The "Historical Jesus" and the Gospel of Mark
Some days ago I finished reading Reza Aslan's "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealot:_The_Life_and_Times_of_Jesus_of_Nazareth. I think it is the first book that I have read about the "Historical Jesus" though I had somewhat casually read some articles and viewed some videos on the Internet on the topic earlier.
This was my first serious look at how some academics of history of religion examine and view Jesus of Nazareth. The first thing that struck me was that while the author is quite sensitive in his writing about Jesus, perhaps this academic field is such that he and other academics are forced to be skeptical about scriptural accounts, which in this case is the New Testament. They dig deep into inconsistencies between the gospel accounts. Very importantly they look for other records like Roman records to corroborate events related in the New Testament. If there is no corroboration from other records they bring in the possibility of the the scriptural account being fictional.
This is so different from the believer reading the gospel (New Testament) with an attitude of faith. I read the Gospel of Mark here, http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/mark.htm (I read only the gospel part and skipped the meditation typically), which is the shortest gospel of the four (the others being Matthew, Luke and John). [I had read the New Testament a few decades earlier but then I was an agnostic.] Having experienced some of the miraculous/supernatural powers of Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and having belief in the experiences of other devotees who come across as truthful people, I was able to read the Gospel of Mark with faith and, by and large, it seemed to me to be a very believable account. Yes, I can imagine that some details may be a little inaccurate but overall I find it to be a very believable account of a Divine figure endowed with supernatural powers.
But do the academics who study the New Testament have the benefit of such experiences of divine power and so belief that the Gospel accounts, by and large, are truthful accounts of experiences of people who lived with Jesus during the period of his ministry? Well, I am not so sure. Some seem to have belief but it seems some, or maybe most, don't.
Why do I say that? Here's the wiki page for the Historical Jesus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus. Some short extracts and comments:
"The term Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, based on historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived. These reconstructions accept that Jesus existed, although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."
[Ravi: Only the baptism and the crucifixion are almost universally accepted (as facts)!]
"The Christ myth theory (also known as the "Jesus myth theory" or "Jesus mythicism") is the proposition that Jesus never existed in any form but was invented by the Christian community around 100 CE."
[Ravi: An invention by the (early) Christian community! My God! This, in some ways, is in line with Prof. Doniger's views about Rama!]
[Ravi But, thankfully, the above view is not an academic scholar mainstream view. The academic scholar mainstream views are (I say academic scholar as most, if not all, of the current day scholars mentioned as holding these views are academics):]
--- end short extracts and comments ---
My view is that unless Jesus Christ had divine powers which, as is written in the Gospel accounts, he demonstrated to his followers, they would not have been inspired to continue his mission after his crucifixion in the face of horrendous persecution.
In future additions to this post (or new posts) I plan to share some historical background details about Jesus Christ and the early Christian church which I learned from my reading of Reza Aslan's book and other sources.
This was my first serious look at how some academics of history of religion examine and view Jesus of Nazareth. The first thing that struck me was that while the author is quite sensitive in his writing about Jesus, perhaps this academic field is such that he and other academics are forced to be skeptical about scriptural accounts, which in this case is the New Testament. They dig deep into inconsistencies between the gospel accounts. Very importantly they look for other records like Roman records to corroborate events related in the New Testament. If there is no corroboration from other records they bring in the possibility of the the scriptural account being fictional.
This is so different from the believer reading the gospel (New Testament) with an attitude of faith. I read the Gospel of Mark here, http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/mark.htm (I read only the gospel part and skipped the meditation typically), which is the shortest gospel of the four (the others being Matthew, Luke and John). [I had read the New Testament a few decades earlier but then I was an agnostic.] Having experienced some of the miraculous/supernatural powers of Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba, and having belief in the experiences of other devotees who come across as truthful people, I was able to read the Gospel of Mark with faith and, by and large, it seemed to me to be a very believable account. Yes, I can imagine that some details may be a little inaccurate but overall I find it to be a very believable account of a Divine figure endowed with supernatural powers.
But do the academics who study the New Testament have the benefit of such experiences of divine power and so belief that the Gospel accounts, by and large, are truthful accounts of experiences of people who lived with Jesus during the period of his ministry? Well, I am not so sure. Some seem to have belief but it seems some, or maybe most, don't.
Why do I say that? Here's the wiki page for the Historical Jesus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus. Some short extracts and comments:
"The term Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, based on historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived. These reconstructions accept that Jesus existed, although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."
[Ravi: Only the baptism and the crucifixion are almost universally accepted (as facts)!]
"The Christ myth theory (also known as the "Jesus myth theory" or "Jesus mythicism") is the proposition that Jesus never existed in any form but was invented by the Christian community around 100 CE."
[Ravi: An invention by the (early) Christian community! My God! This, in some ways, is in line with Prof. Doniger's views about Rama!]
[Ravi But, thankfully, the above view is not an academic scholar mainstream view. The academic scholar mainstream views are (I say academic scholar as most, if not all, of the current day scholars mentioned as holding these views are academics):]
- "Apocalyptic prophet: The apocalyptic prophet view primarily emphasizes Jesus preparing his fellow Jews for the End times."
- "Charismatic healer: The charismatic healer portrait positions Jesus as a pious and holy man in the view of Geza Vermes" and Jesus as a healer. [Ravi: That's the kind of view that I am somewhat comfortable with.]
- "Cynic philosopher: In the Cynic philosopher profile, Jesus is presented as a traveling sage and philosopher preaching a cynical and radical message of change to abolish the existing hierarchical structure of the society of his time." [Ravi: I think this view is a sceptical view of scripture which misses out on the mystical power, grandeur of the miracles, and compassion of the Divine Jesus Christ.]
- "Jewish Messiah: The Jewish Messiah profile of N. T. Wright places Jesus within the Jewish context of "exile and return", a notion he uses to build on his view of the 1st-century concept of hope."
- "Prophet of social change: The prophet of social change portrait positions Jesus not as an eschatological prophet, but primarily as someone who challenged traditional social structures of his time."
--- end short extracts and comments ---
My view is that unless Jesus Christ had divine powers which, as is written in the Gospel accounts, he demonstrated to his followers, they would not have been inspired to continue his mission after his crucifixion in the face of horrendous persecution.
In future additions to this post (or new posts) I plan to share some historical background details about Jesus Christ and the early Christian church which I learned from my reading of Reza Aslan's book and other sources.
Comments
Post a Comment