Contrast Dr. Ehrman’s take on Jesus with that of C. S. Lewis who said you can’t just say that Jesus is an ordinary man. He is one of three a liar, a lunatic or he is Lord of life.
We have found that Dr. Ehrman conveniently covers up the truth by not bringing to light all of the relevant data. He is covering the data with a bias.
Dr. Ehrman entitles the 5th chapter of Jesus Interrupted, Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus. It appears that this title is a sneer toward what he perceives his evangelical roots to be. The liar, lunatic or lord concept was popularized by a famous Englishman, C. S. Lewis in a statement about the person of Jesus and what is recorded of Him in the Greek New Testament.
Ehrman, however, simply notes this trilemma and adds “legend” which is his main thesis for the data widely accepted by most Christians as the best sources for Jesus’ teachings and the events of His life. To bring you up to speed on what C. S. Lewis stated I have included the quote here. Realize that at this point in Lewis’ life, he assumes much of the recorded data in the New Testament to be true. He was not raised with that view. In fact, it appears that he was an atheist who came very hesitantly into taking a more reverent view of Jesus.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
To understand that these are our choices; you must put this trilemma in the context of the data of the New Testament. Some today will not give the documentation of Jesus a fair shake and are not open to the possibility that Jesus even existed as a historical person. Dr. Ehrman does believe that Jesus existed but looses focus on the closest and, what are I believe, the most accurate sources for Jesus, the Gospels. He makes an assumption that other sources should be given equal weight. These sources only muddy the water. Dr. Ehrman and other modern scholars of any persuasion cannot retrieve in the 21st century the context in which the 4 or the many gospels were written and the reaction of the “500” witnesses (I Corinthians 15) or other 1st century Christians to those gospels. The data is simply not available now. Therefore, the best approach is to accept the canon of New Testament scriptures realizing that the “experts” with relevant data developed that canon. Modern “experts” do not have the resources that 1st and 2nd century “experts” had available to them.
The issue is not church father, Eusebius (3rd century) vs. Water Bauer, an 18th century theologian (Chapter 5). What really matters is recorded in the Greek New Testament, and we don’t need the early church fathers to understand the historical Jesus. We have the best documentation in the New Testament from the mouths of eyewitnesses. These are the best sources because they are earliest and closest to the actual historical Jesus and the events of His life.
5 responses so far ↓
Shamelessly Atheist // November 15, 2009 at 5:37 pm |
I give no weight to the gospels at all. They can’t even come close to a minimal standard of evidence. Even if I were to accept eyewitness testimony for the extraordinary claims of Christianity (I most certainly don’t), those promoting the claims don’t even have that. I couldn’t care less whethere CS Lewis took the gospels as being true. That is an argument from authority, a basic logic fallacy. I prefer to look at the evidence.
So, do we have testimony from the 500 witnesses (as you think you do)? No. You have the testimony of one man (Paul) that there were 500 witnesses, from a man WHO HIMSELF WAS NOT THERE. Not quite the extraordinary evidence we require.
Thus legend is by far the more likely reality. There may or may not have been a historical Jesus (the evidence for me is not compelling), but this is moot. The biblical Jesus bears all the hallmarks of made up stories with no corroboration.
papapound // November 15, 2009 at 10:56 pm |
Actually we do have testimony from the 500 witnesses.
Why not just read the New Testament as literature and examine the unextraordinary statements there for what they are worth.
Lastly, the statement in I Corinthians 15 is NOT from Paul as you claim. He is reiterating that statement which came from eye witnesses. The statements in the creed are from those who saw the events of the creed as eyewitnesses.
Thanks for your comment.
Shamelessly Atheist // November 16, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
No, you most certainly do not. You have a claimn of 500 made by one person. That is not the same thing as if it were individual testimonies of each of the 500.
Not only have I read them, unlike most Christians I know their history. As evidence, they aren’t unextraordinary. They are in point of fact worthless, unless you are willing to lower the bar to a ridiculously low level. To accept them as being true without question (i.e., on faith) is simply credulous thinking.
Oh, so we’re accepting heresay evidence without corroboration? Wow. And not a good ‘wow’.
papapound // November 17, 2009 at 2:29 am |
What creed means is, that there was a community consensus that all statements in the creed are true. This creed was created by eyewitnesses using statements which were believed among all eyewitnesses. The creed was passed to new communities of Christians as they sprang us, so yes, there was much corroboration amongst eyewitnesses, that is, based on events they actually saw and not based on heresay.
papapound // November 17, 2009 at 2:33 am |
So, this community of 10,000 at least (within a few days of Pentacost) believed that Jesus had certainly died. They believed that he was raised to life because he made appearances to people. He appeared to individual and to the Twelve. On one occassion, he appeared to more than 500 people.
Tangentially, many of the 500 were alive at the Apostle Paul’s writing and could be consulted to verify what is in the creed.