6. Christianity Arguments For and Against 3. D. thru J
3. D. Defenses for historical Christianity
Historical Christianity refers to evidence and logic for the actual existence of Christianity in history.
A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth' by Christopher Price is an article directed not only at the Jesus myth, but also can serve to argue against the general refutations of Christianity itself. Arguments can apply to both. The Jesus myth is the Mythicist's view claiming that Jesus basically was another sun god who never really existed.. Others claim Christianity has no historical base, myth or not.
Price surveys various scholars who review the subject and I'll mention a few and their key points which were clear to me. Shirley Case in 1912 wrote 'the Historicity of Jesus' and while some of Price's summary of his work is unclear to me, some points came across. Chief among them for Case is the fact that the evidence for various alternative theories for the rise of Christianity have less of a factual base than the original historical explanation that they criticize. He also feels the Mythologists make too many generalizations and find it too easy to accuse defenders of being stuck in the mud. He also finds their zeal sometimes not in character with scientific research. They criticize scientific research when convenient but don't give it credit when it is deserving. Contrary to much of what I've read, he finds the references from Philo and Josephus somewhat reliable. Perhaps his research is dated.
Eusebius has fragments of an account where Papias, when a very young lad, heard John the Elder, or knew someone who had heard him, and subsequently he recorded the content that Eusebius wrote about. Case talks about this and the references in the Gospels about Jerusalem and the Palestine setting and partial use of Aramaic speech lending seeming authenticity to the accounts. Mark he feels writes about the 'real person' Jesus.
Price says Case spends some time responding to Mythologists rejection of 'James, the brother of the Lord,' and tries to refute their parallel comparisons to the Babylonian Gilgamesh. Again, not being a scholar, I can't verify the claim either way but all this information I find somewhat enriching to hear, both the arguments and counterarguments.
Fred Conybeare in 1914 came out with 'The Historical Jesus.' A member of the Rationalist Press Association, his writing was seen as having a strong anti-Christian bias. Still, as a researcher he held little respect for the Mythicists who he said ''discover on almost every page connections in their subject matter where there are and can be none.' He states many of their arguments are similar which I find interesting and curbs my enthusiasm for the modern day pontiffs. Finally, he says they always claim the gospels were written much later than the events and that they discount much of what Paul writes. He gives few details on this.
In 1926 Maurice Goguel, who was a professor of the New Testament in Paris, published 'Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History.' A non-religious document that Tacitus supposedly knew of was reconsidered, supposedly connecting Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pilate. Price's description of its content was not clear. Price claims Goguel discredits the Mythologist paralleling Christ with Joshua, and argues that Nazareth did exist and was not a mythological symbol and abstract sect.
Goguel asks a pertinent question as to why, when so many vehemently opposed Christianity from the start, did no one argue that there never really was a Jesus in reality? Seems like a good point.
Traditional Christianity believes Jesus was part divine and part human. Docetism views Jesus as taking human form but never really being human. His divine being was not compatible with a lower form of existence. Marcion believed in this concept and tried to separate the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament, claiming they were incompatible. He had influence and tried to alter theological concepts, but he still believed in the Gospel tradition. An easier path would have been the Mythicist's paradigm where Jesus was another Mythical god with human like tendencies while not actually becoming human. Docetist beliefs parallel Mythical ones, and they could have taken this path, but didn't because essentially they believed the Jesus of the Bible really existed.
'The Evidence for Jesus' by R.T. France was written more recently in 1986. A contemporary New Testament scholar who Price feels presents mainstream arguments in defense of the existence of Jesus that are well done. France seems to ask for less exaggeration and more substantiation from critics of Christianity, a claim that I've also heard in reverse. To my way of thinking, after reading Price's review of his work, I think France makes certain assumptions that he feels goes along with sound historical research and critics such as the Mythicists simply don't agree with these assumptions.
Price feels his major contribution is his stance that the Gospels on their own are the best substantiation for Jesus having been real.
Josephus, the Jewish historian whose briefly mentioned Jesus in the Testimonium Flaviamon, many feel did not write this. Rather it was inserted at a later date, France believes it is credible, seeing its critics as having bias and lacking balanced historical sense. He gives less value to Talmudic references of the 2nd century to Jesus as they seemed to accept the Christian assumption that he did exist while remaining critical of his assertions. He is also dismissive of the non-Christian sources Tacitus and Serapion finding they offer little if any concrete information. He rejects the use of midrash (enlarged interpretations of Biblical events) because it was a tool for more ancient happenings. France basically thinks the verity for Jesus comes mostly from the Gospels themselves. He sees the contradictions between the writers less as a disqualifier than as a call to synchronize the pieces into the whole.
Luke's performance is worthy of his calling himself a careful historian, although many particulars are questionable. His writing seems to line up with the facts. Mark and Matthew feel the same passion for credible historical reporting, with Matthew focused on Jesus accomplishing the original prophecies, which France considers real.
