Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

[DWill]

<Ok, so they ran out of "higher consciousness" at this wedding, and Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more "higher consciousness!" Wait!!! It's all making sense!!! Oh wait... no it's not...>

It makes a lot of sense though if they were just talking about water being turned into wine.

Yes, I agree, it's not making sense. How did mythicists get the idea that folk-based stories had nothing to do with the folk? These stories concern such common themes and cultural elements because the people understood these terms so well. They made the perfect materials for conveying a moral teaching that would have a primary appeal to the audience. "Higher consciousness" wouldn't have been "on the minds" of the audience, I bet.

[tat tvam asi]

^That depends on who the audience is you're referring to. The general masses hearing the exoteric surface story line of the mystery teaching or the initiates who had ventured into learning how to interpret the esoteric meaning of the surface story line symbolism. Obviously Christianity started out professing to reveal ancient mysteries and is therefore subject to consideration on the mystery school basis. And these mysteries always speak at two levels. It's like you're arguing, no, it doesn't mean the deeper level it means the surface level when it obviously has to do with both levels. Origen actually lectured on this very thing as concerns OT and NT interpretation. For instance he pointed out that who there among them (in Alexandria) is so ignorant that they think that Satan literally took Jesus to the top of a mountain and viewed the entire world from there? What sense does that make literally? Where is this mountain from which the whole world can be viewed? He was speaking to deeper levels of interpretation that don't rest on literal interpretation foundations and pointing out various biblical passages that can be accepted "spiritually," as he put it....

[DWill]

^That depends on who the audience is you're referring to. The general masses hearing the exoteric surface story line of the mystery teaching or the initiates who had ventured into learning how to interpret the esoteric meaning of the surface story line symbolism. Obviously Christianity started out professing to reveal ancient mysteries and is therefore subject to consideration on the mystery school basis. And these mysteries always speak at two levels. It's like you're arguing, no, it doesn't mean the deeper level it means the surface level when it obviously has to do with both levels. Origen actually lectured on this very thing as concerns OT and NT interpretation. For instance he pointed out that who there among them (in Alexandria) is so ignorant that they think that Satan literally took Jesus to the top of a mountain and viewed the entire world from there? What sense does that make literally? Where is this mountain from which the whole world can be viewed? He was speaking to deeper levels of interpretation that don't rest on literal interpretation foundations and pointing out various biblical passages that can be accepted "spiritually," as he put it....

I don't mean to say that something can't be read on more than one level; but I did think that yourkst was disavowing the surface level entirely. There is also a lot of room for judgment based on the particular story being examined. We don't have a basis to say that Bible stories in general are to be read on a specified level; they vary in their nature and purpose. Certainly the example you cite allegorizes more easily than the one yourkst and doulous were talking about.

[Robert Tulip]

About the only thing in the New Testament that can't be read as allegory is the statement at Luke 3:1 "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene"

The rest is fiction placed within this historical setting. Jesus himself explains this quite clearly at mark 4:11 "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables."

This really says that even the story of Jesus himself is a parable, a story whose meaning is not found in the literal events described but in its allusion to a deeper meaning. Jesus is a parable for the connection between history and eternity, between human life and transcendent reality.

How these things work is that the authors start with the message 'we are connected to transcendent reality'. They then look to see how they can picture this message in a way the general public can understand. With the Jesus story, this means putting the objective into a symbolic image, a man who is the connection point. Having originated in this imaginary explanation, the story took on a life of its own.

[DWill]

About the only thing in the New Testament that can't be read as allegory is the statement at Luke 3:1 "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene"

In this one phrase "that can't be read as allegory" may be the crux of the matter. There is no clear limit to what can be read as allegory, in whatever it might be that we're reading. Matters of appropriateness, provenance, and literary genre assume a very important role here. The reason I tended to agree with the late ant (since incorporated by dulous) on the matter of credentials is that judgment needs to be informed by a deep knowledge of the period and of sources in the original languages, all best assured by the granting of academic degrees. Otherwise, it all begins to sound like deconstructionism.

Whereas most would say that two or more levels of reading are possible, you, Robert, are saying that really only one is--the symbolical. The literal level is a sham, a stepping stone for the masses to the real matter of the story. That the story "took on a life of its own" must mean that the writers failed completely in their design. I don't agree that they had such a design, of course. That isn't to say that every piece was meant to appeal to literal understanding; there was a degree of sophistication at work that lent variety to the levels of significance. It's basic multi-level interpretation that the Catholic Church has taught for centuries.

