The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems is probably the most credible and complete defense of the thesis that Jesus never existed to be written this century. The author, Robert M. Price, is an accredited scholar and fellow of the Jesus Seminar, and is widely read and advanced in the debate over Jesus' historicity. Here are my thoughts on his book.
First, it might be more accurate to call the book "The Christ Myth Theories and Their Problems." I know, it's not quite as catchy of a title, but I make this comment only to bring it to light that there are many theories that entail that Jesus never existed (as Price discusses within the book) and that each come with their own set of problems. For example, Price discusses an older theory that Jesus was a sort of development on a hypothetical Joshua cult from within Judaism, noting that the primary problem with this theory is that there is no evidence at all that there ever was a Joshua cult.
The book is primarily devoted to showing that almost all of the material in the gospels has deep parallels with Old Testament scripture, which is significant because, in Price's view, the early Christians were "'discovering' for the first time what Jesus the Son of God had done and said 'according to the scriptures' by decoding the ancient texts [Old Testament]." In other words, the entire life of Jesus portrayed in the gospels is no historical memory or oral tradition but only the results of unusual Old Testament interpretation. Price's analysis is exhaustive and far more extensive than I have seen in any other book on the Christ Myth theory (something that is lacking greatly in books like Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle).
Price shows remarkable fair-mindedness in assessing the evidence for Jesus' existence, as he dedicates an entire chapter to discussing Paul's reference to James as "the brother of the Lord" going so far as to call it "The most powerful argument against the Christ-Myth theory." He surmises 3 different theories to account for James so-called kinship with Jesus that would not entail a physical relationship with Jesus, which are the following:
"First is the possibility that James was understood, like Thomas, to be the earthly, physical counterpart to a heavenly Jesus. Second is that James was prominent among the missionaries known as 'brothers of the Lord.' Third is that his fraternal connection is fictive and presupposes the historicization of a heavenly Jesus and seeks retrospectively to co-opt the James sect by subordinating its figurehead to Jesus as his brother."
These are not ad-hoc hypotheses, as Price adduces some circumstantial evidence for each of them.
Overall, The Christ Myth Theory is a good read and a must have for anyone interested in the idea that Jesus never existed. You can purchase it on Price's homepage.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Ebook
As most of you probably know, I'm currently working on a book called An Index to Theistic Claims which will be kind of like An Index to Creationist Claims except focusing only on god belief.
So, leave a comment on this post telling me whether you want the book to be available as a Kindle ebook. Would you only purchase the book if it was made available to Kindle?
So, leave a comment on this post telling me whether you want the book to be available as a Kindle ebook. Would you only purchase the book if it was made available to Kindle?
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The Bible Geek on Paul
I sent a letter I sent to Robert M. Price aka The Bible Geek. Dr. Price reads and answers the question on the episode of The Bible Geek that aired January 2, 2012 (He reads it towards the end of the episode, over 45 minutes in, I believe). Here's the letter:
Dear Mr. Geek,
As I understand it, the seven "authentic" Pauline letters are thought to be authentic because the style and language of these seven contains deep similarities. The letters that are considered forged are considered that way because, among other things, the style of writing is very different. Are there any other reasons to consider those seven (Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, etc.) to be authentic other than their shared style of writing? As best I can see, a deep similarity in style at best points to a common author of the seven letters. How do we know that the common author was Paul? I suppose one might argue that these letters are to be considered Pauline because the letters say that they were. In ordinary situations, I think that would be reason enough for accepting the claimed authorship. After all, if a piece of writing says that it was written by Robert M. Price, I would assume that it was indeed written by Robert M. Price unless I was given a reason to believe otherwise. However, I don't think that this simple reasoning may be used in the case of the Pauline letters. As far as I know no one is going around forging books in the name of Robert Price. But when we deal with Biblical writings, we find that forgery is the rule, not the exception. In fact, by the reckoning of most scholars, nearly half of the letters in the New Testament that claim Pauline authorship are certainly or quite possibly forged (and I believe the reasons that they cite for this conclusion are valid). By this logic, claimed Pauline authorship is not to be as readily accepted as Robert Pricean authorship, and so some reason for belief in Pauline authorship must be presented besides "It says right here that Paul wrote this." So, here are my questions to you: Do scholars have such reasons? Does the reasoning that I have presented here partially or completely undergird your own skepticism about the authenticity of the Pauline letters?
