The moderate version of Biblical criticism

Bart D. Ehrman is something as strange as a professor of religious studies who writes best-selling books. "Misquoting Jesus" is probably his most well-known book. He has also written a number of introductory textbooks to the New Testament, plus some more scholarly works. Indeed, Ehrman has even penned a critique of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code"!

A certain kind of Christians love to hate Professor Ehrman, probably because he was himself once a fundamentalist Christian (he even attended services of the Plymouth Brethren), became progressively more liberal, and finally turned atheist-to-agnostic. That, plus his best-selling books, is enough to make him a constant object of fundamentalist venom and evangelical criticism, perhaps on a par with Richard Dawkins (and then, perhaps not - Richard probably still takes the devil's chaplain prize).

It may therefore come as a surprise to sceptics, that Ehrman belongs to the moderate faction of Biblical criticism. This can be clearly seen in "Jesus. Apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium". Ehrman believes that the three synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) contain many authentic traditions about the historical Jesus. Thus, the synoptics can be used as regular historical sources. Ehrman explains in some detail which parts of the synoptic gospels he finds reliable, and why. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, he considers more or less unreliable. The same is true of the apocryphal "Gospel of Thomas", which Ehrman believes to be a much later Gnostic work.

From the gospels attributed to Mark, Matthew and Luke, Ehrman weaves a portrait of Jesus that can be summarized as follows. Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who believed that the millennium was imminent. He was born in Nazareth, and had originally been a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus taught that the Jewish Temple was about to be destroyed, and that a saviour figure known as the Son of Man would establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Jesus himself would become the ruler of this kingdom. Thus, Jesus saw himself as the Messiah. The new kingdom would exalt the poor, downtrodden and oppressed, and humble the mighty and powerful. Salvation was based on works, not faith. Jesus didn't question Jewish laws and customs, and often participated in Jewish celebrations. However, he believed that the commandment of love trumped the other commandments, both love of God and love of thy neighbour. To some extent, the small community around Jesus was a foretaste of the kingdom, since it was based on the commandment of love, as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus created a disturbance at the Temple in Jerusalem, where his apocalyptic preaching was seen as a threat by both the Jewish leadership and the Romans. After eating a Passover meal, Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples, and sentenced to death. The crucifixion was a real event, but the traditions about the resurrection are so confusing and contradictory, that it's impossible to say what actually happened. After the supposed resurrection, the followers of Jesus exalted him into a God-like figure.

While this obviously isn't the Christian view of Jesus, it nevertheless strikes me as an eerily familiar scenario. Why? Because Ehrman has essentially retold the synoptic gospel stories, from start to finish, minus the supernatural embellishments! The historical Jesus turns out to be the synoptic Jesus sans miracle. Or, even more precisely, a Jewish version of the synoptic Jesus sans miracle.

Since a currently fashionable trend in New Testament scholarship, the Jesus Seminar, claims that the historical Jesus wasn't apocalyptic, Ehrman devotes part of his book to critically scrutinize their claims. For instance, he points out that the crucifixion is inexplicable if we assume that the real Jesus was a non-apocalyptic sage, or simply preached moral reform. The Romans didn't crucify Cynics, or even Pharisees! (Not unless they actually rebelled.) Ehrman also points out that all available sources about Jesus are strongly apocalyptic, and that even the hypothetical document known as Q is apocalyptic. As already indicated, Ehrman believes that "The Gospel of Thomas" is a late work without pre-Gospel antecedents. Most scholars on the subject seem to agree.

The main mistake of many scholars who attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus, is that they end up with a Jesus strangely similar to *their own* historical period, attuned to the political and religious agendas of the scholars' themselves. But that, of course, is not the historical Jesus. This criticism isn't new. It was put forward by Albert Schweitzer already a century ago. However, it has lost none of its force. Indeed, Jesus is the only historical character nobody wants to reject, but everybody claims, suitable revised! Man creates a Son of God in his own image.

But is Ehrman right? Was the real Jesus what the title of this book suggests: a Jewish apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium?

No idea. But at least Ehrman has stated the moderate position of Biblical criticism clear enough.