"In the beginning..." (Christology and Randology)


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

Thank you Tony, I have often thought that Rand's philosophy , being about living on earth, was so like that of Jesus in that aspect.But because she (unwisely imo) famously said "am I not real?") and said that she knew a reals life hero like her fictional ones, she imposed impossible conditions on herself. and her followers. Jesus told other people what they ought to do, mostly., and if they couldn't hack living like he did, he still thought of them as salvageable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If it's the book I'm currently reading, Jesus, Interrupted [...], which was published in 2009, I think it's quite good, and I'm finding Ehrman's manner of reasoning a delight.

I'm curious as to your criticisms of the recent one you read, whichever it is.

It's this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1377220246&sr=8-4&keywords=bart+ehrman

As Christopher Hitchens was known to say, an argument isn't refuted until it has been stated at it's strongest, and Ehrman doesn't portray the position he's attacking fairly, and he's not thorough with the serious contrary arguments out there. There are plenty of crackpots, but that's not all that's out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez! That spectral voice out of nowhere again! :smile: You have to tell me how you do it.

(I see Brant on this thread, but not you.)

Puzzled by her "am I not real?" comment. She obviously was, but I'm missing something.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in her setting herself up as an exemplar. One could be a master carpenter teaching the craft, lets say, and one's finished work would be pointed out as perfect examples to one's students. Rand was teaching Life, in her vision of it: aside from her fictional heroes, she only had herself to point to.

Not as a Jesus: as a rational human who (I surmise) found material, intellectual and spiritual success, some degree of happiness, and love. All the while producing her exhausting work.

One has to judge her on her terms, or objectively, not by conventional standards.

The imbued sense of "Perfection" we all have from our exposure to Christianity, (which is also intrinsicism) bears no relation to what is attainable in reality.

Rand's apparent arrogance offends you, non?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "real" comment was an angry reaction when someone said her fictional characters were unrealistic. It is her absolute sense of rightness which intrigues me, it is beyond what I think of as arrogance, and it does not offend me at all.

Invisibly,

Carol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. An independent-minded individualist... and one who is also a Socialist.

Hmm.

That "I only dance with the fella who brought me" you mentioned once?

Ditch him, lady. Come home with me.

(And thank you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's this one:http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1377220246&sr=8-4&keywords=bart+ehrman

As Christopher Hitchens was known to say, an argument isn't refuted until it has been stated at it's strongest, and Ehrman doesn't portray the position he's attacking fairly, and he's not thorough with the serious contrary arguments out there. There are plenty of crackpots, but that's not all that's out there.

Thanks.

The title is Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Published in 2012.

I'm curious to see what Ehrman says, and ordered the book.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a major respect, there isn't a type of problem with Randology that there is with Christology.

(I'm aware, incidentally, that "Christ" is an honorific, the Greek - Christos, in English lettering, for "Messiah"="the anointed." Ehrman says that some of his students come in thinking that "Christ" was Jesus' last name.)

Rand's physical existence was witnessed by many. She wrote books and articles and gave speeches the authorship of which hasn't been questioned. There's even an "official" account of her life, published in 1962 with her endorsement - the title section of Who Is Ayn Rand?

Since the author of this account, Barbara Branden, became, as Carol notes, one of the duplex Judases in the Rand story, the original of the "official" story isn't often cited by adherents of what's become the "orthodox" viewpoint on Objectivism.

Nonetheless, a feature of Barbara's tale - and of Rand's own to the extent Rand talked about her life herself - has become the basis of interpreters of Rand, at least among Rand admirers.

This is the idea of a unitary development.

"I've held the same philosophy since I was two," Rand said (from memory, maybe not exact).

There are those who mock this statement, pointing out that no two-year-old has a worked-out philosophy. I think that picking on the word "philosophy" is an uncharitable interpretation and that what Rand meant was the same basic attitude toward life. I even think that she did have the same basic attitude from early on.

However, I think that it's a mistake to see her ideas as a progressive unitary unfolding.

Instead, I think that she went through three phases, producing a major fiction work as the primary expression of each phase.

That there are Nietzschean influences in We the Living is acknowledged even by the orthodox.

It's The Fountainhead which I think is an often-unrecognized middle phase, a phase which harkens back to her discontinued "The Little Street."

The reason I started this thread was because of a thesis in the Ehrman book I've been reading which gave me a strong parallel impression to something I'd kept thinking in reading an OO thread titled "Roark the Dynamiter." The thread had been linked to by Jonathan.

I kept thinking reading the thread that the discussion was premised on the idea that Roark was to be evaluated in terms of Objectivist morality. But as I pointed out in post #20, Rand hadn't formulated the philosophy which she later called "Objectivism" when she wrote The Fountainhead. The viewing and evaluating Roark as an (intended) Objectivist exemplar, I think is anachronistic.

