My Most Recent Post
Review: How Did Christianity Begin? Hallucinations? Fabrications? Myths? Resurrection? A Look at the Evidence
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
How Did Christianity Begin? Hallucinations? Fabrications? Myths? Resurrection? A Look at the Evidence by Christopher Hearn
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
This book as an interesting premise; however, it is by no means an academic or scholarly work. The entire focus is on proving the Resurrection of Jesus, and while it marshals an impressive amount of circumstantial evidence, there is little to no direct evidence (as might be expected), so it is unlikely to convince skeptics; although it might comfort believers. No where does it cover anything about the origins of Christianity outside of the resurrection narrative, so if that is what you are looking for, this is not the book for you. The book is divided into three (3) parts, with each part organized differently. Part One proposes that the resurrection has been denied with the claim that all witnesses were experiencing some form of mass hallucination … and makes the unsupported point that this is the principle means by which the resurrection story is denied. I count myself as fairly knowledgeable in christian apologetics, and I have never found this to be true, not have I encountered this anecdotally; however, there is still some good information here (such as a convenient table of all the biblical post resurrection sightings of Jesus) as well as provides a few basic reasons for the early resistance to the message of christianity … and then it undermines its own credibility with poor scholarship such as the insistence of inserting a creedal statement into 1 Corinthians that was adopted no more than 9 years after the crucifixion with no supporting citations. That is not to say anything in this part is complete wrong, just that what is there is not really a strong supporting argument if you are trying to convince a non-believer, so the best use here would be as a supplement to private or personal reflections by believers.
Part Two focuses on the Empty Tomb … with the basic claim that resurrection deniers attempt to explain how the early believers could have found the tomb of Jesus empty. There are 10 more specific claims here, each with a response. And while I don’t have the credentials needed to verify how accurate this information is, it seems reasonable in many cases and does have some supporting citations (from people that I have not previously encountered in my own studies). For example, there is an interesting connection on why Joseph of Arimathea was the one who had to claim the body of Jesus that was connected to his belonging to the Sanhedrin that was pretty investing and not something that I had heard before (will still need to do some follow-on research to verify though). Additional there was an interesting discussion about why the tomb had to be new in order not to run afoul of custom and law; however, the discussion of why we are so certain of the tomb’s location doesn’t appear to follow any consensus and fails to mention any of the competing claims, giving the a impression of certainty here. Additionally he talks about the James ossuary as if it has been determined to be authentic, while that is actually still contested. This might be inferred by the fact that Oded Golan was eventually acquitted of personally forging the ossuary, but the courts made no ruling on the items actual authenticity.
Part Three attempts to defend the New Testament as a whole; doing so with a combination of strawman arguments and historical inferences (the later being a list of extra biblical documents that mention Jesus by name). An immediate problem here is the inclusion of Thallus, who, while a favorite of Christian apologists because of its early date (52AD), really only confirms that solar eclipse around the time of the crucifixion and it was Africanus writing nearly 200 years after the fact that made the connection to Jesus. So the best external reference we have is actually Josephus as part of his histories, who mentions Jesus primarily in passing as the founder of a Jewish sect that was [believed to have been] executed on a cross by the sect members. In short, all of these arguments have potential, but they are all circumstantial and fairly weak on their own.
…
The chapters and sections in this work are:
Introduction
Part One - Hallucination Theory (1 claim w/ 8 responses)
Part Two - Empty Tomb (1 main claim w/ 10 subclaims and responses)
Part Three - The New Testament (1 main claim and response with 4 counter arguments and responses)
Some of the other points that really got my attention are:
This book as an interesting premise; however, it is by no means an academic or scholarly work. The entire focus is on proving the Resurrection of Jesus, and while it marshals an impressive amount of circumstantial evidence, there is little to no direct evidence (as might be expected), so it is unlikely to convince skeptics; although it might comfort believers. No where does it cover anything about the origins of Christianity outside of the resurrection narrative, so if that is what you are looking for, this is not the book for you. The book is divided into three (3) parts, with each part organized differently. Part One proposes that the resurrection has been denied with the claim that all witnesses were experiencing some form of mass hallucination … and makes the unsupported point that this is the principle means by which the resurrection story is denied. I count myself as fairly knowledgeable in christian apologetics, and I have never found this to be true, not have I encountered this anecdotally; however, there is still some good information here (such as a convenient table of all the biblical post resurrection sightings of Jesus) as well as provides a few basic reasons for the early resistance to the message of christianity … and then it undermines its own credibility with poor scholarship such as the insistence of inserting a creedal statement into 1 Corinthians that was adopted no more than 9 years after the crucifixion with no supporting citations. That is not to say anything in this part is complete wrong, just that what is there is not really a strong supporting argument if you are trying to convince a non-believer, so the best use here would be as a supplement to private or personal reflections by believers.
Part Two focuses on the Empty Tomb … with the basic claim that resurrection deniers attempt to explain how the early believers could have found the tomb of Jesus empty. There are 10 more specific claims here, each with a response. And while I don’t have the credentials needed to verify how accurate this information is, it seems reasonable in many cases and does have some supporting citations (from people that I have not previously encountered in my own studies). For example, there is an interesting connection on why Joseph of Arimathea was the one who had to claim the body of Jesus that was connected to his belonging to the Sanhedrin that was pretty investing and not something that I had heard before (will still need to do some follow-on research to verify though). Additional there was an interesting discussion about why the tomb had to be new in order not to run afoul of custom and law; however, the discussion of why we are so certain of the tomb’s location doesn’t appear to follow any consensus and fails to mention any of the competing claims, giving the a impression of certainty here. Additionally he talks about the James ossuary as if it has been determined to be authentic, while that is actually still contested. This might be inferred by the fact that Oded Golan was eventually acquitted of personally forging the ossuary, but the courts made no ruling on the items actual authenticity.