John, he feels is not the myth maker people claim, but rather also an truthful observer at large, describing the trial of Jesus which he feels aligns well with Roman judicial procedure and 'a capital hearing before the prefect of Judea.' He mentions a preserved memory of the 'Pool of Bethesda similar to John's description in 5:2, supporting the notion that simple attention to detail and the memory there of is a plausible way to explain Biblical accuracy. Price notes that John wrote sometime in the late 1st century, 60 or 70 years after the fact, so this is not fiction but 'history remembered.' France's thesis proposes the Gospels were written for both theological and historical purposes, quite a difference from the Jesus Myth. He claims even if it was written later in the 2nd century, accuracy of records and references don't discount them from being truthful depictions of a real live person.
As depicted before, the Mythicists critique of the gospels is that they are inaccurate, written much later, full of contradictions and mostly fiction and Price feels Mr. France disarms the sting of all their issues.
Morton Smith's 'The Historical Jesus' in 'Jesus in Myth and History' reiterates a thesis already mentioned, that is that the Mythologists for Jesus fail because however mistaken they take the evidence and proof of Jesus to be, their efforts to explain Christian beginnings are never more plausible.
In general Price has high praise for Robert Van Voorst's 'Jesus Outside the New Testament' in 2000 in which he counters the Mythicist's bias as well as mainstream critiques of Christianity. He discusses 7 points to reject G.A. Wells' promotion of the Jesus Myth in the 1970's. Many of these points have been covered by previous writers mentioned but Price favors Van Voorst's analysis.
Discussed before, he sees Paul's lack of biographical data for Jesus not as a circuital omission, for most regard Paul as believing Jesus was real not mythical. Often cited concerning the accuracy of the gospels is their their late dating for authorship., a discrediting factor in many eyes. Van Voorst is not convinced and feels Mark was written around 70 AD and Matthew and Luke in the 80's He thinks these early writings, because close to the times, describe Palestine as it actually was in reality.. Some say the high literary quality and evolution for the Gospels makes it more like fiction, but good writing doesn't necessarily mean its not factual.
Van Voorst makes some other salient points. Why did not the secular people and Jews write about the invention of Jesus around 100 AD in a critical way? If he never existed that certainly was a convincing argument. Jesus Mythologists overly discredit certain Non-Christian material without being sensitive to the value they do have. He sees many as having an anti-religious agenda whether 'Free Thought' advocated or radical humanists. Finally if the Christian explanation for their own beginnings is seen as wanting by some of the Mythicist's explanations for the genesis of Christianity, he writes this is without substance.
Price claims that Van Voorst finds in Josephus writings two witnesses to Jesus that are not Christian. Price does not go into detail which would have been interesting. He also counters the attempts to put the Gospels in the 2nd century as mere offshoots of the Mark Gospel by using the source materials Q, L, and M effectively. I have no way to substantiate any of this nor can I spend years trying, but it's interesting to note these counter arguments and issues of contention I have run across. One has to be patient for the truth and get a feel for it and be patient for clarity.
Christopher Price concludes by saying that most Mythologists' arguments don't change and become sterile and that their latest attempt to claim Paul viewed Jesus as Mythical falls short. So are the opinions and ideas of a man, Mr. Price, who feels he has defended the existence of Christianity well.
3. E. Chris Dodd 'The Founder of Christianity'
In the introduction to this book Chris Dodd gracefully presents the eons of history slowly funneling back in time to a point that touches the beginning of Christianity. It is a good review of these past two millennium from a Christian perspective. Ceremonies, such as the mass, do more than just honor key events from the past in ritual form. According to Dodd, they are recalled memories handed down person to person from the actual beginning, in this case the beginning of Christianity. Gathering in one place at a certain time and observing certain symbolic actions through epochs of time allows observance to transform into living memory.
One such recorded memory takes place at around 200 AD where Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, France, well spoken of, wrote a letter inherited through time to his former schoolmate Florinus about their school days attending lectures by Polycarp, an elder bishop of Smyma who passed around 155 AD at eighty-six. In Dodds words :
“Irenaeus reminds his old companion – and there would have been no point in it if Florius could not confirm his recollections – how Apolycarp used to tell them stories about “John the disciple of the Lord,” whom he had known personally many years before. Which of the persons named John was meant seems uncertain, but that he was a personal follower of Jesus is clear.”
Dodd continues to say that when leading his congregation in breaking bread, he was not recalling a passage from a book about history, but was recalling a memory from an old teacher who 'had been there and knew. That is what the memory of the church is like.'
Aside from some of its historical value of this document Dodd makes the point of the 'why' for Christian tradition. Whether one agrees with Christianity or not, it is a well written piece about a universal theme. Here is the link....http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2241&C=2108 if you are curious.