[youkrst]

no one is denying that there really is more than one way to skin a cat but only a dullard would think that is the main thrust of the famous saying.

such a dullard would have missed the point entirely and need to have the thing explained to them.

no one is denying the story of jesus reads like a story but it is obviously filled with symbolism and allegory with metaphor and of course christ himself is a metaphor.

unfortunately so many millions (myself included) were dumb enough to miss it's esoteric meaning and only got the exoteric version which would be hilarious if the consequences weren't so frequently tragic.

no no no, the literalists say, how dare you say jesus is mere metaphor, but of course there is no mere about it, simply an ingenious metaphor.

a metaphor which when recieved as history has had disastrous consequences all round.

talking snakes, magic tricks, incredible stories, all make sense when you become a little familiar with the symbols and their esoteric meaning but read outwardly they have done severe damage.

paul himself points this out

the letter (exoteric) kills but the spirit (esoteric) gives life.

if someone insists on being ignorant, well so be it, but the esoteric meaning is still there for those who wish to profit by it.

in bible language the exoteric (outward) is for the child in understanding the esoteric (concealed within) for those who have gone on to better things.

try telling someone who knows what "there's more than one way to skin a cat" means, that it is really about skinning cats, they will think you a bit thick to say the least.

that is how literalists sound to me.

all it takes is a little seeking, reading and thinking and the inner meaning of the texts will open, but if literalist orthodox christians continue to say "no, my jesus died so his blood could cleanse me of my sins" (literally) then they will continue to be thick as a brick and nowhere near as useful. {unless of course you are a televangelist or a pope or some such}

the world is littered with corpses both literal and metaphoric as a direct result of literalism.

thats why i bother to type on the subject.

[tat tvam asi]

It is pretty ridiculous taken literally. That one used to bother me in high school. I'd analyze the whole concept of the blood sacrifice for sin and how ridiculous it really is when you think about it. The communion really got to me too. We'd have to wash peoples feet and have our feet washed by others. I remember thinking,"isn't this just a little bit too literal?"



As if we really ought to be washing each others nasty feet, literally, any more than some jackass ought to be walking down the side of the road carrying a wooden cross, literally. And it was refreshing to eventually find Campbell's scholarship and revisit some of the those old pressing questions from high school years later.

[Doulos]

In this one phrase "that can't be read as allegory" may be the crux of the matter. There is no clear limit to what can be read as allegory, in whatever it might be that we're reading. Matters of appropriateness, provenance, and literary genre assume a very important role here. The reason I tended to agree with the late ant (since incorporated by dulous) on the matter of credentials is that judgment needs to be informed by a deep knowledge of the period and of sources in the original languages, all best assured by the granting of academic degrees. Otherwise, it all begins to sound like deconstructionism.

I am not Ant, nor have I consumed him or absorbed his essence. Any such rumours should be taken in entirely the same vein as the 'Obama birth certificate' issue.

Without getting into a drawn out discussion on this, Jesus and the disciples are quite clear when giving a metaphor. The 'Parable of the Weeds' (Matthew 13:24-43) for example clearly is a metaphor. When people write about real people doing real things (like sitting at a meal, going to a banquet, going to the temple in Jerusalem, etc), there may be a metaphorical layer, but the primary praxis for understanding is literal.

The Romans did not crucify Jesus for telling nice metaphors.


...and youkrst, my apologies for mocking your metaphor example.

[tat tvam asi]

^The jury's still out on whether they even crucified Jesus in the first place.

But according to the story line 'they' apparently did crucify Jesus due to the will of the Jewish authorities, though. John 10:30 "I and the father are one," is a metaphor for the mystery of mere existence. It involves a reference to the transcendent and the only means by which to refer to the transcendent is by way of metaphor which involves the usage of words, thoughts, and terms which appear on this side of the human and cosmic mystery (that's basic Campbell 101 BTW).

And that metaphor is the very basis for the blasphemy charge that the crucifixion hinges upon within the context of the gospel tale.

[Doulos]

@ tat

Actually, I washed the feet of some students awhile ago during a youth group. At first they laughed, but when they saw that I was seriously going to take my shirt off and wash their feet, they got very serious. One of them called me months after that night to tell me how much it had impacted him, and showed him the depth of meaning indicated by Christ (see John 13:1-17).

There's nothing silly about the act.

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
(Philippians 2:3)

Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves.
(Romans 12:10)

The silliness comes when people think the Bible is a metaphor for a love without action.