11 von 19 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Fascinating subject - poor book,
Von Ein Kunde
Rezension bezieht sich auf: The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (Gebundene Ausgabe)
If the question to be asked is 'are there pagan influences in Christianity?' the answer is 'of course there are'. No one denies this. But to go further and claim Jesus never existed and is a fictional contruct from pagan myths is to place oneself way out on the fringes of opinion. To hold your own you need to present a water tight case.
This book fails because its authors are engaged in polemic instead of scholarship. Rather than objectively present the facts from their sources they selectively and inaccurately quote to make their point. For instance, the authors miss out Justin Martyr specifically saying in about 150AD that no pagan Godmen were crucified and instead claim, based on later sources, that they were. They could have tried to explain away Justin's comment but to miss it out completely when he is freely quoted on other matters is unforgivable. Likewise, they claim that 'no serious scholar' believes Josephus's passage on Jesus contains any genuine material. This is untrue and the authors must know it. Michael Grant and John Dominic Crossan are extremely serious scholars and certainly not conservative Christians.
Rather than quote real scholars, they often use books that no academic would be seen dead with. These include Ian Wilson (who still thinks the Turin Shroud is genuine) and GE Wells (who didn't believe Jesus existed at all). Many other books that are quoted are so ancient that even univeristy libraries do not seem to have them. Any chance of using up to date scholarship?
Often in this book perjurative and aggressive language is used instead of the measured prose of academia. This is intended to outrage the reader against the wrongs done by various early Christians. No counter examples, balance or context is supplied at all. For instance, the authors allege widespread torture or execution on the basis of one or two judiciously chosen quotations admitted by historians to represent unique events (like the awful murder of Hypatia).
They explain how only seven of Paul's letters in the New Testament are genuine (arguable but reasonable) and that Acts is written too late to be reliable (ditto). But they then quote from some of the spurious letters (Ephesians and Colosians) and Acts to help make their own point that Paul was a gnostic! This is invalid and quite possibly dishonest.
In short, this book is intended as polemic against historical Christianity. No doubt many arguments can be made against it but to lace your prose with falsehoods, double standards and polemic shows you are not serious about scholarship and only interested in scoring points and selling books. I'm afraid no serious scholar would use their precious time to even read this book, let alone review it.