Dear Mr. Geek,
As I understand it, the seven "authentic" Pauline letters are thought to be authentic because the style and language of these seven contains deep similarities. The letters that are considered forged are considered that way because, among other things, the style of writing is very different. Are there any other reasons to consider those seven (Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, etc.) to be authentic other than their shared style of writing? As best I can see, a deep similarity in style at best points to a common author of the seven letters. How do we know that the common author was Paul? I suppose one might argue that these letters are to be considered Pauline because the letters say that they were. In ordinary situations, I think that would be reason enough for accepting the claimed authorship. After all, if a piece of writing says that it was written by Robert M. Price, I would assume that it was indeed written by Robert M. Price unless I was given a reason to believe otherwise. However, I don't think that this simple reasoning may be used in the case of the Pauline letters. As far as I know no one is going around forging books in the name of Robert Price. But when we deal with Biblical writings, we find that forgery is the rule, not the exception. In fact, by the reckoning of most scholars, nearly half of the letters in the New Testament that claim Pauline authorship are certainly or quite possibly forged (and I believe the reasons that they cite for this conclusion are valid). By this logic, claimed Pauline authorship is not to be as readily accepted as Robert Pricean authorship, and so some reason for belief in Pauline authorship must be presented besides "It says right here that Paul wrote this." So, here are my questions to you: Do scholars have such reasons? Does the reasoning that I have presented here partially or completely undergird your own skepticism about the authenticity of the Pauline letters?
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Happy New Year!
Happy 2012 to everyone out there, especially my readers! I hope you have a prosperous and safe 2012.
This January, as boredom sets in and it remains chilly outside, grab a cup of warm cocoa or coffee and curl up with a copy of my book Selected Essays, now available as a paperback book! (Ebook can be purchased here).
In other news, Richard Carrier recently made an excellent blog post about why eating meat isn't wrong ("Meat Not Bad"). Robert M. Price has released a book called The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems (You can find it for sale on his homepage). I'm reading it right now and should review it within the next several weeks. These two authors also happen to have authored my two most anticipated books of 2012:
The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul
Proving History: Baye's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus
This January, as boredom sets in and it remains chilly outside, grab a cup of warm cocoa or coffee and curl up with a copy of my book Selected Essays, now available as a paperback book! (Ebook can be purchased here).
In other news, Richard Carrier recently made an excellent blog post about why eating meat isn't wrong ("Meat Not Bad"). Robert M. Price has released a book called The Christ Myth Theory and Its Problems (You can find it for sale on his homepage). I'm reading it right now and should review it within the next several weeks. These two authors also happen to have authored my two most anticipated books of 2012:
The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul
Proving History: Baye's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Comments on "Christmas With a Capital C" and More
I recently viewed the Christian movie Christmas with a Capital C
What follows is my comments on it.
I find it ironic that the lead character is played by Ted McGinley, an actor best known for playing gigolo Jefferson D'arcy on Married... With Children. Ted was once on a show boycotted by fundamentalists, and now he stars in a movie that they will love.
The plot of the movie is that two former high school rivals, Mitch Bright (the unbeliever) and Dan Reed (the Christian) butt heads when Mitch moves back into town and brings his evil atheist ideology with him. We learn that Mitch, after graduating from high school, moved to San Francisco (the source of all abonimable liberal evil in America). Mitch is a mean bastard, a liberal, and an atheist. Why, I can't believe he's not also a homosexual!
Mitch seeks to file a lawsuit over some overtly religious Christmas decorations paid for with tax dollars. Mitch has a point there (not on Christmas decorations as such but on overtly religious decorations paid for with tax money), though I personally would never be so bothered by such decorations to file a lawsuit. Mayor Dan Reed is rightly advised that Mitch will win the case, and so he removes the Christmas decorations. The Christians in the town decide that the best way to resolve the conflict is to put up Christmas decorations in privately owned quarters and to "overcome evil with good" and give Mitch Bright a proper and generous welcome to the town. This is a message that I endorse: Yes, Christians, use your freedom of expression when and where it is legal and fair to do so, just as we atheists and everyone else does. And be nice. Represent your faith properly.
Despite that good message being in the film, there also seems to be some scoffing that I found ridiculous. Mayor Dan Reed asks rhetorically if the town is also supposed to have a manorah and a kwanzaa "I don't even know what the symbol is." A comedian featured in the song "Christmas with a Capital C" mockingly says, "I just say happy holidays because you don't believe in Christmas because I don't want to offend you, blah blah blah blah...." as if that were something to laugh about. Ahahahahah! Those people with their tolerance and their inclusiveness, what idiots! The attitude present in these scoffing Christians is remarkably poor, wrong-headed, and hypocritical. They are too arrogant and self-righteous to stop for one second to imagine how people of other faiths, or no faith at all, feel about some things.
