Customer Reviews

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I have read many books about the historical Jesus. Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium is by far the best. Although a popular account, Ehrman presents evidence and evaluates it logically. His main thesis is that Jesus believed that God would intervene, destroy all evil, and establish a Kingdom of God on earth (rather than in heaven), and that this would occur during his lifetime. Ehrman concludes that many of Jesus' sayings and deeds are best explained by Jesus' assumption that the present world would soon end. People must repent and prepare for the imminent judgment. One consequence of this belief is that Jesus was not a proponent of family values. Ehrman stresses that apocalypticism was an ideology that tried to make sense of the suffering of the Jewish people, giving them hope for the near future.

To me, Ehrman's arguments are far more persuasive than those of members of the Jesus Seminar who believe that Jesus was not an apocalypticist. Ehrman does not push unorthodox views, but presents consensus views of Bible scholars to the general public. Ehrman emphasizes Jesus' Jewish environment during the first century. He explains that Jesus was not unique except in his supposed resurrection. Christianity is based not on the actual resurrection of Jesus, but on belief in his resurrection. Written sources claim that healings and exorcisms were accomplished by other Jews in ancient times, and by Hebrew prophets. Ehrman also points out the diversity of Christian views during the first and second centuries. As any scholar taking a true historical approach must, he makes no evaluation of supernatural events. A special treat is Ehrman's sense of humor. A must read for those wishing to understand the historical Jesus, as opposed to a theological Jesus.

A whole lot of non-academic books dealing with the "historical Jesus" have been published over the past 15 years. Each seems to be grinding an axe of some sort, despite their purported attempts to present an unbiased historian's interpretation of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. Some are obviously supporting the traditional Christian interpretation of Jesus as the Christ, the Lord and Savior. Some others paint Jesus as a social and political reformer, someone who was out to promote a secular vision similar to our modern "-isms" (e.g., socialism, universalism, feminism, pacifism, communism, or maybe even capitalism!), despite all the God talk.

Professor Ehrman, by contrast, tries to popularize what appears to be the modern academic consensus: that Jesus was one of many Jewish apocalyptic prophets who preached and gained a following in Roman Palestine. Like the others, Jesus was convinced that God was angry about the continuing sins of the Jews and about the Romans trampling upon the Holy Lands, and was about to come down from the sky and establish a righteous kingdom of His own. Not a kingdom in the heavens, but one right there in the hills of Galilee and on the streets of Jerusalem. There was going to be a mighty judgement when this happened: good people could stay and flourish, but the bad were gonna get cast into a pit of fire or something. It was all about ancient Judiasm, all about the fulfillment of scriptural prophecies. It had little to do with later Christian beliefs or Enlightenment-age theories about how the world should be run.

I personally found this book to be monumental. It's one of that handful of books that you read in your life that opens your eyes and puts a lot of puzzle pieces into place. HOWEVER . . . . . this is not to say that Professor Ehrman has written the definitive biography of Jesus. I still think that he misses some important things and suffers himself from certain biases that distort the picture somewhat. The biggest problem is that Professor Ehrman ultimately assumes that Jesus was much like his friends in academia: a sober, reasonable fellow with whom you could have a polite, well-informed conversation about worldly matters. Ehrman forgets that if Jesus was an apocalyptic, he was probably much like the modern apocalyptics that are described at the start of the book -- i.e., people with fire in the belly, people quite sure of their beliefs even when based on conjecture and fantasy. I.e., someone you might call a fanatic, even a "nutcase". In Jesus' case, at least, someone passionate about the holy, irrationally in love with God.

So it's a bit strange when Ehrman strongly asserts that Jesus didn't think of himself as the Son of Man (or perhaps more accurately, the Son-of-Man-in-training). According to Ehrman, that notion had to have been made up by the Christians later on, after Jesus was long gone.