Part Three attempts to defend the New Testament as a whole; doing so with a combination of strawman arguments and historical inferences (the later being a list of extra biblical documents that mention Jesus by name). An immediate problem here is the inclusion of Thallus, who, while a favorite of Christian apologists because of its early date (52AD), really only confirms that solar eclipse around the time of the crucifixion and it was Africanus writing nearly 200 years after the fact that made the connection to Jesus. So the best external reference we have is actually Josephus as part of his histories, who mentions Jesus primarily in passing as the founder of a Jewish sect that was [believed to have been] executed on a cross by the sect members. In short, all of these arguments have potential, but they are all circumstantial and fairly weak on their own.
…
The chapters and sections in this work are:
Introduction
Part One - Hallucination Theory (1 claim w/ 8 responses)
Part Two - Empty Tomb (1 main claim w/ 10 subclaims and responses)
Part Three - The New Testament (1 main claim and response with 4 counter arguments and responses)
Some of the other points that really got my attention are:
Jesus made thirteen recorded appearances, at different times and locations, over the span of forty days.
When we look at what happened to people who gathered followers in Israel both before and after Jesus' life, we find that all of the movements failed and were finished off. Done. Yet only Christianity survived the death of its leader and did so in a spectacular way.
This brings us to the second hurdle. Jewish custom at the time stated that if a Jewish person was crucified, being a criminal, his or her body could only be retrieved by a member of the Sanhedrin. Family members or friends were not allowed. This explains why Mary, Jesus’ mother, or any of His siblings or even His disciples did not ask for Jesus’ body for burial.
According to the rules and customs of that time, Jesus' body should have been buried in a tomb for criminals. But Joseph asks for Jesus' body and places it in his own, brand-new tomb which had never been used. This works because as a new tomb, it is neither a place of honor or dishonor.
I was given this free advance reader copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Popular posts from this blog
Dominican Inquirer
Technically speaking, this is really more of an independent, unstructured, investigation of a particular Lay Dominican Fraternity, where you can attend meetings as a guest with no particular commitment ... sort of a "try it before you buy it" approach to see if you and the fraternity members are even remotely compatible. Given some of the conflict within the American Church today ... this might not be a given. As might be expected, there can be strong personalities and intense beliefs about how to approach the faith within the fraternities that can reflect the same divisions that are seen in the Church at large. However, there are also some additional questions to contemplate to see if you might be a fit for the Dominican Family in general. Each of the Major Orders that have tertiaries (third orders) share their specific charisms (gifts) with their lay members, so in addition to a general desire for a deeper spiritual devotion to the faith, there are elem...
Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle C)
The Pharisee and the Tax Collector Lectionary: 150 Reading 1 - Sirach 35:12-14, 16-18 [sic] Responsorial Psalm - Psalm 34:2-3, 17-18, 19, 23 Reading 2 - 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18 Alleluia - 2 Corinthians 5:19 Gospel - Luke 18:9-14 '... for whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.' In today’s Gospel, Jesus presents us with the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. This story is closely connected to the one which comes just before it about the persistent widow who secures a just decision from a dishonest judge. While the first encourages us to pray and never give up. The second reminds us how, and in what manner, we ought to pray. However, to fully understand the example Jesus gives us, we should look more closely at first the century audience that He initially spoke to. A faithful Jew at that time would have assumed two things: That the Pharisee was a very holy and devout man. And that...
Third Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle A)
Word of God Sunday Lectionary: 67 Reading 1 - Isaiah 8:23—9:3 Responsorial Psalm - Psalm 27:1, 4, 13-14 Reading 2 - 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 17 Alleluia - Matthew 4:23 Gospel - Matthew 4:12-23 The Promise of Salvation Under a New Davidic King. The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light … In the first act of creation, God created light and “saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness.” (Genesis 1:4) … However, light and darkness are more than just opposites; they are symbols, metaphors, and emotional currents that have shaped our understanding of the world around us for centuries. Within the stories we tell each other, we find a natural contrast between what is seen and what is hidden, between safety and the unknown, between clarity and mystery. This duality of light and dark exists because of one’s relationship to the other … and our experiences of the two. For those of us who have spent any time on the w...
Twenty-sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle C)
Lazarus and the Rich Man (Dives) Lectionary: 138 Reading 1 - Amos 6:1a, 4-7 Responsorial Psalm - Psalm 146:7, 8-9, 9-10 Reading 2 - 1 Timothy 6:11-16 Alleluia - Cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9 Gospel - Luke 16:19-31 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.' Justice, both socially and spiritually, is at the heart of today’s readings. Social Justice is about seeing the “unseen”… remembering the “forgotten” in our society. It’s about the men, women and children who only want a better life in a world that God has given to all of us, just not a select few. In our first reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, we hear from Amos, the prophet of social justice. God called him to speak to the rich of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The country was about to be destroyed by the Assyrians while the wealthy “lie on beds of ivory” and “drink wine from bowls,” confident that “the ruin of Joseph” ...
Comments
Post a Comment