أخبار عامة - وكالة أنباء المرأة - اخبار الأدب والفن - وكالة أنباء اليسار - وكالة أنباء العلمانية - وكالة أنباء العمال - وكالة أنباء حقوق الإنسان - اخبار الرياضة - اخبار الاقتصاد - اخبار الطب والعلوم
إذا لديكم مشاكل تقنية في تصفح الحوار المتمدن نرجو النقر هنا لاستخدام الموقع البديل

الصفحة الرئيسية - العلمانية، الدين السياسي ونقد الفكر الديني - مهرائيل هرمينا - تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح17















المزيد.....



تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح17


مهرائيل هرمينا

الحوار المتمدن-العدد: 5401 - 2017 / 1 / 13 - 09:48
المحور: العلمانية، الدين السياسي ونقد الفكر الديني
    


جون دومينيك كروسان John Dominic Crossan (ولد 1934 في آيرلندا) عالم آيرلندي أمريكي معروف لتأسيسه الحلقة الدراسية عن عيسى مع روبرت فنك. وهو أحد الرواد في علم الآثار الكتابي وعلم الإنسان والنقد العالي والنقد النصي للعهد الجديد. وهو محاضر شارك في عدة برامج وثائقية عن عيسى والكتاب المقدس.اقترح كروسان أن عيسى كان أحد اليهود المتشائمين غير المتعلمين من خلفية ريفية بدون ملك أرض وأنه اتبع في البداية يوحنا المعمدان، وأنه عمل في شفاء الأمراض وكان كثير الحكمة والشجاعة وعلم رسالة احتواء وتسامح وتحرر. قال إن استراتيجيته جمعت الشفاء المجاني مع مشاركة الطعام وتجاهلت الهرم الطبقي للدين اليهودي والسلطة الرومانية، وأنه لم يكن سمسارا أو وسيطا بل أعلن أنه لا يوجد شيء بين الإله والبشريةبدراسته النصوص القديمة بطبقاتها وإثباتاتها المتعددة شكك كروسان في عدة قصص إنجيلية عن عيسى بما فيها معجزات الطبيعة والولادة العذرية وإحياء لازاروس. أشار لضعف الإثبات وتأخر ظهور المعجزات في قانون الكتاب المقدس لكنه اعتقد أن عيسى عرف في بداية المسيحية كساحر قوي، الأمر الذي سبب مشاكل وجدالات ليس فقط من أعدائه بل أيضا من أصدقائه والذين بدؤوا تخفيف وتقليل قصص المعجزات.
لم يكن هدف مؤلفي الأناجيل الاعتبار الحرفي لها حسب كروسان. رفض من يناقش حقيقة مشي يسوع على الماء لأن المسألة الأهم في رأيه معنى الحدث. واقترح أن الأرجح تاريخيا أن جسد عيسى كمثل كل ضحايا الصلب عدا حادثة واحدة معروفة لم يصل إلى قبر بل التهمته الحيوانات يؤمن كروسان بقيامه من الأموات دينيا لكنه يعتقد أن انتعاش الجسد للحياة لم يكن معروفا للمسيحيين الأوائل. يعتقد أن الاعتقاد بنزول عيسى مرة أخرى سببه سوء فهم رسالة تسالونكي الأولى.
في طريقة دراسته يهتم بتأريخ النصوص وهذا ما شرحه في ملحق كتابه عيسى التاريخي: حياة فلاح يهودي متوسطي. أرخ إنجيل توما القبطي لخمسينات القرن الأول وكذلك الطبقة الأولى من وثيقة ق المفترضة (يعتمد على أعمال جون كلوبنبورغ في هذا). نسب أيضا قسما في إنجيل بطرس سماه "إنجيل الصليب" إلى ما قبل الأناجيل السينوبتية وشرح أسبابه في كتاب الصليب الذي تكلم
يعتقد أن إنجيل الصليب كان محرض قصص الآلام في الأناجيل القانونية. تعود الأناجيل السينوبتية في اعتقاده إلى 75 م فما بعدها وكان إنجيل مرقس أولها وآخرها إنجيل لوقا في التسعينات، بينما يعود قسم من إنجيل يوحنا لبداية القرن الثاني وقسم آخر لمنتصفه. يعتقد مثل رودولف بولتمان بوجود إنجيل آيات أو معجزات سابق لإنجيل يوحنا. طرقه في تحديد التواريخ وخاصة تأريخه لإنجيل توماس وإنجيل الصليب مختلف عليها.
يكتب كروسان للأكاديميين وللعامة. أكبر كتابين له هما عيسى التاريخي: حياة فلاح يهودي متوسطي (1991) وولادة المسيحية: اكتشاف ما حدث مباشرة بعد إعدام عيسى (1998).
من كتبه الشعبية عيسى: سيرة ثورية (1994) ومن قتل عيسى؟ كشف جذور معاداة السامية في قصص الإنجيل عن موت عيسى (1995).
في كتابه الإله والإمبراطورية: عيسى ضد روما، سابقا والآن (2007) يناقش كروسان مفترضا أن القارئ يعرف النقاط الأساسية لكتبه السابقة عن عيسى الثوري غير العنيف وعن حركة المملكة والمحيط الروماني. يشير أيضا أنه "كان هناك شخص في القرن الأول دعي إلها وابن إله والإله وإله من إله ومن ألقابه الرب والفادي والمحرر ومخلص العالم". يضيف أن "معظم المسيحيين يعتقدون على الأرجح أن هذه الألقاب خلقت للمسيح وسمي بها وحده. لكن قبل وجود عيسى كانت كلها ألقاب القيصر أغسطس". حسب كروسان تبنى المسيحيون الأوائل هذه الألقاب لتجريد القيصر منها. "أخذوا أسماء الإمبراطور الرماني وأعطوها لفلاح يهودي. وكان ذلك نكتة غريبة أو سخرية دنيئة أو ما سماه الرومان ماجستاس ونسمية الخيانة العظمى."Scanning the Sunday Gospel,1966
The Gospel of Eternal Life, 1967
In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus, 1973, re-print-ed 1992, ISBN 0-06-061606-7
The Dark Interval: Towards a Theology of Story, 1975, re-print-ed 1988, ISBN 0-944344-06-2
Raid on the Articulate: Comic Eschatology in Jesus and Borges, 1976
Finding Is the First Act: Trove Folktales and Jesus Treasure Parable, 1979
Cliffs of Fall: Paradox and Polyvalence in the Parables of Jesus, 1980
A Fragile Craft: The Work of Amos Niven Wilder, 1981
In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus, 1983
Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon, 1985, re-print-ed 1992, ISBN 0-86683-959-3
Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition, 1986
The Cross that Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative, 1988
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 1991, ISBN 0-06-061629-6
The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images, 1994, re-print-ed 1998, ISBN 0-7858-0901-5
Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 1994, ISBN 0-06-061662-8
Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus, 1995, ISBN 0-06-061480-3
Who Is Jesus? Answers to Your Questions about the Historical Jesus ، edited with Richard Watts, 1996, ISBN 0-664-25842-5
The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus, 1998, ISBN 0-06-061660-1
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand up?: A Debate between وليام لين كرايغ and John Dominic Crossan, 1999, ISBN 0-8010-2175-8
The Jesus Controversy: Perspectives in Conflict (Rockwell Lecture Series), with Luke Timothy Johnson, Werner H. Kelber, 1999, ISBN 1-56338-289-X
A Long Way from Tipperary: A Memoir, 2000, ISBN 0-06-069974-4
Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts, with Jonathan L. Reed, 2001, ISBN 0-06-061634-2
In Search of Paul: How Jesus s Apostle Opposed Rome s Empire with God s Kingdom, with Jonathan L. Reed, 2004, ISBN 0-06-051457-4
The Last Week: A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus s Final Week in Jerusalem with Marcus J. Borg, HarperSanFrancisco (February 28, 2006) ISBN 0-06-084539-2 ISBN 978-0-06-084539-1
God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now, HarperSanFrancisco, 2007, ISBN 978-0-06-084323-