Ehrman argues that in the Gospels, especially Mark, language about Jesus' preachings seem to refer to the Son of Man in third person; i.e., Jesus was talking about someone else. However, in other places, Jesus clearly refers to himself as the Son. Ehrman reasons that Christians wouldn't have made up Jesus' third-person referral to the Son (since it would militate against their view of Jesus as God), but they certainly would have incentive to write about Jesus calling himself the Son. Ergo, any surviving third-party reference must be historical, and the other first-party references in Mark and the later Gospels must be made up.

Now wait a minute. If the early Christians were tweeking the text and inserting revised memories (and I agree that they probably were, up to a point), why were they so shy about the lines where Jesus seems to envision the Son of Man as someone else (e.g., Mark 13:26-27 and maybe 8:38 -- although that line implies some connection between Jesus and the Son)? Ehrman replies, "because it was the truth". But that fact arguably didn't stop the ancient Christian re-writers elsewhere.

I've got another theory. Some lines in the Gospels infer that Jesus taught his disciples things that he didn't share with the crowds (e.g., Matthew 13:17). What if Jesus believed that he was the Son (or was coming to believe it over time), but was a bit shy about announcing it to the masses (perhaps for fear of what eventually did happen to him, i.e. arrest and death)? What if Jesus shared this belief with his disciples, but was slow in proclaiming it to the crowds (until perhaps that fateful week in Jerusalem)? Then his followers would remember him as the Son, but the memory of his preachings might be a bit more circumspect. And that is just what we see, at least in Mark (which arguably has the most credibility as the earliest writing).

Another little irritation: Ehrman's homey, jokey, ultimately condescending writing style. He obviously wouldn't attempt such humor in a paper published in an academic journal. But when he appeals to the masses, he bends over backward to prove that he's a regular guy. It's OK at first, but it gets old real quick. Professor Ehrman: it might be better if you didn't try so hard to prove that although you're an academic superstar, you still know how to talk to dummies like me. The story about his son's rebuke for calling him a dude because "dude" also refers to a camel's gonads is something that should stay in the family. I can readily accept the proposition that words sometimes have two meanings without a sidenote about everyday teenage sarcasm.

Nonetheless, this book goes a long way in explaining who Jesus really was and what he was all about. It seems rather simple and obvious once you understand it, but it will be hard for many Christians to accept it. So perhaps that's why Ehrman tries so hard to be lovable to the average lout; a lot of average louts aren't going to love him once they get the gist of what he is saying in this understated but extremely powerful book.

This is an effective, well-written, and concise presentation of who the person of Jesus of Nazareth who walked and preached in 1st century Palestine actually was. There are a lot of historical Jesus works out there and it is easy to get lost and the author makes a great point that many scholars simply mold Jesus into a person of their time and place: a 60's radical, a social reformer, a magician, etc. Ehrman asserts that traditional scholarship since the 19th century is correct: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who was expecting the present world to end in the very near future and be replaced by the kingdom of God. His healings, exorcisms, and exortations of radical, self-less love and care for the poor, destitute, and forgotten (the dregs of society), demonstrated that Jesus firmly held to the belief that God was a compassionate, just Judge who was going to turn the social, political, and religious order upside down in this new kingdom. This view is consistent with the traditional Jewish view of God, that primarly viewed Him as concerned with justice and righteousness that was most particularly demonstrated in an individual's/society's care for the widow and the orphan and fits nicely with the apocalyptic context of Jesus' day: people expected and believed God to radically alter history at any time. Jesus appears to have been non violent in this view, he didn't seek to effect the kingdom of God via a people's revolution but instead expected it to come about via a supernatural miracle of God. These arguments are well demonstrated and persuasive.