3. F. Two Jewish defenses of Christianity I)
Franz Rosenzweig has been written about earlier. To refresh, he was a young philosopher along with his friend Eugene Rosenstock and both found philosophy wanting. Rosenstock eventually converted to Christianity from Judaism and Rosenzweig, influenced by his friend, was on his way to convert to Christianity when he stopped off at a Yom Kippur service and had a transforming experience. They carried on a unique debate while Franz was in the trenches in WWI.
It can be said he was an Jewish version of Kierkegaard, an existentialist who chose his individual path. Rosenzweig took pride in the fact that he chose Judaism by free choice, rather than obligation. He says for most of the world they have to reach God, as per born again Christians who discover their Jesus for the first time in what they consider a true way. For the Jews having had a Sinaii experience they were already with God and no rediscovery was needed. He compares the 'eternal life' of Judaism with the 'eternal way' of Christianity.
Rosenzweig thought both had a place. Jews had a unique experience and a path was layed out for them and they just had to stay on course. Christians with there far flung reach sought men/women and introduced them to the one and only God.. In essence, although a Jew by choice, he thought Christianity also served a God given purpose as best I understand it.
3. G. Rabbi Abraham Kook II)
Rabbi Abraham Kook was Israel's first chief rabbi. Although the article I ran across did not explain his reasons well, he saw Jews and Christians united in bringing back the Messiah. He saw truth in both religions and in Islam and thought Jews shouldn't alter them. He felt they all had to be faithful to their beliefs because they were an integral part of them.. If they lost their beliefs they would be lost too. An interesting thought is that he thought Judaism gave Jews a framework to see other religions with. He felt even though Jews wee persecuted they were closer to the return of the Messiah than ever. The end of days predicted by the prophet Zephaniah was in sight.
He embraced secular Zionism claiming God worked through normal historical means to achieve his ends. Secular Zionism he saw as a core for new solutions. He received a fair amount of criticism for this.
3. H. Arguments against Christianity
Christianity has been enormously successful over the past 2000 years and anything that successful will be the target of opposition. As with the economic logo 'too big too fail' implies an entity can be so dominant it is often beyond criticism. This writer feels nothing is beyond scrutiny. In America one runs head into Christianity. When faced over and over with the pronouncement 'you must be born again ' or ' no one comes to the father accept by me' one has to ask themselves is this so and is forced to be intelligent on the subject. If a Jew you ask yourself did your ancestors take part in judging Jesus Christ? Did he even exist? If you are 'merely' a pagan, a non Judeo-Christian believer, what do you do when you are on the receiving end of the 'great commission?' Many of the founders of this country, America, were Deists, not actual Christians as is commonly thought. Many came to this country for a chance to find their way to 'God,' not be told it. On the dollar bill is 'In God We Trust' implying no specific path to that end.
Even so, it can be argued the Christian religion exists for a reason and has served various purposes in the world. Chris Dodd does a good job enumerating them, one example being preserving history during the dark ages. It also could be argued anything in this world ends up polluted and often begins based on untruths. We still have to live with what is here, whatever its genesis. All this being said, it is good to know of some counterarguments to Christianity. It broadens one's scope and puts it in perspective. One sees other aspects to the whole picture of life on this earth and in particular the spiritual arena..
This won't be a thesis or a scholarly presentation. Rather, it will be just what my eye caught here and there while living and trying to answer some questions. Judaism's reaction to Christianity will be examined first. Then an interesting Haredi Rabbi defends the Torah against the New Testament followed by academic perspectives. The Mythologists thesis is considered followed by a Joseph Atwill's interesting tie-in with the Romans.
It must be noted that in the chapter defending Christianity many answers for criticisms of Christianity are discussed. These criticisms that were mentioned already can also serve as a rough outline for the opposition to Christianity.
3. J. Jewish arguments against Christianity
There are standard arguments from the Jews that the Torah is their Bible and any deviation from it is misusing it. The Christian New Testament takes the Jewish Bible and claims it is was a precursor to their religion. The Christians claim their religion is a fulfillment of the Jewish religion and the Jews say nonsense. The Jews say you can believe what want but don't use our Bible, and if you do, you are misusing it.
Today many Jews are secular, not religious. There is a tremendous move to convert them to Christianity through the Messianic movement. This movement says one can embrace Judaism and still accept Christ. On colleges all over they attract Jews who really know little about their heritage. Some Rabbis in their 50' and 60's who are knowledgeable and capable of defending Judaism have countered these arguments with debates and appearances. Previously, most of the observant Jewish people, as long as they felt relatively safe, did not engage. They were oriented against theological controversy. The last great Christian Jewish debate was with Franz Rosenzweig and Eugene Rosenstock. Since then there have been some limited efforts at dialogue. The Messianic movement and the reaction to it has changed it into a real debate again. Just for the record, there is a small movement of ex-Christians turning to study the Torah and adopting as their religion Judaism or becoming a Noahide.