A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: A Translation and Revision of the ninth-tenth German edition incorporating supplementary notes of A. Debrunner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961)
Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (1966)
A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek (1977).
The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (1993)
Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millennium (1996)
The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds (1998).
A Credible Jesus (2002).
Funk on Parables: Collected Essays (Polebridge Press, 2006
Your New Year s Eve Party is Incomplete without a Free Book from Eerdmans!—Chris Keith
In the 1990s, the field of historical Jesus studies enjoyed a significant renaissance and attracted an inordinate amount of media attention. Near the end of that decade, I published a book that surveyed the field and summarized the major themes and positions. That book became a standard textbook in many colleges and universities and I recently revised it for a second edition.1 I thought that might be a fairly simple task, but as I worked on the revision I discovered that more than 50% of the material in the new book would be completely new. A lot has happened in the last twenty years! This might come as a surprise to non-specialists because, for the most part, the media lost interest in historical Jesus studies around the turn of the millennia and most of the work that is now done does not get noticed beyond academic quarters. In this article, I will briefly describe some of the most significant developments.

First, for those who might not be familiar with this field of inquiry, historical Jesus studies is a science that attempts to determine what can be known of Jesus on the basis of historical research alone, that is through the analysis of data pertaining to Jesus in accord with the same standards that would be employed when analyzing data pertaining to any other figure from antiquity. Such analysis is supposed to be free of religious (or anti-religious) bias, and scholars engaged in the field call each other to task when they suspect that one’s conclusions have been influenced by personal predilection. The scholars frequently maintain that they are not trying to discover what might be true of Jesus, but what is verifiable. Thus, if (as a Christian) you want to believe Jesus was born to a virgin, that’s fine, but (as a historian) you must recognize that this is not verifiable–at least, not in accord with any criteria that are normally employed for historical research.