Caution, however, is called for in some of these assertions. Ehrman too quickly dismisses the work of more recent scholars who have discovered new insights to Jesus from careful study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the study of Church father writings that shed some doubt on some of these conclusions. He flat out gives no consideration to Crossan's views that Jesus was primarly concerned with ethical eschatology and not apocalyptic eschatology. Although some of Crossan's arguments aren't particularly strong, I find it generally true that Jesus was ethical as well as apocalyptic. It could very well be that Jesus believed that the establishment and/or growth of a renewed ethic among the people would hasten the apocalyptic end of the present state and help to usher in the new kingdom which would, after all essentially be an ethical kingdom. I find no support, however, for Crossan's belief that Jesus was a social reformer with a clear socio-economic plan. There was no such plan: God Himself was going to rule and plan in the new kingdom.

Ehrman does not give enough consideration to Jesus as zealous revolutionary either. Although there is no Jewish or pagan sources of the time to indicate this, the actions of Jesus' first followers reveal zealot tendencies. Acts narrates the immense trouble the apostle Paul had on his second visit to Jerusalem after he was seized in the temple by "the Jews". In his defense (Acts 22) before these obviously zealous Jews who, incidentally plot to kill him in the next chapter, he talks about his vision of Jesus and his Damascus conversion. The crowd listens patiently even as he relates what Jesus has said to him and the events subsequent to his vision. They violently react, however, as soon as Paul mentions his mission to the Gentiles. These are no ordinary Jews, they are Nazarenes, Jewish Christians, this much is clear. So, if Jesus was completely non-violent, why were his first Jewish followers so zealous to the point of plotting to kill Paul? Of course this doesn't agree with Jesus' "love your enemies" but it is highly curious.

One other point. He accepts the gospel's claims that Jesus' family rejected him during his life. Further investigation doesn't support this however. His brother James was the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem assembly after Jesus' crucifixion. I find it hard to believe that having only become a believer after Jesus' resurrection that James would be chosen to lead the believers after having not spent time with Jesus while on earth. It seems much more likely that James was always intended to be the leader and was in fact the disciple called James. This suggests that James' brother John, another disciple, was also Jesus' brother. Mary's second husband after Joseph's death is accepted as Simon bar Clopas, who was one of the disciples Jesus first appeared to after his resurrection in Luke, and is most likely the son of Simon the "Zealot", another of Jesus' disciples and half-brother. There is good evidence to believe that Jesus' family played a quite prominent role in his ministry during and after his life. Also interesting is that his brother Simon was a zealot. Their is a clear pattern of obfuscation in the gospels when it comes to certain individuals, especially regarding family members of Jesus. This indicates that later writers and redactors purposely sought to downplay his family for theological reasons.

Even though I disagree with some of the conclusions of this book, it is a very good presentation of classical beliefs on historical Jesus. If you are beginning to study this subject, I recommend it highly as one of your first readings.

I previously reviewed Margaret Barker's book as the best book written about Jesus in modern times. From a spiritual and esoteric perspective, I still feel that way. However, from an historical perspective Ehrman is the best and most concise.

Ehrman doesn't try to create his own gospel. He accepts the gospels for what they are and cuts through to the basic common denominator. Jesus, from an historical perspective, started out as an apocalyptic prophet who continued the message of his mentor, John the Baptist as a result of the turbulent political climate in Palestine. Jesus saw his role as preparing Israel for the imminent end of the world heralded by Daniel's "Son of Man" and the coming Kingdom of God.

This is not a comforting book for people who subscribe to the warm and fuzzy gospel of health and prosperity. The radical teachings of Jesus have to be taken at face value (which so many so-called "fundamentalists" refuse to do.) Jesus did not support family values and seemingly had no regard for the present world. The idea of leaving your home and family, giving away all of your wealth and possessions, and taking up a cross of martyrdom can only make sense if one believes that the present system is going to end very soon and thus has no real value. Jesus had no interest in making the world a nicer place because it was going to end. His role was to prepare Israel for the future.