Rabbi Stuart Federow, originally from the Midwest and brought up somewhat isolated from other Jews, is one such rabbi. He tells the story of Jehovah Witnesses coming to his door and his inviting them in. He quickly counters their claim that 'Jesus died for our sins' by quoting from Deuteronomy 24:16 which says 'No man shall die for another,' and then he quotes from Numbers 23:19 'God is not a man that he should lie.' Since the Torah Jews and Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, the issue was done according to Federow. Federow has become very active on campuses and has written a book or two on the subject. Other active names are R. Michael Skobac and R. Tovia Singer, and there are some others, not all rabbis. Federow recalls missionaries commenting that secular Jews were easy targets but the orthodox knew their stuff. However, most of the orthodox live in isolated worlds and rarely engage, but now some are called to do so. Plus, the recent converts to Judaism are somewhat vocal in defending their new beliefs.
Rabbi Mizrachi, previously mentioned, discounted by some, does make some points that are often used to debate Christians with. I'm sure there are other sources that mention these discrepancies but he is where I first encountered them. He claims the Torah is the original word of God. That is hard to prove since the author Moses was alive around 1300 BC and the earliest Biblical writing we have is around 6-700 BC. However, the Torahs in the world today, no matter in what country, he claims are the same. The Christians claim the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. However, there are 150,000 versions of their New Testament according to the Rabbi. That's hardly consistent. If a writing is to be inerrant and infallible, such variance cannot exist. The Rabbi claims the Torah is consistent.
Other inconsistencies are spoken of. In the Torah when Jacob went to Egypt he left with 70 people. In the New Testament it states 75. Could not God get the number right? It was written that the Messiah will come from the line of King David. In the New Testament Joseph is the father of Jesus Christ and supposedly the last descendant of this line. However, if there was a virgin birth, he is not the biological father. Further, in the lineage from David to Joseph there are 22 contradictions when compared to Mark and Mathew's list. The Hebrew word 'alma' is mistranslated to be virgin whereas in Hebrew it means young lady, virgin or not. In general the Jewish people interpret their Bible somewhat literally. The Christians take their scriptures and enlarge their meanings or abstract them. Some think these abstractions go too far to where the words lose any specific meaning and become so enlarged they can include almost any attribute. Not to delve into it here, but there is a certain connection between Greek abstract thinking and Christianity that doesn't exist in Judaism. Judaism doesn't separate the ideal from the earthly. Life here and mankind's story counts. There is an 'earthiness' to Judaism. Paul was educated as a Greek although a Jew and this is a partial explanation for this line of thinking. Some say he never really 'got Judaism.'
Returning to Mizrachi, he outlines the requirements that the Messiah is supposed to accomplish. All Jews will come to Israel, Peace will exist among all animals, the tiger will be friends with the goat, all gentiles will love the Jews, there will be no war but peace, they will eat delicious foods like kings, and Jews won't suffer. On the last obviously millions of Jews have suffered. None of these things were accomplished after Jesus came.
As far as a new covenant, the Christians see a person as given grace by recognizing the sacrifice of Jesus and by acknowledging it. In doing so they achieve eternal life as opposed to having to earn it through good deeds. At least this is how they see it. The Jews see the new covenant as occurring after the Messiah comes when certain changes take place and the laws will be written in their minds and hearts. There is no contradiction with the first covenant. In the meantime they should follow the Torah as best they can and be as decent as they can.
An online site called 'JewsNews' writes on 'Why have the Jews rejected Jesus.......,' where some of the standard material already mentioned is repeated. Some other facts are mentioned. Foremost is that the Jews believe that the Messiah is just another person, not God in human form. If he is infinite and eternal he cannot be also of human flesh.. To do so would degrade his essence. Also the Jewish prayer the Shema states 'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE' There is hardly a duality here.
Jesus was also not a prophet for Israel because according to scripture after the prophet had done his work most of the Jews would be gathered in Israel It is also mentioned that Jerusalem would be rebuilt along with the Temple, the Sanhedrin would hold their place again, and the sacrificial system would also be practiced, along with observance of the Sabbatical year and Jubilee. It is also stated the Messiah will lead people to full Torah Observance.
The writing discusses other standard issues of difference. Isaiah 53 is long referred to by the Christians
as a description of Jesus' trials, but Jews see it as a continuation of Isaiah 52 which details the exile and redemption of the people. Also, the article states that the tangible failure of Jesus bringing physical redemption to Israel had his followers place their hope in the non physical realm which could not be tested. This redemption was put off into the future. The role for this redemption also changed to 'atonement for original sin.' The Christians attributed their own agenda to the Torah. Finally, the biggest belief difference is that Jews believe they can pray to God directly whereas Christians go through a third party.