So where are we now? I will list eight developments that have marked the last twenty years of research–and, then, I will mention three “peripheral currents” that might be of interest to purveyors of this website.

1. Historical Jesus studies is becoming more clearly identified as a discrete field of inquiry. The field has typically been regarded as a sub-division of New Testament Studies, which, in turn, belongs to the academic discipline of Religion´-or-Theology. There have, however, been voices who questioned whether Jesus studies might not be more properly conceived as a sub-division of Ancient History (parallel to, say, “Julius Caesar studies”´-or-“Alexander the Great studies”). This identity crisis continues to be investigated but, right now, the growing sense is that Jesus studies does not have to be a sub-set of anything. There are an increasing number of academics who think of themselves primarily as “Jesus scholars,” rather than as “New Testament scholars who happen to be interested in the historical Jesus” (or, for that matter, as “ancient historians who happen to be interested in Jesus”).

2. As a consequence of the above, the field has become more self-reflective with regard to its own history. In the first edition of my book I employed a cute paradigm that described the history of historical Jesus studies as a series of phases (“Old Quest” “No Quest” “New Quest” “Third Quest”– with dates that supposedly marked each phase). At the time, this paradigm was in wide use (I did not invent it), but in the current century, it has fallen out of favor. It tended to relegate entire movements of the discipline to relative obscurity, as representative of failed, terminated projects, and it probably did this in a way that reflected Protestant and/or American bias. In any case, most Jesus scholars now regard such labels as unnecessary. There is a quest for the historical Jesus and it has been going on with diverse (but not easily´-or-helpfully categorized) expressions for more than 200 years. In other words, whereas the 1990s seemed to be a decade in which Jesus scholars wanted to be known as part of something new (a current “cutting edge” approach to Jesus unlike those unproductive quests of the past), the new millennium is an era in which Jesus scholars are prone to connect their work with previous research. These days, the history of the discipline is not viewed as a fitful chronicle of stops and starts but as a progressive process of often insightful exploration. Current Jesus scholars embrace that history without feeling the need to define themselves over against it.

3. The last twenty years have witnessed a decrease in biographies of Jesus and an increase in dissertations concerning him. That translates into more focus on detail. There is a new generation of scholars who seem to have little interest in telling us everything about Jesus but who possess a passion for considering one thing that might ultimately contribute to a bigger picture (Was Jesus illiterate? Did he speak only Aramaic? Did he predict the destruction of the Jerusalem temple?).

4. There is less reliance on the apocryphal gospels than was in vogue a few years ago. No one can ignore those writings completely, but they seem to have worn out their welcome among many scholars who now think that their significance for historical reconstruction was exaggerated. With the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, the apocryphal works are almost unanimously viewed as late and all but void of historically reliable material independent of what can be found in canonical writings.

5. There is a new, cautious appreciation for the historical value of John’s Gospel. In the 1990s, Jesus studies invariably involved analysis of the Synoptic tradition the Fourth Gospel was deemed too theologically developed and its compositional history was considered too complex for it to -function- effectively as a source for historical reconstruction. In the last few decades, however, James Charlesworth, Paula Fredricksen, John Meier and a number of other prominent scholars have made considerable use of John in their work on Jesus. Paul Anderson has led the charge in calling for an across-the-board reconsideration of John’s value as a historical witness.2 The growing trend in current Jesus studies is to recognize the Fourth Gospel as a minority “dissonant tradition” that not only can be utilized but must be, if the Synoptic tradition is not to be accorded free reign in a manner that seems uncritical.

6. One of the most significant recent developments in Jesus studies has been the de-throning of dissimilarity as the favored criterion for historical research. For decades, scholars deemed material inauthentic if it seemed overly compatible with the interests and ideologies of developing Christian religion. There is logic to this that ought not be dismissed, but scholars with a more optimistic appraisal of tradition have complained that such a criterion guarantees a Jesus who has little in common with his closest followers. The more common view today is that, while the presence of dissimilarity may help to establish authenticity, its absence does little to challenge authenticity. Certain traditions (that Jesus was baptized by John that he befriended prostitutes that he regularly ate with tax collectors) are likely to be authentic because they did not serve the theological interests of the church and, in fact, necessitated apologetic explanations. But traditions about Jesus that comport well with confessions and practices of the early Christians should not automatically be suspect: it is at least as likely that those confessions and practices were inspired by Jesus as it is that the traditions concerning Jesus were re-shaped to conform to confessions and practices he did not inspire. Gerd Theissen proposes that the criterion of dissimilarity be replaced by a “criterion of historical plausibility,” according to which “whatever helps to explain the influence of Jesus (on early Christianity) and at the same time can only have come into being in a Jewish context” is to be judged historical.3