One of many examples Ehrman gives is the nonchalant attitude Jesus has about rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Far from being a gesture of submission, Jesus essentially was saying that Roman coins would have no value in God's Kingdom and since Caesar and his kingdom would soon end, why fight it? The same applies to Jesus' teachings of unconditional forgiveness, love of enemies, and turning the other cheek. In the real world, there could be no law and order or justice if this were put in practice (a point excellently brought out by Joseph Klausner's "Jesus of Nazareth"). Jesus wanted his followers to cancel all the debts that others owed them since they would soon be judged by God. Jesus demanded unconditional love of God and man as well as a fearless willingness to die as a martyr for the sake of the Kingdom. To prepare for the Kingdom, all ties with the present have to be broken.

Ehrman claims that Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple was authentic in light of it being replaced by a new Temple. The fact that "no stone would be left in place" is contrary to the fact that after 70 a.d., the Western Wall was left standing. Thus it is not a gospel writer trying to explain that event.

Ehrman's explanation of the parable of the mustard seed is that Jesus and his followers represent the Kingdom coming into the present which would someday encompass the entire world. Jesus' miracles and exorcisms were a prophetic demonstration of the presence of that Kingdom where the sick would be healed, the dead would be raised, and demons would be banished. Luke's "the Kingdom of God is among you" reinforces this concept as opposed to the esoteric idea that it is "within you" as proposed by Tolstoy.

These ideas were also shared by the Apostle Paul whose radical ideas can be seen in light of the imminent destruction of the present order (no time to impose kosher laws on gentiles wanting to enter the Kingdom). Like Jesus, Paul believed his generation would see the Kingdom (1Thess. 4:15-17).

Even though Jesus talked about The Son of Man as someone other than himself, his immediate followers, after his crucifixion, believed that The Son of Man would be Jesus returning from Heaven. Judas' betrayal was not simply telling the Temple mercenaries where Jesus' was (they could have followed him on their own). What Judas really probably betrayed was Jesus' messianic claims which he revealed only to his disciples. The fact that Jesus was crucified as the King of the Jews leaves no doubt that Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah of Israel. The fact that Jesus' followers believed he would return as the Son of Man can only be explained by their firm belief that he was raised from the dead by God.

Ehrman claims that modern evangelical doomsayers like "Hal Lindsay and his ilk" pick and choose what they want Jesus to say. I would add that these prophets for profit may talk as if the world were ending but they sure don't live as if it were ending (which is why I refuse to take them seriously).

As an amateur scholar who has read/studied over thirty works on the historical Jesus, I would like to take this opportunity to highly recommend Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. If you read only one popular book on the historical Jesus, this should be the one. If you are waiting impatiently for the third installment of Meier's A Marginal Jew; this should provide a pleasant and useful distraction. If after reading Ehrman's book, you find yourself wanting more of the same, I would like to suggest Dale C. Allison's Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet. Shalom.

Bart D. Ehrman is something as strange as a professor of religious studies who writes best-selling books. "Misquoting Jesus" is probably his most well-known book. He has also written a number of introductory textbooks to the New Testament, plus some more scholarly works. Indeed, Ehrman has even penned a critique of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code"!

A certain kind of Christians love to hate Professor Ehrman, probably because he was himself once a fundamentalist Christian (he even attended services of the Plymouth Brethren), became progressively more liberal, and finally turned atheist-to-agnostic. That, plus his best-selling books, is enough to make him a constant object of fundamentalist venom and evangelical criticism, perhaps on a par with Richard Dawkins (and then, perhaps not - Richard probably still takes the devil's chaplain prize).

It may therefore come as a surprise to sceptics, that Ehrman belongs to the moderate faction of Biblical criticism. This can be clearly seen in "Jesus. Apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium". Ehrman believes that the three synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) contain many authentic traditions about the historical Jesus. Thus, the synoptics can be used as regular historical sources. Ehrman explains in some detail which parts of the synoptic gospels he finds reliable, and why. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, he considers more or less unreliable. The same is true of the apocryphal "Gospel of Thomas", which Ehrman believes to be a much later Gnostic work.