6. Christianity Arguments For and Against 3. D. thru J
3. D. Defenses for historical Christianity
Historical Christianity refers to evidence and logic for the actual existence of Christianity in history.
A History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth' by Christopher Price is an article directed not only at the Jesus myth, but also can serve to argue against the general refutations of Christianity itself. Arguments can apply to both. The Jesus myth is the Mythicist's view claiming that Jesus basically was another sun god who never really existed.. Others claim Christianity has no historical base, myth or not.
Price surveys various scholars who review the subject and I'll mention a few and their key points which were clear to me. Shirley Case in 1912 wrote 'the Historicity of Jesus' and while some of Price's summary of his work is unclear to me, some points came across. Chief among them for Case is the fact that the evidence for various alternative theories for the rise of Christianity have less of a factual base than the original historical explanation that they criticize. He also feels the Mythologists make too many generalizations and find it too easy to accuse defenders of being stuck in the mud. He also finds their zeal sometimes not in character with scientific research. They criticize scientific research when convenient but don't give it credit when it is deserving. Contrary to much of what I've read, he finds the references from Philo and Josephus somewhat reliable. Perhaps his research is dated.
Eusebius has fragments of an account where Papias, when a very young lad, heard John the Elder, or knew someone who had heard him, and subsequently he recorded the content that Eusebius wrote about. Case talks about this and the references in the Gospels about Jerusalem and the Palestine setting and partial use of Aramaic speech lending seeming authenticity to the accounts. Mark he feels writes about the 'real person' Jesus.
Price says Case spends some time responding to Mythologists rejection of 'James, the brother of the Lord,' and tries to refute their parallel comparisons to the Babylonian Gilgamesh. Again, not being a scholar, I can't verify the claim either way but all this information I find somewhat enriching to hear, both the arguments and counterarguments.
Fred Conybeare in 1914 came out with 'The Historical Jesus.' A member of the Rationalist Press Association, his writing was seen as having a strong anti-Christian bias. Still, as a researcher he held little respect for the Mythicists who he said ''discover on almost every page connections in their subject matter where there are and can be none.' He states many of their arguments are similar which I find interesting and curbs my enthusiasm for the modern day pontiffs. Finally, he says they always claim the gospels were written much later than the events and that they discount much of what Paul writes. He gives few details on this.
In 1926 Maurice Goguel, who was a professor of the New Testament in Paris, published 'Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History.' A non-religious document that Tacitus supposedly knew of was reconsidered, supposedly connecting Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pilate. Price's description of its content was not clear. Price claims Goguel discredits the Mythologist paralleling Christ with Joshua, and argues that Nazareth did exist and was not a mythological symbol and abstract sect.
Goguel asks a pertinent question as to why, when so many vehemently opposed Christianity from the start, did no one argue that there never really was a Jesus in reality? Seems like a good point.
Traditional Christianity believes Jesus was part divine and part human. Docetism views Jesus as taking human form but never really being human. His divine being was not compatible with a lower form of existence. Marcion believed in this concept and tried to separate the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New Testament, claiming they were incompatible. He had influence and tried to alter theological concepts, but he still believed in the Gospel tradition. An easier path would have been the Mythicist's paradigm where Jesus was another Mythical god with human like tendencies while not actually becoming human. Docetist beliefs parallel Mythical ones, and they could have taken this path, but didn't because essentially they believed the Jesus of the Bible really existed.
'The Evidence for Jesus' by R.T. France was written more recently in 1986. A contemporary New Testament scholar who Price feels presents mainstream arguments in defense of the existence of Jesus that are well done. France seems to ask for less exaggeration and more substantiation from critics of Christianity, a claim that I've also heard in reverse. To my way of thinking, after reading Price's review of his work, I think France makes certain assumptions that he feels goes along with sound historical research and critics such as the Mythicists simply don't agree with these assumptions.
Price feels his major contribution is his stance that the Gospels on their own are the best substantiation for Jesus having been real.
Josephus, the Jewish historian whose briefly mentioned Jesus in the Testimonium Flaviamon, many feel did not write this. Rather it was inserted at a later date, France believes it is credible, seeing its critics as having bias and lacking balanced historical sense. He gives less value to Talmudic references of the 2nd century to Jesus as they seemed to accept the Christian assumption that he did exist while remaining critical of his assertions. He is also dismissive of the non-Christian sources Tacitus and Serapion finding they offer little if any concrete information. He rejects the use of midrash (enlarged interpretations of Biblical events) because it was a tool for more ancient happenings. France basically thinks the verity for Jesus comes mostly from the Gospels themselves. He sees the contradictions between the writers less as a disqualifier than as a call to synchronize the pieces into the whole.
Luke's performance is worthy of his calling himself a careful historian, although many particulars are questionable. His writing seems to line up with the facts. Mark and Matthew feel the same passion for credible historical reporting, with Matthew focused on Jesus accomplishing the original prophecies, which France considers real.