7. As one example (or consequence) of the point just discussed, there has been a notable increase in the willingness of scholars to attribute messianic consciousness to the historical Jesus. One of the strongest pieces of evidence cited to support this is the across-the-board claim in New Testament documents that Jesus fulfilled what were thought to be messianic prophecies. For decades, most historical Jesus scholars dismissed passages in which Jesus fulfills the -script-ures as apologetic fabrications of the early church. The assumed scenario was that believers scoured the -script-ures for messianic prophecies and then created´-or-shaped their traditions of Jesus in ways that presented him as fulfilling these prophecies. But, recently, a new wave of scholars have posed a sensible alternative scenario: perhaps Jesus himself (like many other people known to us from history) became convinced that he was the Messiah and then he read´-or-heard about things that the -script-ures said the Messiah would do and tried to shape his life accordingly. This would not explain everything: obviously, Jesus could not have orchestrated his own birth in Bethlehem (the authenticity of which remains highly contested), but why would he not have chosen to ride a donkey into Jerusalem in emulation of Zechariah 9:9?

8. There is also a marked return to the idea that Jesus proclaimed an eschatological/apocalyptic message of a coming kingdom. Perhaps the most distinctive hallmark of Jesus scholarship in the 1990s was a repudiation of the notion that Jesus expected and announced an imminent end of the world. John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and others maintained that Jesus did not speak about the end of the world but of a new way of being.4 The eschatological and apocalyptic sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were dismissed as enthusiastic attributions of a church in crisis, exemplary of the kind of rhetoric spouted by sects experiencing violent persecution and/or social ostracism. The compelling question, however, has been whether the scenario that rejection of this material requires is more plausible than that which ensues if the material is accepted as authentic. We may start by noting that almost all scholars grant that 1) John the Baptist spoke of an imminent end and, 2) Paul also thought the end was at hand. Is it reasonable, then, to assume that Jesus broke with his mentor on this point only to have his own (non-apocalyptic) stance subsequently rejected by his most prominent and earliest interpreter? That could have happened, but isn’t it more reasonable, this argument suggests, to regard Jesus as the midpoint on a trajectory, as the connecting dot on a line from the Baptist to the Apostle? Is it not simpler to assume a progressive development of ideas than to adopt a scenario that requires at least two 180-degree turnabouts? The debate does continue5 but those who grant general authenticity to the eschatological material are now regarded as representative of the mainstream.

All of these developments are sweeping and transcendent, applying to the field of historical Jesus studies in general. But the last two decades have also witnessed the development of certain para-disciplines, scholarly movements that progress alongside the field of historical Jesus studies without necessarily interacting with it. In the new edition of my book, I treat these in a series of three appendixes because, in my judgment, they are not actually having much of an impact on the quest for the historical Jesus. Nevertheless, I recognize the potential for public interest in these matters (and I suspect that the appendixes might be the most popular part of my book).

First, there is the work of mythicists who claim that Jesus never existed. The notion that Jesus is a completely legendary figure (like Robin Hood´-or-King Arthur)´-or-a total fabrication of the church has been bandied about at a popular level for centuries, usually among atheist´-or-vehemently anti-Christian groups who rely on elaborate conspiracy theories rather than academic evidence. Recently, however, the “Jesus myth theory” (as it is called) has been taken up in earnest by a handful of academic scholars, including Robert M. Price, a respected New Testament professor who remains a Christian, committed to faith in the mythical Jesus, while maintaining that the historical Jesus did not exist.6

Second, we should mention the work of Christian apologists who devote themselves to establishing the historicity of various matters that historical Jesus scholars have deemed unverifiable. Craig Keener, for example, authored a detailed two-volume work on why the miracles attributed to Jesus should be accepted as authentic, historical events.7 He maintains that a refusal to recognize the historicity of events that are deemed “supernatural” stems from an anti-religious form of bigotry that is at least culturally biased and probably racist. Others wonder if he would apply the same reasoning to miracles reported in the Qu’ran´-or-Book of Mormon.

Finally, there is the work of psychohistorians who attempt to construct psychological profiles of Jesus that would account for his behavior. Popular topics have included family circumstances that might have contributed to his particular conception of religion (e.g., he was an illegitimate son who found comfort in thinking he was the “son of God”) factors that would have contributed to development of what is now called (because of him) a “messianic complex” personality disorders that might explain his suicidal tendency and so forth. Psychologists of various types (Freudian, Jungian, Eriksonian, etc.) have surveyed what is regarded as the most reliable data regarding Jesus and offered their opinions concerning what sort of person in that social context would have chosen to remain celibate,´-or-call disciples,´-or-tell parables,´-or-relate to the marginalized (or to women,´-or-to authority figures) as Jesus is reported to have done.

