****** - Verified Buyer
4.5
The 2003 book "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?" by Robert M. Price is a brilliant & scholarly exposé on the origins of the Christian new testament gospels. While many gospel believers view the gospels as having been written by eyewitnesses (Jewish) to events that allegedly occurred during the first century CE in Roman-occupied Palestine, it is far more likely that the gospels were written by people who never witnessed any of the events that they wrote about. First, it is clear that the gospels were written many decades after the events allegedly occurred (no earlier than the last part of the first century CE to well into the 2nd century CE) since the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE and again in 132 CE. Thus, the gospels could not have been written before 70 CE (and possibly not before 132 CE) since Jesus allegedly makes a dire prediction that it will be destroyed. Further, given that there were no synagogues in Galilee until after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, Jesus could not have preached in one as the gospels claim with the temple intact. Next, it is clear that those who contributed to them were influenced by non-Jewish beliefs, including Zoroastrianism and Mithraism. Ironically, the Pharisees, often viewed by Christians as Jesus' main rivals, had incorporated various Zoroastrian beliefs into their views of Judaism including the notion of Satan (based upon Ahriman, the anti-god of Zoroastrianism), a vast angelology, the notion of an end-time deliverer (who, for many of the time was Mithras) and a pronounced Light versus Dark dualism. The Sadducees (a rival sect of the time) had rejected all these Zoroastrian & Mithraic concepts (including the belief in an afterlife), but they were pivotal to the development of Christianity. Belief in Mithras, who was venerated as long as ago as 1500 BCE in India as the son of a deity, was popular among Roman soldiers for being the slayer of a bull, but was also believed to have been born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave and had been visited by shepherds that had been alerted by angels of the divine baby's birth. December 25th is a popular birth date for many sun gods worshiped in the first century CE and corresponds to the rising of the constellation Virgo on the horizon, as well as being close to the winter solstice.As Mr. Price describes in the "Introduction" to the book, there are several tools used for textual criticism for examining authenticity. They include history versus the gospels, the criterion of dissimilarity, the principal of analogy and the principal of biographical analogy. As to history versus the gospels, there is no archaeological evidence that any synagogues existed in pre-70 CE Galilee. They only came into existence after Pharisees & scribes went there following the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. This also comes into play with statements allegedly made by Jesus that were clearly written for a Gentile audience, including the alleged Great Commission that should have precluded any controversy for Peter to preach to the gentile Cornelius (Acts 10-11). The criterion of dissimilarity is simple: there is no reason to accept that a saying attributed to Jesus is authentic if it has any parallel in contemporary Judaism, Hellensim or the early church. For example, can the gospels claim that Jesus specified what is the "greatest commandment" when Rabbi Hillel had previously said the same thing? Or, for another example, are we to believe the nativity story of Jesus as presented in the gospels is authentic when it is so strikingly similar to other nativity stories, including that of Mithras? The principal of analogy views that all historical and scientific judgments are probabilistic, provisional and tentative because they are inevitably based upon analogy with contemporary experience. When reading the various miracles stories in the gospels of faith healings, raising the dead, walking on water or feeding thousands with nothing, one is expected to unquestionably believe that such actions were the result of the supernatural. If so, then why not also believe in various medieval tales of werewolves and weeping statues? Regardless of how much one believes in the authenticity of gospel miracle stories, one would be hard-pressed to find a Pentecostal meeting today where similar miracles are occurring. Hence, if there is high probability that something could not happen, there is high probability that it did not happen. The principal of biographical analogy examines the relationship of the gospel stories about Jesus with other mythical & legendary hero stories. The gospels are highly suspicious in this way since there is nothing in them that doesn't conform to the typical mythic hero archetype.Using a vast number of references, Mr. Price demonstrates that the origins of the Christian new testament gospels are more a description of the politics that was occurring in the first & second centuries CE within early Christian communities and not what Jesus actually said or did. It was much easier for someone to increase the potency of a particular point of view by attributing it something that Jesus allegedly said. Thus, many sayings attributed to Jesus in the new testament gospels were more a reflection of what the authors wanted to impress upon others and not necessarily what he actually said. Ultimately, the view that prevailed and evolved into the Christianity of today is the Pauline view. Thus, did a historical Jesus (after his alleged resurrection) actually send the disciples to preach his gospel to Gentiles and (ultimately) reject Jewish traditions, or did a group of Pauline Christians not interested in following Jewish traditions have greater sway over what was written in the gospels?Whether or not a historical Jesus ever existed will probably never be known, but the historical battles that occurred in early Christianity are preserved in the gospel writings, which is what the gospels appear to be more than anything: what early Christians wanted people to believe, and not necessarily what actually happened. Thus, the gospels cannot be viewed as being either historical or authentic in spite of how many people have chosen to believe what is written within them, but how closely do believers actually read what is written in the gospels? If Jesus actually repudiated his Davidic lineage in Mark 12:35-37, then the lineages written in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 that claim a Davidic heritage for him are clearly wrong. Further, each of these lineages (both supposedly the lineage of Joseph) are completely different and include individuals whose offspring were condemned from ever sitting on the throne of David. If Jesus said "Verily I say unto you, there shall no sign be given unto this generation," (Mark 8:12), then all of the various miracle stories written in the gospels must be rejected as being inauthentic. If Jesus only became the messiah after his resurrection as indicated by Romans 1:4, Acts 2:36 & 3:36, then any messianic claims attributed to Jesus before his crucifixion cannot be authentic. If Jesus renounced all apocalyptic speculation with signs (Luke 17:20), then the so-called Olivet Discourse (or Little Apocalypse) as written in Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21 that was riddled with signs was clearly said (written) by someone else. The "Good Samaritan" parable (Luke 10:25-37) and the Great Commission could not have been given by Jesus when he is also attributed to having said "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and set foot in no village of the Samaritans" (Matt. 10:5).Overall, I rate the very thought-provoking 2003 book "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?" by Robert M. Price with a resounding 5 out of 5 stars. The descriptions contained within this review are but a meager sample of the depth & breadth of the detailed information & analysis contained with Mr. Price's book.