John, he feels is not the myth maker people claim, but rather also an truthful observer at large, describing the trial of Jesus which he feels aligns well with Roman judicial procedure and 'a capital hearing before the prefect of Judea.' He mentions a preserved memory of the 'Pool of Bethesda similar to John's description in 5:2, supporting the notion that simple attention to detail and the memory there of is a plausible way to explain Biblical accuracy. Price notes that John wrote sometime in the late 1st century, 60 or 70 years after the fact, so this is not fiction but 'history remembered.' France's thesis proposes the Gospels were written for both theological and historical purposes, quite a difference from the Jesus Myth. He claims even if it was written later in the 2nd century, accuracy of records and references don't discount them from being truthful depictions of a real live person.
As depicted before, the Mythicists critique of the gospels is that they are inaccurate, written much later, full of contradictions and mostly fiction and Price feels Mr. France disarms the sting of all their issues.
Morton Smith's 'The Historical Jesus' in 'Jesus in Myth and History' reiterates a thesis already mentioned, that is that the Mythologists for Jesus fail because however mistaken they take the evidence and proof of Jesus to be, their efforts to explain Christian beginnings are never more plausible.
In general Price has high praise for Robert Van Voorst's 'Jesus Outside the New Testament' in 2000 in which he counters the Mythicist's bias as well as mainstream critiques of Christianity. He discusses 7 points to reject G.A. Wells' promotion of the Jesus Myth in the 1970's. Many of these points have been covered by previous writers mentioned but Price favors Van Voorst's analysis.
Discussed before, he sees Paul's lack of biographical data for Jesus not as a circuital omission, for most regard Paul as believing Jesus was real not mythical. Often cited concerning the accuracy of the gospels is their their late dating for authorship., a discrediting factor in many eyes. Van Voorst is not convinced and feels Mark was written around 70 AD and Matthew and Luke in the 80's He thinks these early writings, because close to the times, describe Palestine as it actually was in reality.. Some say the high literary quality and evolution for the Gospels makes it more like fiction, but good writing doesn't necessarily mean its not factual.
Van Voorst makes some other salient points. Why did not the secular people and Jews write about the invention of Jesus around 100 AD in a critical way? If he never existed that certainly was a convincing argument. Jesus Mythologists overly discredit certain Non-Christian material without being sensitive to the value they do have. He sees many as having an anti-religious agenda whether 'Free Thought' advocated or radical humanists. Finally if the Christian explanation for their own beginnings is seen as wanting by some of the Mythicist's explanations for the genesis of Christianity, he writes this is without substance.
Price claims that Van Voorst finds in Josephus writings two witnesses to Jesus that are not Christian. Price does not go into detail which would have been interesting. He also counters the attempts to put the Gospels in the 2nd century as mere offshoots of the Mark Gospel by using the source materials Q, L, and M effectively. I have no way to substantiate any of this nor can I spend years trying, but it's interesting to note these counter arguments and issues of contention I have run across. One has to be patient for the truth and get a feel for it and be patient for clarity.
Christopher Price concludes by saying that most Mythologists' arguments don't change and become sterile and that their latest attempt to claim Paul viewed Jesus as Mythical falls short. So are the opinions and ideas of a man, Mr. Price, who feels he has defended the existence of Christianity well.
3. E. Chris Dodd 'The Founder of Christianity'
In the introduction to this book Chris Dodd gracefully presents the eons of history slowly funneling back in time to a point that touches the beginning of Christianity. It is a good review of these past two millennium from a Christian perspective. Ceremonies, such as the mass, do more than just honor key events from the past in ritual form. According to Dodd, they are recalled memories handed down person to person from the actual beginning, in this case the beginning of Christianity. Gathering in one place at a certain time and observing certain symbolic actions through epochs of time allows observance to transform into living memory.
One such recorded memory takes place at around 200 AD where Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, France, well spoken of, wrote a letter inherited through time to his former schoolmate Florinus about their school days attending lectures by Polycarp, an elder bishop of Smyma who passed around 155 AD at eighty-six. In Dodds words :
“Irenaeus reminds his old companion – and there would have been no point in it if Florius could not confirm his recollections – how Apolycarp used to tell them stories about “John the disciple of the Lord,” whom he had known personally many years before. Which of the persons named John was meant seems uncertain, but that he was a personal follower of Jesus is clear.”
Dodd continues to say that when leading his congregation in breaking bread, he was not recalling a passage from a book about history, but was recalling a memory from an old teacher who 'had been there and knew. That is what the memory of the church is like.'
Aside from some of its historical value of this document Dodd makes the point of the 'why' for Christian tradition. Whether one agrees with Christianity or not, it is a well written piece about a universal theme. Here is the link....http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2241&C=2108 if you are curious.