In general, the work of mythicists, apologists, and psychohistorians does not get much traction in historical Jesus studies. The “Jesus myth theory” is typically dismissed as tendentious and lacking reasonable support. The work of apologists is considered sporadically–almost everyone will admit that the apologists sometimes make good points worthy of consideration, but their unwillingness to consider counter-arguments excludes them from settings where the bulk of academic conversation occurs. And while psychohistories of Jesus might be filled with intriguing possibilities, they are nevertheless regarded as too speculative to be taken seriously by most historical Jesus scholars.

Mark Allan Powell is Professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary. He served as General Editor for the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary (2011) and is the author of a widely used college textbook, Introducing the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2009).


Notes
1 Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, 2nd edition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013) the first edition was published in 1998.

2 Paul N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered (New York: T&T Clark, 2006).

3 See Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), p. 116.

4 See especially Marcus J. Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Society (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994), p. 74. But studies on Jesus by Dale C. Allison, Darrell Bock, James D. G. Dunn, Bart Ehrman, Craig Evans, Joachim Gnilka, Leander Keck, Scot McKnight, John Meier, E. P. Sanders, Graham Twelftree, and N. T. Wright have all argued for an eschatologically focused Jesus.

5 A good, though somewhat dated resource for assessing this discussion is Robert J. Miller, ed., The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2004).

6 See Robert M. Price, “Jesus at the Vanishing Point,”pp. 55–104 in The Historical Jesus: Five Views, ed. by James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2009).

7 Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Baker AcadDid Jesus Exist?
Gary R. Habermas
About the Author
Professor Gary R. Habermas is the Distinguished Research Professor and Chair of the Philosophy and Theology Department at Liberty University in Virginia, USA. His professional life has concentrated on the examination of the historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus.
View all resources by Gary R. Habermas

emic, 2011).
Seldom have recent scholars questioned´-or-denied the historical existence of Jesus. Of the very few who have done so, G.A. Wells is probably the best known. In this article, I will outline and then respond to some of his major tenets.

A Summary Critique: Questioning the Existence of Jesus

Before turning to this topic, I will first note that the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus. For example, theologian Rudolf Bultmann asserted, "By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt´-or-deny that Jesus ever lived."[1]

Historian Michael Grant termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an "extreme view." He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: "if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: "modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory." These positions have been "annihilated" by the best scholars because the critics "have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[2]

Digressing to a personal story, a potential publisher once asked me to contact a reviewer. An influential New Testament scholar at a secular university, he had voted to publish my manu-script-, but only if I deleted the section dealing with Well s hypotheses. He said that Well s suppositions were virtually devoid of serious historical content. He only relented after I convinced him that Wells still had some popular appeal.

Wells is aware of these attitudes towards his works. He acknowledges that "nearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus historicity as ridiculous."[3] He adds, "the view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity ... is today almost universally rejected."[4] He concludes the matter: "serious students of the New Testament today regard the existence of Jesus as an unassailable fact" (HEJ 223). Even Michael Martin, one of Wells few scholarly supporters, draws the rather restrained conclusion that "Wells thesis is controversial and not widely accepted ...."[5]

Of course Wells would be correct to note that scholarly opinions are not formulated by an academic head count. So the essential question concerns why many scholars find Well s position to be so fatally flawed. Why is he so frequently ignored?

This is the focus of this essay. It is my contention that Well s theses are a seedbed of informal logical errors, especially begging the question and special pleading. He must simply bend over backwards at many places in order to maintain his contentions. Rather than critique his overall proposal, which I have done elsewhere,[6] I will attempt a different approach here. I will list and discuss several of these unsupportable claims throughout his works. Most of these problems have the potential to seriously undermine´-or-disprove his theses. In fact, in several places, Wells even admits the serious consequences for his view if he is mistaken.

Wells Thesis

Briefly, Wells postulates four layers in early Christianity (with some overlap), starting with Paul s eight authentic letters written in the 50s and 60s AD.[7] But Paul knew exceptionally little about the historical Jesus, ignoring both where and when Jesus lived. The second level consists of post-Pauline epistles like Ephesians, Hebrews, I Peter, and Clement of Rome s letter, all dating perhaps 80-105 AD. The third layer is composed of the pastoral epistles and Ignatius letters, dated around 110 AD. The fourth level contains the canonical gospels, dated from 90´-or-100 AD to some later time in the second century, perhaps decades later.

For Wells, historical claims about Jesus generally did not begin to accumulate until the third layer. Before 90 AD, Jesus remained an undated, mysterious figure about whom virtually nothing was known´-or-reported (DJE, 47, 65 HEJ, 217-220).

Wells thinks that Jesus either never existed or, if he did, he had very little influence in his own time. The stories about him developed much later, over time. In sum, "Jesus is not linked with a recognizable historical situation in any document (Christian, Jewish´-or-pagan) that can be proved to have originated before about AD 100" (DJE, 215).