How Should Atheists Feel About Christmas?
At one point in the movie the character played by Daniel Baldwin asks rhetorically if the next people Mitch will go after are the ones who say "God Bless You" after you sneeze (he supposes even that would offend an atheist). I'd like to take that and use it as analogy. Though no one knows the origin of that custom for sure, HowStuffWorks reports that "Some people believed that a sneeze causes the soul to escape the body through the nose. Saying 'bless you' would stop the devil from claiming the person's freed soul." No one believes this today, but people still practice the custom of a post-sneeze blessing. Likewise, I think it's completely acceptable to continue Yuletide traditions, even if we know longer endorse the reasons people used to practice them. Little known fact is that the real origin of Christmas is thoroughly pagan. If Christians don't view Christmas as a worship of pagan gods, neither should any atheist think that Christmas is an endorsement of Jesus. It isn't. It was created to celebrate an event in nature, the winter solstice. Regardless of the origins of Christmas, it's fun, and we can have different reasons for liking it than the reasons that people once celebrated it for.
That's my story.
What follows is my comments on it.I find it ironic that the lead character is played by Ted McGinley, an actor best known for playing gigolo Jefferson D'arcy on Married... With Children. Ted was once on a show boycotted by fundamentalists, and now he stars in a movie that they will love.
The plot of the movie is that two former high school rivals, Mitch Bright (the unbeliever) and Dan Reed (the Christian) butt heads when Mitch moves back into town and brings his evil atheist ideology with him. We learn that Mitch, after graduating from high school, moved to San Francisco (the source of all abonimable liberal evil in America). Mitch is a mean bastard, a liberal, and an atheist. Why, I can't believe he's not also a homosexual!
Mitch seeks to file a lawsuit over some overtly religious Christmas decorations paid for with tax dollars. Mitch has a point there (not on Christmas decorations as such but on overtly religious decorations paid for with tax money), though I personally would never be so bothered by such decorations to file a lawsuit. Mayor Dan Reed is rightly advised that Mitch will win the case, and so he removes the Christmas decorations. The Christians in the town decide that the best way to resolve the conflict is to put up Christmas decorations in privately owned quarters and to "overcome evil with good" and give Mitch Bright a proper and generous welcome to the town. This is a message that I endorse: Yes, Christians, use your freedom of expression when and where it is legal and fair to do so, just as we atheists and everyone else does. And be nice. Represent your faith properly.
Despite that good message being in the film, there also seems to be some scoffing that I found ridiculous. Mayor Dan Reed asks rhetorically if the town is also supposed to have a manorah and a kwanzaa "I don't even know what the symbol is." A comedian featured in the song "Christmas with a Capital C" mockingly says, "I just say happy holidays because you don't believe in Christmas because I don't want to offend you, blah blah blah blah...." as if that were something to laugh about. Ahahahahah! Those people with their tolerance and their inclusiveness, what idiots! The attitude present in these scoffing Christians is remarkably poor, wrong-headed, and hypocritical. They are too arrogant and self-righteous to stop for one second to imagine how people of other faiths, or no faith at all, feel about some things.
How Should Atheists Feel About Christmas?
At one point in the movie the character played by Daniel Baldwin asks rhetorically if the next people Mitch will go after are the ones who say "God Bless You" after you sneeze (he supposes even that would offend an atheist). I'd like to take that and use it as analogy. Though no one knows the origin of that custom for sure, HowStuffWorks reports that "Some people believed that a sneeze causes the soul to escape the body through the nose. Saying 'bless you' would stop the devil from claiming the person's freed soul." No one believes this today, but people still practice the custom of a post-sneeze blessing. Likewise, I think it's completely acceptable to continue Yuletide traditions, even if we know longer endorse the reasons people used to practice them. Little known fact is that the real origin of Christmas is thoroughly pagan. If Christians don't view Christmas as a worship of pagan gods, neither should any atheist think that Christmas is an endorsement of Jesus. It isn't. It was created to celebrate an event in nature, the winter solstice. Regardless of the origins of Christmas, it's fun, and we can have different reasons for liking it than the reasons that people once celebrated it for.
That's my story.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)