Reddit mentions of The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions

To be honest -- and I promise that I'm making this as not-a-copout as I can -- my feeling is that if you're even taking the position that the entirety of the Bible is authentic and accurate, there's such a gulf of understanding between us that trying to bridge it would be well outside of the scope of a few posts.

I'll try to summarize as best I can, here.

Old Testament: The Torah was not given to Moses by God. Large portions of "God's laws" existed in other cultures before even the Jews claim that they were given to Moses. Like, word-for-word, verse for verse, verbatim. Sometimes with minor changes. The Law is clearly not entirely divine in origin, if any of it is (personally, I think I see the hand of God in places in Deuteronomy, but I'm not sure). Similarly, a great deal of the OT is founded upon pre-existing myths from other cultures in Mesopotamia. We're able to discern several different agents at work in the text, including people who clearly have very different conceptions of God, writing at different times, as well as any number of redactors. In some cases, it's pretty clear that the final version of the text was based upon a later writer completely failing to understand the original writer. In some cases, multiple incompatible versions of stories were combined into the text serially by redactors who clearly had no idea that the text was supposed to be "perfect". Check out the stories about how David met Saul, for example. Also, a lot of the traditional interpretations of things came about when the Jews noted the many flaws, inconsistencies, and absurdities in the Torah, and invented all sorts of amazing (and often ridiculous) explanations for them.

For more on this, I cannot recommend highly enough James Kugel's How to Read the Bible. It's written by a very intellectually honest orthodox Jew, which is very valuable to me because it's as unbiased as possible while still being sympathetic and open to the theist view. No joke, I will buy this for you in a heartbeat if you send me an address. It will radically transform and improve your understanding of these things.

As to the Gospels, you ought to be able to find any number of websites describing its inaccuracies and contradictions. Of course, there's a strain of fundamentalism that insists, through astounding intellectual dishonesty, that there are no contradictions. To assert this, one must use a definition of "contradiction" that would be prima facie absurd in any other context. The differing accounts of Jesus' birth, the date of the Last Supper, and so, so much more. Also, many of the accounts of Jesus' life are clearly, shall we say, modified to make the points that the authors cared about, such as Jesus's genealogy falling into nice round numbers that it actually didn't. Also, a lot of details seem to have been invented after the fact to give the impression that Jesus fulfilled prophecies that he likely didn't (As a Christian this doesn't bother me; I don't see the OT as inerrant, so it's not surprising to me that many of its prophecies were wrong). For example, the narrative wherein the family has to travel for a census (never happened) so that Jesus could be in the city that prophecy said the Messiah would be born in (he probably wasn't).

For more on this subject... I like Marcus Borg. Actually, this book by him and N.T. Wright does a great job examining such matters from multiple perspectives, as it's written in a format where they disagree with each other and give their own takes on things. Borg represents (IMO) rational but honest scholarship taken too far, whereas Wright represents a more traditional but still informed perspective. This book covers many important topics, such as many of the miracles, the nativity, the resurrection, and so on. If you want to be able to defend yourself against atheist attacks, buy this book if only for Wright's sections. But read Borg's, too. They'll open your eyes to so much.

Okay, now let's talk epistles. The wikipedia article on the subject of the Pauline Epistles is a great jumping-off point. For a more in-depth treatment, I really liked Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted though it definitely deals a lot with the gospels as well.

I'd like to make two more points in closing. The first is that there's just no reason at all to think that the Bible is accurate and authentic in its entirety. None. It doesn't even claim to be. It can't. It wasn't fully compiled until hundreds of years after its constituent parts were written, therefore it logically cannot be self-referential. When (not) Paul wrote that all scripture is God-breathed, he couldn't have been including the books that hadn't been written yet. Also, as you'll see if you read Kugel's book, much of scripture is clearly not inspired. Some would argue that it's still the book that God wanted us to end up with, but that raises the question of why there are so many different versions. Some bibles have books that others don't. Some translate things in contradictory ways to others. There is just no way to suggest that there's some kind of special force watching out for this book; we'd first have to posit that there's a single "right" version and then ask how we know which that is.

Secondly, consider so many of the things in the Bible that are, to put it mildly, inconvenient. Are iron chariots God's Achilles heel (Judges 1:19)? Why didn't any contemporary writers (including the other gospel authors) say anything about the zombie horde that broke loose in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53)? Oh, and let me tell you a story:

God made the world and he saw that it was good. Except, it wasn't. So he decides that he's going to kill everyone except for one good guy and his family. So two (or seven) of every kind of animal gets crammed into -- well, we'll skip this part, you know it. But anyway, afterward, God realizes that he's made a huuuuuuge mistake and promises not to do it again.