A Critique of Wells Hypotheses

Wells ideas are wide open to criticism at a variety of junctures. Rather than attempt the more systematic approach I have employed in earlier writings, I will list problems that indicate significant flaws. At several places which he admits are integral, Wells resorts to almost any explanation, no matter how incredible, in order to disallow apparent textual meanings. If these texts are taken at face value, he realizes his thesis is in deep trouble. So Wells must disallow all time references to Jesus being a contemporary of New Testament persons.

(1) Wells late-dating the earliest gospel (Mark) to 90-100 AD and the others to well into the second century certainly helps his thesis by divorcing Jesus from the early sources. For example, it allows him to remove Pilate s connection with Jesus until at least 90 AD (DJE, 47, 65 HEJ, 10-11). But these dates are opposed by virtually every other scholar writing on this subject, whether liberal´-or-conservative. Even critical scholars usually date these four books from 65-100 AD. So Wells dates Mark about two´-or-three decades later than almost everyone else, including those same scholars he cites so positively.

Though we definitely cannot respond in detail here, just a brief line of reasoning will be mentioned. Most of the Book of Acts is devoted to the careers of Peter and Paul, with many chapters centering in Jerusalem. The deaths of Stephen (7:54-60) and the apostle James (12:1-2) are recorded, and the book ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome (28:14-31). Yet nothing is mentioned about the deaths of Paul and Peter (mid-60s AD),´-or-James, the Lord s brother (about 62 AD). Further, the Jewish War with the Romans beginning in 66 and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 are also absent. These five events are not arbitrary each is absolutely central to the book s key persons and geography, making them absolutely integral to the theme.

So how could the author of Acts not mention these last five events, which dwarf many of the other items in the book? By far the best solution is that none of these things had yet occurred. These absences argue very strongly for an early date, before the mid-60s.

Since Luke was written prior to Acts,[8] but after Mark and Matthew, we may then date all five books before 65 AD. Even if we are too early by ten´-or-so years, this is still a serious challenge to Wells. If the majority of contemporary scholars is right, then Wells would still be crucially wrong by about 25 years on each book. This would indicate that facts regarding the historical Jesus circulated at a much earlier date than he asserts. The more Wells is mistaken on these dates, the closer our historical information gets to Jesus.

(2) Wells realizes that if Paul s reference to "James the Lord s brother" (Galatians 1:19) means that he met with Jesus sibling, then this alone is very troubling to his thesis (HEJ, 167-174 DJE, 21). But here we perceive Wells special pleading at its very best. Rather than admit Paul s straightforward meaning, he suggests that there was a zealous group in the early church who were not relatives but were called "the brethren of the Lord"!

Very surprisingly, Wells even admits the severity of his plight:

If Paul means blood brother of a historical Jesus, then it would suffice to establish – against my view – that Jesus had really lived in the first half of the first century. Furthermore, I must admit that this interpretation of Paul s words does seem the immediate and obvious one. Here, then, is a case where what seems to be the plain sense of a text ... would weigh very heavily indeed against my view of Christian origins. (HEJ, 167)
But there are several reasons that Paul was referring to Jesus brother. As Wells states, this is the normal way to understand this passage. Second, in I Corinthians 9:5, the Lord s brothers refer to individuals who are authoritative enough to be compared to Peter and the apostles, not to some obscure group of believers. Third, all four gospels refer to Jesus physical brothers.[9] James is even specified as one of them (Mark 6:3 Matt. 13:55-56). Whatever date is assigned to these books, they plainly understood the tradition in a way that disagrees with Wells. Fourth, we will discuss below Jewish historian Josephus, who also calls James the brother of Jesus.[10] But Josephus would hardly be referring to a sectarian group of believers known within the church! Fifth, there is no historical evidence to support Wells specific contention concerning James.

So this leaves Wells to face his own critique stated above. That he is clearly wrong about James weighs heavily against his entire thesis concerning the historical Jesus, just like he admits.

(3) Paul appears to refer to those who were physically present with Jesus, calling them the twelve (I Corinthians 15:4) and the apostles (15:7). As with James, Wells fully realizes that if this is so, then his thesis suffers at another key point: "If these words were really written by Paul, then it looks as though he was aware that Jesus chose twelve disciples and if Paul in this respect corroborates what the gospels say, then it would be reasonable to infer that he also knows the principle facts of Jesus life ...." (DJE, 124). But Wells contends that "apostle" does not mean a physical companion of Jesus (HEJ, 227, note 14). Further, "the twelve" was interpolated into Paul s epistle (DJE, 124), even without textual evidence for this conclusion! Again, Wells recognizes a crucial passage, and once again, the sense of special pleading is apparent. He is willing to say virtually anything to avoid a clear text opposing his view, even if he has to ignore the contrary evidence and hold that it was added, relying on little more than his own assertion.