(to be continued)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a major respect, there isn't a type of problem with Randology that there is with Christology.

(I'm aware, incidentally, that "Christ" is an honorific, the Greek - Christos, in English lettering, for "Messiah"="the anointed." Ehrman says that some of his students come in thinking that "Christ" was Jesus' last name.)

Rand's physical existence was witnessed by many. She wrote books and articles and gave speeches the authorship of which hasn't been questioned. There's even an "official" account of her life, published in 1962 with her endorsement - the title section of Who Is Ayn Rand?

Since the author of this account, Barbara Branden, became, as Carol notes, one of the duplex Judases in the Rand story, the original of the "official" story isn't often cited by adherents of what's become the "orthodox" viewpoint on Objectivism.

Nonetheless, a feature of Barbara's tale - and of Rand's own to the extent Rand talked about her life herself - has become the basis of interpreters of Rand, at least among Rand admirers.

This is the idea of a unitary development.

"I've held the same philosophy since I was two," Rand said (from memory, maybe not exact).

There are those who mock this statement, pointing out that no two-year-old has a worked-out philosophy. I think that picking on the word "philosophy" is an uncharitable interpretation and that what Rand meant was the same basic attitude toward life. I even think that she did have the same basic attitude from early on.

However, I think that it's a mistake to see her ideas as a progressive unitary unfolding.

Instead, I think that she went through three phases, producing a major fiction work as the primary expression of each phase.

That there are Nietzschean influences in We the Living is acknowledged even by the orthodox.

It's The Fountainhead which I think is an often-unrecognized middle phase, a phase which harkens back to her discontinued "The Little Street."

The reason I started this thread was because of a thesis in the Ehrman book I've been reading which gave me a strong parallel impression to something I'd kept thinking in reading an OO thread titled "Roark the Dynamiter." The thread had been linked to by Jonathan.

I kept thinking reading the thread that the discussion was premised on the idea that Roark was to be evaluated in terms of Objectivist morality. But as I pointed out in post #20, Rand hadn't formulated the philosophy which she later called "Objectivism" when she wrote The Fountainhead. The viewing and evaluating Roark as an (intended) Objectivist exemplar, I think is anachronistic.

(to be continued)

Ellen

I don't remember who said it, but to wit: Objectivism was Ayn Rand's gift to Nathaniel Branden. If so (or not so) he ran with it. He paid her back in every way he could except the one way that mattered most to her. Maybe it isn't Ojectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, but Objectivism, the philosophy of Nathaniel Branden. That's just a thought sentence; not true, of course. I think the basic truth of the matter is she simply bit off too much in writing that novel for her own good and never fully recovered from it*. Ironically, the woman who in her dotage cautioned against trying to save the world tried to do that with her magnum opus.

--Brant

*NB: she went into the world of AS and never came out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen: a case can be made that the "kingdom of heaven" reference by Jesus was actually something akin to one's progression away from the duality of the Western worldview to the unitive worldview of the Eastern world. In other words, Jesus was making a fairly "typical" mystical comment, and one that could also have come out of the mouths of Buddha, Lao Tzu, and some of the great Indian sages. Under this formulation, the "kingdom of heaven" truly is not of this world, but (theoretically) resides "inside" each human, but only if that human can transcend duality. This view is/was a mainstay of Eastern mysticism, and, at that time, relatively uncommon to the Western ear, except where implied by pantheists such as the Stoics.

Are you talking about Gnostic interpretations?

I'm not sure from your description. I wouldn't call gnosticism (to the extent there was commonality amongst the variety of views lumped under that label) non-dualist.

It is oddly unfortunate that Jesus is sort of everywhere nowadays, because the 21st Century Jesus most everybody has an image of in their head barely resembles the Jesus of the New Testament.

One of Ehrman's points is, Which Jesus of the New Testament? Exactly the issue I became intrigued by in a parallelism to Randology is the Christain habit of combining New Testament stories into an overview which ignores the differences between the earliest sources and John and later. What I'm getting to is a similar habit of interpreting The Fountainhead in the light of Objectivism although Rand hadn't formulated Objectivism or even made rationality the prime virtue when she wrote The Fountainhead.

As just one other example, Jesus was not really the carpenter "hick" from Galilee that we think of him being. He was fluent in several languages. Galilee was on the Silk Road, and far more bustling than the Podunk image most people have. Jesus was more akin to a Wisdom teacher than is commonly thought. I can get some references for anybody who finds this topic of interest.

I find the topic of interest and would appreciate some references.