And that is where rainbows come from.

On the subject of textual criticism, he has some interesting looking dialogues with John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg, but I haven't read them:

The Resurrection of Jesus

and

The Meaning of Jesus

Except there are better ones out there.

When I say Aslan's scholarship isn't there, the issue is he uses flawed scholarship and presents it as fact. Some of this scholarship has actively been discredited, others are widely criticized for methodological issues (using circular logic to back up their conclusions), and is very contentious on some fundamental problems. Aslan makes a lot of claims as if they're truth but which cannot be proven because we lack the evidence to make such conclusions.

I'll be upfront on my bias here: Aslan relies on 19th century German scholarship and the Jesus Seminar and I simply think these sources of the historical Jesus are not sound. I contend that the streams of scholarship he relies upon tends to present speculation as fact (and a lot of the speculation has been treated as fact). The Jesus Seminar in particular is roundly criticized for using circular logic to make conclusions. I think these critiques are fair and do suggest that the conclusions of the wider Jesus Seminar should be handled as suspect. I believe archeological evidence disproves assumptions made by the Jesus Seminar when it comes to aging texts. This matters because the Jesus Seminar went through texts and voted on each one's authenticity based on their unproven assumptions -- deeming passages inauthentic (and thus later additions) based on criteria that were unproven and perhaps even disproven.

Aslan is a bad starting point because he uses questionable scholarship, doesn't question it, and then presents this "historical" portrait of Jesus based on his reading of this scholarship. Scholarship which archeological evidence actively contradicts at times.

I haven't read this book, but I've read some of his articles, and E.P. Sanders is commonly seen as a good starting point who makes good use of archeological evidence to draw conclusions.

N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg co-author a book which goes through various aspects of the search for the historical Jesus. Wright and Borg are friends (and I think went to school together? They both had the same mentor, anyhow) but have very different views. Wright is highly critical of the Jesus Seminar, Borg was part of the Jesus Seminar but is also a bit of an outlier due to his more mystical understanding.

The point is that there's much better starting points. I think any of the links I've provided are good ones. But Aslan simply because if Aslan is your jumping off point, you're mostly going to get scholarship that he agreed with to make his point.

I have a book recommendation for you. It’s a bit of an older book, but it is beyond excellent: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions..

Maybe it can bring you and your husband closer together :)

For starters, I'd recommend the following to get a taste of the issues we have to wrestle with when thinking about resurrection:

Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes - here is an author who is almost immediately dismissed by the status quo of Christianity as being a crazy man. But in this book, he has been incredibly thorough in presenting evidence for his thesis. I know he writes other books where he speaks more generally, and I think that conservatives tend to seize this as an opportunity to attack without actually addressing the things he brings up in books like this one. Also by the same author, and related to this topic, you should check out:

The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic

Resurrection: Myth or Reality?

Related to Paul, you should read:

The First Paul: Reclaiming the Radical Visionary Behind the Church's Conservative Icon

There are three books by this duo, and they are all fantastic - very thorough, meticulous, and yet easy to read and understand. Related to this topic, you'd want to read:

The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus's Final Days in Jerusalem

Another great book to understand where the debates lie in Jesus scholarship would be:

The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions

These are really "get your feet wet" books. But really, one of the biggest problems with theology these days, I feel, is that it is all too often done without even an attempt to connect with science. We think we can argue "the Bible says" and stop there - as if that implies "so therefore this is what we have to believe". This is generally how scholars like N.T. Wright operate - they spend all kinds of effort laying out what the language says, but never really get into the questions of whether these things are tenable with today's knowledge of science, whether or not Paul actually might not have been the author of such things, whether there are contradictions between the gospels (or some of the writings attributed to Paul), etc. With scholars like Wright, it's just assumed that everything which was said was reliable and came from the actual people we have long said it came from - we never have to think about problems like science and historical methodology.

But if you really want to understand the problems surrounding resurrection, I think you need to study what science has to say about consciousness. A few books that come to mind off the top of my head:

The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind

Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness

And if you're really up for some fun with science and the question of eternity:

Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe

The Self-Aware Universe

Please note: I don't think any of these books close the questions. They provide possibilities, for sure, and do so in a way that thoroughly wrestles with the evidence, logical problems, etc. But no one can prove or disprove afterlife, it seems. However, there are certainly many afterlife theories which simply do not work with modern science - literal bodily resurrection being one of them (if we're all going to be resurrected into physical bodies, how is our limited earth that is already stretched to the point of breaking going to support all those resurrected beings?).