(4) Wells treatment of the many nonbiblical references to Jesus is also quite problematic. He downplays those presenting difficulties for his position (Thallus, Tacitus), and suggests late dates for others, again in contrast to the wide majority of scholars (Thallus [perhaps second century AD!], Polycarp [135 AD!], Papias [140 AD]). Yet, he provides few reasons why these dates should be preferred (DJE, 10-15, 78, 139 HEJ, 15-18).

The most important problem for Wells treatment is Josephus testimony. In order to dismiss this important Jewish documentation, Wells resorts to questioning both of Josephus references to Jesus. Not only does he disallow them as interpolated comments, but he asserts that this is also "widely admitted" by scholars (HEJ, 18 DJE, 10-11). But he is so wide of the mark here that one is tempted to question his research altogether.

While virtually everyone thinks that portions of Josephus longer statement in Antiquities 18:3 has been added, the majority also think that a fair amount still came from Josephus. Princeton Seminary s James Charlesworth strongly concludes: "We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus."[11] John Drane adds that "most scholars have no doubts about the authenticity" of the passage s nucleus.[12] Written about 93-94 AD, Josephus statement, among other claims, clearly links Jesus to his disciples and connects his crucifixion to Pilate. It is independent of the gospels, according to Wells dating.

Josephus second statement refers to James as the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ (Antiquities 20:9). This also hurts Well s thesis significantly, because it likewise links Jesus to a first century person who was known to Paul and other apostles.[13] In spite of Wells dismissal (without citing a single scholar who agrees – HEJ, 18), Yamauchi concludes, "Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage."[14]

Thus it is no wonder that Wells would dearly like to squelch Josephus two references to Jesus. Both clearly place Jesus in a specific first century context connected with the apostles and Pilate, cannot be derived from the gospels on Wells dating, and come from a non-Christian. Wells even notes that such independent data would be of "great value" (DJE, 14). So it is exceptionally instructive, not just that Wells dismisses both, but that he clearly wishes his readers to think that contemporary scholarship is firmly on his side when it very clearly is nowhere close. Charlesworth specifically refers to Wells treatment of Josephus, saying that, "Many solid arguments can be presented against such distortions and polemics."[15]

Other problems abound with Wells thesis that attempts to disconnect Jesus from a first century AD context. For example, he tries to dismiss Paul s dating the resurrection appearances to the third day after Jesus death in I Corinthians 15:4 (DJE, 31). While Wells readily admits that many like Peter and Paul claimed to be witnesses of resurrection appearances, this fails to connect Jesus to the first century (DJE, 32 HEJ, 43-44)! While earlier he compares Christianity to ancient mythology (DJE, 182-193), he later criticizes such efforts (HEJ, 218-219). Further, he regularly stumbles when attempting to summarize recent scholarship. But Wells recognizes his lack of specialization, as a self-proclaimed "amateur" (DJE, 2), having taught German.

The entire subject of the resurrection is also troublesome for Wells. Responding to my debate with atheist Antony Flew,[16] noting that Flew did not do well, Wells wrote a response that repeats his tiered thesis.[17] Still he struggles, trying to explain the resurrection by the same discredited methods discussed here. Although he notes the repetition during the debate (4), this did not keep him from repeatedly misunderstanding my arguments (especially 23-36).

Conclusion

Why do scholars reject Wells thesis? Because it cuts out Christianity s heart and even critics refuse to face this (DJE, 205)? I have argued that there is another reason. One does not impress scholars by maintaining a thesis at all costs, consistently resorting to extraordinary means to overlook any bit of data that would disprove one s view. Even ally Martin realizes that Wells arguments may sometimes seem "ad hoc and arbitrary."[18]

But at several points, this is clearly what Wells does. He often admits that a natural textual reading devastates his theories. Then he dismisses every historical reference linking Jesus to the first century, making some bizarre moves in the process. This most obviously occurs in his treatments of James, Jesus disciples, and Josephus. Along with dating the gospels decades later than almost everyone, these and other factors combine to produce the sense of ad hoc argumentation. But it all seriously undermines his system, as well as eroding his credibility.

Wells appears to declare virtually anything rather than admitting Jesus historicity. Yet, one by one, his house of cards collapses. This is precisely why the vast majority of scholars reject Well s claims: he fails to deal adequately with the historical data.