3. F. Two Jewish defenses of Christianity I)
Franz Rosenzweig has been written about earlier. To refresh, he was a young philosopher along with his friend Eugene Rosenstock and both found philosophy wanting. Rosenstock eventually converted to Christianity from Judaism and Rosenzweig, influenced by his friend, was on his way to convert to Christianity when he stopped off at a Yom Kippur service and had a transforming experience. They carried on a unique debate while Franz was in the trenches in WWI.
It can be said he was an Jewish version of Kierkegaard, an existentialist who chose his individual path. Rosenzweig took pride in the fact that he chose Judaism by free choice, rather than obligation. He says for most of the world they have to reach God, as per born again Christians who discover their Jesus for the first time in what they consider a true way. For the Jews having had a Sinaii experience they were already with God and no rediscovery was needed. He compares the 'eternal life' of Judaism with the 'eternal way' of Christianity.
Rosenzweig thought both had a place. Jews had a unique experience and a path was layed out for them and they just had to stay on course. Christians with there far flung reach sought men/women and introduced them to the one and only God.. In essence, although a Jew by choice, he thought Christianity also served a God given purpose as best I understand it.
3. G. Rabbi Abraham Kook II)
Rabbi Abraham Kook was Israel's first chief rabbi. Although the article I ran across did not explain his reasons well, he saw Jews and Christians united in bringing back the Messiah. He saw truth in both religions and in Islam and thought Jews shouldn't alter them. He felt they all had to be faithful to their beliefs because they were an integral part of them.. If they lost their beliefs they would be lost too. An interesting thought is that he thought Judaism gave Jews a framework to see other religions with. He felt even though Jews wee persecuted they were closer to the return of the Messiah than ever. The end of days predicted by the prophet Zephaniah was in sight.
He embraced secular Zionism claiming God worked through normal historical means to achieve his ends. Secular Zionism he saw as a core for new solutions. He received a fair amount of criticism for this.
3. H. Arguments against Christianity
Christianity has been enormously successful over the past 2000 years and anything that successful will be the target of opposition. As with the economic logo 'too big too fail' implies an entity can be so dominant it is often beyond criticism. This writer feels nothing is beyond scrutiny. In America one runs head into Christianity. When faced over and over with the pronouncement 'you must be born again ' or ' no one comes to the father accept by me' one has to ask themselves is this so and is forced to be intelligent on the subject. If a Jew you ask yourself did your ancestors take part in judging Jesus Christ? Did he even exist? If you are 'merely' a pagan, a non Judeo-Christian believer, what do you do when you are on the receiving end of the 'great commission?' Many of the founders of this country, America, were Deists, not actual Christians as is commonly thought. Many came to this country for a chance to find their way to 'God,' not be told it. On the dollar bill is 'In God We Trust' implying no specific path to that end.
Even so, it can be argued the Christian religion exists for a reason and has served various purposes in the world. Chris Dodd does a good job enumerating them, one example being preserving history during the dark ages. It also could be argued anything in this world ends up polluted and often begins based on untruths. We still have to live with what is here, whatever its genesis. All this being said, it is good to know of some counterarguments to Christianity. It broadens one's scope and puts it in perspective. One sees other aspects to the whole picture of life on this earth and in particular the spiritual arena..
This won't be a thesis or a scholarly presentation. Rather, it will be just what my eye caught here and there while living and trying to answer some questions. Judaism's reaction to Christianity will be examined first. Then an interesting Haredi Rabbi defends the Torah against the New Testament followed by academic perspectives. The Mythologists thesis is considered followed by a Joseph Atwill's interesting tie-in with the Romans.
It must be noted that in the chapter defending Christianity many answers for criticisms of Christianity are discussed. These criticisms that were mentioned already can also serve as a rough outline for the opposition to Christianity.
3. J. Jewish arguments against Christianity
There are standard arguments from the Jews that the Torah is their Bible and any deviation from it is misusing it. The Christian New Testament takes the Jewish Bible and claims it is was a precursor to their religion. The Christians claim their religion is a fulfillment of the Jewish religion and the Jews say nonsense. The Jews say you can believe what want but don't use our Bible, and if you do, you are misusing it.
Today many Jews are secular, not religious. There is a tremendous move to convert them to Christianity through the Messianic movement. This movement says one can embrace Judaism and still accept Christ. On colleges all over they attract Jews who really know little about their heritage. Some Rabbis in their 50' and 60's who are knowledgeable and capable of defending Judaism have countered these arguments with debates and appearances. Previously, most of the observant Jewish people, as long as they felt relatively safe, did not engage. They were oriented against theological controversy. The last great Christian Jewish debate was with Franz Rosenzweig and Eugene Rosenstock. Since then there have been some limited efforts at dialogue. The Messianic movement and the reaction to it has changed it into a real debate again. Just for the record, there is a small movement of ex-Christians turning to study the Torah and adopting as their religion Judaism or becoming a Noahide.