Ellen

The best book I have seen on the topic is The Wisdom Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is number one (#1) on the NY Times list. He is a Muslim. I heard him interviewed ad he sounded quite sharp.

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth Hardcover
by Reza Aslan (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/140006922X/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=27951309797&hvpos=2t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=s&hvrand=4299370961304845180&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_dsqom3s1n_b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As just one other example, Jesus was not really the carpenter "hick" from Galilee that we think of him being. He was fluent in several languages. Galilee was on the Silk Road, and far more bustling than the Podunk image most people have. Jesus was more akin to a Wisdom teacher than is commonly thought. I can get some references for anybody who finds this topic of interest.

I find the topic of interest and would appreciate some references.

Ellen

The best book I have seen on the topic is The Wisdom Jesus.

On an initial look, I'm suspicious. For instance, I searched on "incarnation," which the author, Cynthia Bourgeault, says is central to Christian doctrine. True, but it appears to be a later idea, starting with John, and not something that's claimed in the earliest sources.

The book Adam referenced sounds like a more plausible interpretation to me.

I received the Ehrman book ND referenced and criticized: Did Jesus Exist? I'd like to read that one, and Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, as the next two. Then I'll have more of a context for considering the idea of Jesus as wisdom teacher. I've heard the suggestion before of viewing Jesus that way, but it's always seemed to me a dubious stretching of quotes the authenticity of which is questionable in any case, and an ignoring of features of the story such as his being baptized by John the Baptist and his going to Jerusalem for Passover. Why would there have been those features in the earliest stories if Jesus (assuming he was an actual person) didn't think of himself as a Jewish prophet?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As just one other example, Jesus was not really the carpenter "hick" from Galilee that we think of him being. He was fluent in several languages.

He could sure speak good Latin off the cuff:

Unless Mel Gibson's team of scholars weren't up to snuff.

I received the Ehrman book ND referenced and criticized: Did Jesus Exist? I'd like to read that one,

This guy has set himself up as Ehrman's antipode on the topic:

It's interesting, and the battle has gotten colorful, but I can't help feeling ambivalent about who 'wins'. Obviously no one will ever 'win'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus was speaking Aramaic, which was a language used in Judea along with Koine Greek. Gibson screwed up. He should have had the Romans speaking Koine.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy has set himself up as Ehrman's antipode on the topic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

It's interesting, and the battle has gotten colorful, but I can't help feeling ambivalent about who 'wins'. Obviously no one will ever 'win'.

I don't care either way if there was an historic person. What interests me most of all is the development, with its intricate transformations, into so major a religion. For instance, the idea of the Trinity, and how that developed. The idea of transubstantiation. People still go to Mass and take Communion. When Larry and I were in Vienna in 2009, we went to the service at Saint Stephen's to see the place and to hear the singing. There was a line of possibly more than a thousand people - an awful lot anyway - who went up to take Communion! I was astonished, since I'd thought that the majority of the multitude there were probably there for the same reasons Larry and I were. Did they believe it, or were they just doing it to do it? I wasn't in a position to conduct a survey. :smile:

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never found the idea that Jesus didn't exist very plausible, or even worthy of much thought. They mythers have a big presence on the internet, but no place else. Considering the brief span of Jesus' ministry and that it occurred in a relatively obscure part of the Roman Empire, the amount of evidence about his life is significant. And it comes from Christian, Jewish and Roman sources.

I'd recommend:

1. Van Voorst: Jesus outside the New Testament;

2. Evans: Fabricating Jesus;

3. Bock: THe Missing Gospels

4. Kostenberger: The Heresy of Orthodoxy; and

5.Brown: New Testament Christology

for moderate to conservative approaches on the life of Jesus and his connection to later church doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the brief span of Jesus' ministry and that it occurred in a relatively obscure part of the Roman Empire, the amount of evidence about his life is significant. And it comes from Christian, Jewish and Roman sources.

As I understand the situation, the only contemporary references are, possibly, a couple by Josephus.

Thanks for the sources list, and the link in #45.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Jesus Interrupted, Ben Witherington did a good critique:

http://www.apologetics315.com/2009/04/critique-of-bart-ehrmans-jesus.html

I haven't had time to read the entire critique, but I thought it was interesting that Witherington actually supports one of Ehrman's points but apparently doesn't realize it. Regarding Jesus cleansing the temple, Ehrman finds what he deems to be an irreconcilable chronology difference between John and the Synoptics. Ehrman's point was that this difference exists because the authors had different intentions in the telling of their stories. Witherington insists that the difference is not irreconcilable at all because the authors had different intentions in the telling of their stories.