Endnotes
[1]. "The Story of the Synoptic Gospels," Form Criticism, trans. Frederick Grant (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 60.
[2]. Jesus: An Historian s Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 199-200.
[3]. Did Jesus Exist?, Revised edition (London: Pemberton, 1978, 1986), 213 (abbreviated in text as DJE).
[4]. The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1988), 218 (abbreviated in text as HEJ).
[5]. The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 67.
[6]. See Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin: College Press, 1996), Chapter 2, which also critiques Martin s treatment.
[7]. Wells identifies these as Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, Philemon, and probably Colossians (HEJ, 19-22).
[8]. Compare Luke 1:1-3 with Acts 1:1.
[9]. Matthew 12:46-47 Mark 3:31-32 Luke 8:19-20 John 7:5.
[10]. Antiquities 20:9.
[11]. Jesus Within Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 96.
[12]. Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 138.
[13]. Galatians 1:19 I Corinthians 9:5 Acts 15:1-20.
[14]. "Josephus and the -script-ures," Fides et Historia, Vol. 13 (1980), 53.
[15]. Charlesworth, 98. For further details, see 90-98 Yamauchi, 42-63 Drane, 138 and Habermas, 43-44, 192-196.
[16]. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, ed. Terry Miethe (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987).
[17]. A Resurrection Debate (London: Rationalist Press, 1988), 3-4, 44-46.
[18]. Ibid., 55.
تلك دراسات متباينة انا لاانفى وجود يسوع بل نبحث لنعرف من هو؟



#مهرائيل_هرمينا (هاشتاغ)      



اشترك في قناة ‫«الحوار المتمدن» على اليوتيوب
حوار مع الكاتب البحريني هشام عقيل حول الفكر الماركسي والتحديات التي يواجهها اليوم، اجرت الحوار: سوزان امين
حوار مع الكاتبة السودانية شادية عبد المنعم حول الصراع المسلح في السودان وتاثيراته على حياة الجماهير، اجرت الحوار: بيان بدل


كيف تدعم-ين الحوار المتمدن واليسار والعلمانية على الانترنت؟

تابعونا على: الفيسبوك التويتر اليوتيوب RSS الانستغرام لينكدإن تيلكرام بنترست تمبلر بلوكر فليبورد الموبايل



رأيكم مهم للجميع - شارك في الحوار والتعليق على الموضوع
للاطلاع وإضافة التعليقات من خلال الموقع نرجو النقر على - تعليقات الحوار المتمدن -
تعليقات الفيسبوك () تعليقات الحوار المتمدن (0)


| نسخة  قابلة  للطباعة | ارسل هذا الموضوع الى صديق | حفظ - ورد
| حفظ | بحث | إضافة إلى المفضلة | للاتصال بالكاتب-ة
    عدد الموضوعات  المقروءة في الموقع  الى الان : 4,294,967,295
- اسطورة العود الابدى ميرسيا الياد
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح15
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح13
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح14
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح11
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح12
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح9
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح10
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح8
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح5
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح6
- اريوسى..مؤرخ الكنيسة
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح4
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح2
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح3
- تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح
- ماهو الكتاب المقدس؟
- يسوع اله الشمس
- تناقضات العهد القديم
- 2تزيف التاريخ


المزيد.....




- ماذا نعرف عن قوات الفجر الإسلامية في لبنان؟
- استمتع بأغاني رمضان.. تردد قناة طيور الجنة الجديد 2024 على ا ...
- -إصبع التوحيد رمز لوحدانية الله وتفرده-.. روديغر مدافع ريال ...
- لولو فاطرة في  رمضان.. نزل تردد قناة وناسة Wanasah TV واتفرج ...
- مصر.. الإفتاء تعلن موعد تحري هلال عيد الفطر
- أغلق باب بعد تحويل القبلة.. هكذا تطورت أبواب المسجد النبوي م ...
- -كان سهران عندي-.. نجوى كرم تثير الجدل بـ-رؤيتها- المسيح 13 ...
- موعد وقيمة زكاة الفطر لعام 2024 وفقًا لتصريحات دار الإفتاء ا ...
- أسئلة عن الدين اليهودي ودعم إسرائيل في اختبار الجنسية الألما ...
- الأحزاب الدينية تهدد بالانسحاب من ائتلاف نتنياهو بسبب قانون ...


المزيد.....

- المسيحية بين الرومان والعرب / عيسى بن ضيف الله حداد
- ( ماهية الدولة الاسلامية ) الكتاب كاملا / أحمد صبحى منصور
- كتاب الحداثة و القرآن للباحث سعيد ناشيد / جدو دبريل
- الأبحاث الحديثة تحرج السردية والموروث الإسلاميين كراس 5 / جدو جبريل
- جمل أم حبل وثقب إبرة أم باب / جدو جبريل
- سورة الكهف كلب أم ملاك / جدو دبريل
- تقاطعات بين الأديان 26 إشكاليات الرسل والأنبياء 11 موسى الحل ... / عبد المجيد حمدان
- جيوسياسة الانقسامات الدينية / مرزوق الحلالي
- خطة الله / ضو ابو السعود
- فصول من فصلات التاريخ : الدول العلمانية والدين والإرهاب. / يوسف هشام محمد


المزيد.....


الصفحة الرئيسية - العلمانية، الدين السياسي ونقد الفكر الديني - مهرائيل هرمينا - تناقضات العهد الجديد المنقح17