, symbolize hope and God's promise to us, it means so much more. Perhaps, after all the intellectual activities and discussions in the topic of science vs. God, or authenticity of the Bible and history. It is more important to think about what Jesus means to us, to our lives, and how his resurrection means to our lives?
Concluding remarks:
Ehrman is an extremely well learnt scholar, this book demonstrated his in-depth knowledge in the field of NT history research. Ehrman is formidable in debunking the mythicists views about Jesus, and provided some intriguing and challenging things to think about. Overall, a very good read if you are interested in history of the New Testament and want to acquire some basic knowledge about the scholar study of historical Jesus. However, I departed with Ehrman's views in chapter 8 and 9 in regard to the nature of Jesus. My biggest protest is that Ehrman, because of his personal bias against the divine nature of Jesus, is completely silent about the multiply attested resurrection account found in the books in the New Testament. This is importing data without keeping the integrity of the data, due based on personal bias. As a result of this, I find Ehrman's proposition of his version of the "real" Jesus very weak and contains major flaws, because who he thinks Jesus is, is derived based on his own personal prejudice against the resurrection account of Jesus.
P.S.
- The words underlined and colored blue, are links to articles that might be helpful to understand the topic. To access, simply click on the words
- Special thanks to Diony McPherson and Cameron Blairs for sharing, explaining and exchange of ideas and information. Please feel free to comment or correct me if there is anything that doesn't make sense.
- Due to the long the exhaustive length of this article, the fact that it is now 1am in the morning and I've been writing for the last 5 hours, and that I've had a tiring week at work. There might be grammatical and spelling errors that I am unaware of, or sentences that don't flow well. I will come back and perform some revision works in the near future. In the meantime, please excuse me should there be any such errors.