The mistake is in thinking that it's important that the differences exist (which Ehrman and Witherington agree on). What is important is why those differences exist (which Ehrman and Witherington agree on). What I like about Ehrman is that he doesn't just point out inconsistencies in the New Testament, nor does he ascribe those inconsistencies merely to the fact these are very old texts and stories were told differently back in the day. He examines what the motives of these ancient authors might have been.

Another thing I like about Ehrman is that he writes for the layperson, which incidentally is something Witherington acknowledges, and in a back-handed kind of way, criticizes. Ehrman's books are not written for scholars, and my impression is that this offends the scholars.

Ellen, I'm glad you have enjoyed this book as much as I did. As for what Christology and Randology have in common, I recall Ehrman stating something about how Christianity started out as the religion of Jesus, but became the religion about Jesus. I think that is sometimes true of Objectivism. It started as the philosophy of Ayn Rand and became/is becoming/will become the philosophy about Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is safe to say that Christianity is the most influential philosophy/religion in the world. I was raised Catholic and I don't retain much of its teachings, but there is a certain current in it that conservatives may be correct about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A side excursion on the popularity of apocalyptic predictions.

Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman, 2005

Introduction

pp. 12-13

When I was at Moody Bible Institute, one of the most popular books on campus was Hal Lindsey's apocalyptic blueprint for our future, The Late Great Planet Earth. Lindsey's book was popular not only at Moody; it was, in fact, the best- selling work of nonfiction (apart from the Bible; and using the term nonfiction somewhat loosely) in the English language in the 1970s. Lindsey, like those of us at Moody, believed that the Bible was absolutely inerrant in its very words, to the extent that you could read the New Testament and know not only how God wanted you to live and what he wanted you to believe, but also what God himself was planning to do in the future and how he was going to do it. The world was heading for an apocalyptic crisis of catastrophic proportions, and the inerrant words of scripture could be read to show what, how, and when it would all happen.

I was particularly struck by the "when."

[Ehrman explains that Lindsey pointed to the parable of a fig tree in Matthew, ending with the words, "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place." Since the image of a "fig tree" is often used in the Bible as indicating Israel, and a Biblical "generation" is forty years, the parable meant, according to Lindsey, that the apocalypse would come within forty years of the 1948 establishment of modern Israel, i.e., sometime before 1988.]

This message seemed completely compelling to us. It may seem odd now - given the circumstance that 1988 has come and gone, with no Armageddon - but, on the other hand, there are millions of Christians who still believe that the Bible can be read literally as completely inspired in its predictions of what is soon to happen to bring history as we know it to a close. Witness the current craze for the Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins series Left Behind, another apocalyptic vision of our future based on a literalistic reading of the Bible, a series that has sold more than sixty million copies in our own day.

I don't have a guess as to what percentage of the people who read those books read them simply for amusement/entertainment, but I figure that there are a lot of folks among the readers who are reading from belief.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A side excursion on the popularity of apocalyptic predictions.

Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman, 2005

Introduction

pp. 12-13

When I was at Moody Bible Institute, one of the most popular books on campus was Hal Lindsey's apocalyptic blueprint for our future, The Late Great Planet Earth. Lindsey's book was popular not only at Moody; it was, in fact, the best- selling work of nonfiction (apart from the Bible; and using the term nonfiction somewhat loosely) in the English language in the 1970s. Lindsey, like those of us at Moody, believed that the Bible was absolutely inerrant in its very words, to the extent that you could read the New Testament and know not only how God wanted you to live and what he wanted you to believe, but also what God himself was planning to do in the future and how he was going to do it. The world was heading for an apocalyptic crisis of catastrophic proportions, and the inerrant words of scripture could be read to show what, how, and when it would all happen.

I was particularly struck by the "when."

[Ehrman explains that Lindsey pointed to the parable of a fig tree in Matthew, ending with the words, "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place." Since the image of a "fig tree" is often used in the Bible as indicating Israel, and a Biblical "generation" is forty years, the parable meant, according to Lindsey, that the apocalypse would come within forty years of the 1948 establishment of modern Israel, i.e., sometime before 1988.]

This message seemed completely compelling to us. It may seem odd now - given the circumstance that 1988 has come and gone, with no Armageddon - but, on the other hand, there are millions of Christians who still believe that the Bible can be read literally as completely inspired in its predictions of what is soon to happen to bring history as we know it to a close. Witness the current craze for the Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins series Left Behind, another apocalyptic vision of our future based on a literalistic reading of the Bible, a series that has sold more than sixty million copies in our own day.

I don't have a guess as to what percentage of the people who read those books read them simply for amusement/entertainment, but I figure that there are a lot of folks among the readers who are reading from belief.

Ellen

And also because they scare the shit out of you, kind of like the Halloween movie series.

I read Hal L as a junior in high school and it indeed scared the shit out of me. Until I read The Fountainhead, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now