Rabbi Stuart Federow, originally from the Midwest and brought up somewhat isolated from other Jews, is one such rabbi. He tells the story of Jehovah Witnesses coming to his door and his inviting them in. He quickly counters their claim that 'Jesus died for our sins' by quoting from Deuteronomy 24:16 which says 'No man shall die for another,' and then he quotes from Numbers 23:19 'God is not a man that he should lie.' Since the Torah Jews and Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, the issue was done according to Federow. Federow has become very active on campuses and has written a book or two on the subject. Other active names are R. Michael Skobac and R. Tovia Singer, and there are some others, not all rabbis. Federow recalls missionaries commenting that secular Jews were easy targets but the orthodox knew their stuff. However, most of the orthodox live in isolated worlds and rarely engage, but now some are called to do so. Plus, the recent converts to Judaism are somewhat vocal in defending their new beliefs.
Rabbi Mizrachi, previously mentioned, discounted by some, does make some points that are often used to debate Christians with. I'm sure there are other sources that mention these discrepancies but he is where I first encountered them. He claims the Torah is the original word of God. That is hard to prove since the author Moses was alive around 1300 BC and the earliest Biblical writing we have is around 6-700 BC. However, the Torahs in the world today, no matter in what country, he claims are the same. The Christians claim the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. However, there are 150,000 versions of their New Testament according to the Rabbi. That's hardly consistent. If a writing is to be inerrant and infallible, such variance cannot exist. The Rabbi claims the Torah is consistent.
Other inconsistencies are spoken of. In the Torah when Jacob went to Egypt he left with 70 people. In the New Testament it states 75. Could not God get the number right? It was written that the Messiah will come from the line of King David. In the New Testament Joseph is the father of Jesus Christ and supposedly the last descendant of this line. However, if there was a virgin birth, he is not the biological father. Further, in the lineage from David to Joseph there are 22 contradictions when compared to Mark and Mathew's list. The Hebrew word 'alma' is mistranslated to be virgin whereas in Hebrew it means young lady, virgin or not. In general the Jewish people interpret their Bible somewhat literally. The Christians take their scriptures and enlarge their meanings or abstract them. Some think these abstractions go too far to where the words lose any specific meaning and become so enlarged they can include almost any attribute. Not to delve into it here, but there is a certain connection between Greek abstract thinking and Christianity that doesn't exist in Judaism. Judaism doesn't separate the ideal from the earthly. Life here and mankind's story counts. There is an 'earthiness' to Judaism. Paul was educated as a Greek although a Jew and this is a partial explanation for this line of thinking. Some say he never really 'got Judaism.'
Returning to Mizrachi, he outlines the requirements that the Messiah is supposed to accomplish. All Jews will come to Israel, Peace will exist among all animals, the tiger will be friends with the goat, all gentiles will love the Jews, there will be no war but peace, they will eat delicious foods like kings, and Jews won't suffer. On the last obviously millions of Jews have suffered. None of these things were accomplished after Jesus came.
As far as a new covenant, the Christians see a person as given grace by recognizing the sacrifice of Jesus and by acknowledging it. In doing so they achieve eternal life as opposed to having to earn it through good deeds. At least this is how they see it. The Jews see the new covenant as occurring after the Messiah comes when certain changes take place and the laws will be written in their minds and hearts. There is no contradiction with the first covenant. In the meantime they should follow the Torah as best they can and be as decent as they can.
An online site called 'JewsNews' writes on 'Why have the Jews rejected Jesus.......,' where some of the standard material already mentioned is repeated. Some other facts are mentioned. Foremost is that the Jews believe that the Messiah is just another person, not God in human form. If he is infinite and eternal he cannot be also of human flesh.. To do so would degrade his essence. Also the Jewish prayer the Shema states 'Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE' There is hardly a duality here.
Jesus was also not a prophet for Israel because according to scripture after the prophet had done his work most of the Jews would be gathered in Israel It is also mentioned that Jerusalem would be rebuilt along with the Temple, the Sanhedrin would hold their place again, and the sacrificial system would also be practiced, along with observance of the Sabbatical year and Jubilee. It is also stated the Messiah will lead people to full Torah Observance.
The writing discusses other standard issues of difference. Isaiah 53 is long referred to by the Christians
as a description of Jesus' trials, but Jews see it as a continuation of Isaiah 52 which details the exile and redemption of the people. Also, the article states that the tangible failure of Jesus bringing physical redemption to Israel had his followers place their hope in the non physical realm which could not be tested. This redemption was put off into the future. The role for this redemption also changed to 'atonement for original sin.' The Christians attributed their own agenda to the Torah. Finally, the biggest belief difference is that Jews believe they can pray to God directly whereas Christians go through a third party.