I've noted a number of times the ongoing gyrations amongst the far right Christianists in response to the fact that human genome research has proven that the Adam and Eve of the Bible did not exist. That's right, they were not historic individuals who really existed. The implications for the Christian storyline are earth shattering: no Adam and Eve, no fall, no need for a resurrected Messiah. A new cat fight among biblical scholars involves the question of whether or not Jesus really existed. In "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth," New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman - I've read a number of his books - comes to the conclusion that there was a historical Jesus. Beyond his historical existence, however, the rest of the Christian story line - that Jesus was the son of God or divine in any way, was born of a virgin or resurrected, or is the way to salvation - remains unconfirmed and open to debate. At least from a hard, factual historical basis. Here are highlights from Huffington Post on Ehrman's book and the debate:
For years, nonbelievers rejoiced at the publication of a new book by New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, relishing the professor's pugnacious attacks on the cherished beliefs of evangelical Christians.But in his latest offering, the University of North Carolina historian and author of such provocative titles as "Misquoting Jesus," "Forged," and "Jesus Interrupted," targets the very crowd that formed the bulk of his audience.
In "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth," Ehrman soundly refutes the arguments -- sometimes made by atheists, agnostics and humanists -- that early storytellers invented Jesus.
Ehrman, an agnostic, convincingly demonstrates in clear, forceful prose that there was a historical Jesus, a Jewish teacher of the first century who was crucified by Pontius Pilate.
The fact that Ehrman is siding with Christians on the historical truth of Jesus does not indicate a change of heart, much less a conversion. Instead, he said, it's an attempt to say, "history matters."
Ehrman points out that only about 3 percent of Jews in Jesus' time were literate, and Romans never kept detailed records. (Decades after Jesus' crucifixion, three Roman writers mention Jesus in passing, as does the Jewish historian Josephus.) Though the Gospel accounts are biased, they cannot be discounted as non-historical. As for Jesus being a Jewish version of the pagan dying and rising god, Ehrman shows that there is no evidence the Jews of Jesus' day worshipped pagan gods. If anything, Jesus was deeply rooted in Jewish, rather than Roman, traditions.
While the Jewish tradition of the 1st century did not worship pagan gods, the traditions of death and resurrection gods and goddesses long predated the time of Jesus and included among others the cult of Isis and Osiris, Mithras and others. Indeed, the cult of Mithras was extremely popular among the ranks of the Roman legions during the time of Christ. I don't deny that Christ existed. I do question as to what the truth is about his ministry and his death and resurrection. Given that the Bible is 100% wrong on the issue of Adam and Eve and the leadership of the Catholic Church has shown its willingness to rewrite history to suit its agenda, I often believe that we will never know the real truth.