From the gospels attributed to Mark, Matthew and Luke, Ehrman weaves a portrait of Jesus that can be summarized as follows. Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who believed that the millennium was imminent. He was born in Nazareth, and had originally been a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus taught that the Jewish Temple was about to be destroyed, and that a saviour figure known as the Son of Man would establish the kingdom of God on Earth. Jesus himself would become the ruler of this kingdom. Thus, Jesus saw himself as the Messiah. The new kingdom would exalt the poor, downtrodden and oppressed, and humble the mighty and powerful. Salvation was based on works, not faith. Jesus didn't question Jewish laws and customs, and often participated in Jewish celebrations. However, he believed that the commandment of love trumped the other commandments, both love of God and love of thy neighbour. To some extent, the small community around Jesus was a foretaste of the kingdom, since it was based on the commandment of love, as set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus created a disturbance at the Temple in Jerusalem, where his apocalyptic preaching was seen as a threat by both the Jewish leadership and the Romans. After eating a Passover meal, Jesus was betrayed by one of his own disciples, and sentenced to death. The crucifixion was a real event, but the traditions about the resurrection are so confusing and contradictory, that it's impossible to say what actually happened. After the supposed resurrection, the followers of Jesus exalted him into a God-like figure.

While this obviously isn't the Christian view of Jesus, it nevertheless strikes me as an eerily familiar scenario. Why? Because Ehrman has essentially retold the synoptic gospel stories, from start to finish, minus the supernatural embellishments! The historical Jesus turns out to be the synoptic Jesus sans miracle. Or, even more precisely, a Jewish version of the synoptic Jesus sans miracle.

Since a currently fashionable trend in New Testament scholarship, the Jesus Seminar, claims that the historical Jesus wasn't apocalyptic, Ehrman devotes part of his book to critically scrutinize their claims. For instance, he points out that the crucifixion is inexplicable if we assume that the real Jesus was a non-apocalyptic sage, or simply preached moral reform. The Romans didn't crucify Cynics, or even Pharisees! (Not unless they actually rebelled.) Ehrman also points out that all available sources about Jesus are strongly apocalyptic, and that even the hypothetical document known as Q is apocalyptic. As already indicated, Ehrman believes that "The Gospel of Thomas" is a late work without pre-Gospel antecedents. Most scholars on the subject seem to agree.

The main mistake of many scholars who attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus, is that they end up with a Jesus strangely similar to *their own* historical period, attuned to the political and religious agendas of the scholars' themselves. But that, of course, is not the historical Jesus. This criticism isn't new. It was put forward by Albert Schweitzer already a century ago. However, it has lost none of its force. Indeed, Jesus is the only historical character nobody wants to reject, but everybody claims, suitable revised! Man creates a Son of God in his own image.

But is Ehrman right? Was the real Jesus what the title of this book suggests: a Jewish apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium?

No idea. But at least Ehrman has stated the moderate position of Biblical criticism clear enough.

Last night I celebrated my completion of Bart Ehrman's tome Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. It took a bit of searching before I could find a scholar such as Bart Ehrman, but now that I've found one I'm eager to explore the whole of his writings. He is like my pet historian now. I will name him Squishy and he will be mine and he will be my Squishy.

In this book Ehrman takes on the staggering task of trying to find the true historical Jesus. Giving his reasons for rejecting the Jesus Seminar's attempts of doing the same by rejecting the gospel accounts and relying strictly on outside evidence, (Ehrman covers exactly how scarce this evidence is) he instead dissects the gospels to try to understand Jesus's original message.

Throughout the book Ehrman paints a pretty clear and logical picture of the popular view among historians, that the probability is Jesus was one of many apocalyptic Jewish prophets living in that era, his only unique characteristic being that some people believed he was resurrected by God (and later, that he was God). He believed that the end of the world would be coming during his lifetime, when a cosmic judge known as "The Son of Man" would ride down from the heavens, destroy all evil and establish a physical "Kingdom of God" on Earth in which the lower-class would rule over the rich and pious. Ehrman then illustrates how Jesus's teachings and ethics make perfect sense in this context.

Prominent throughout the book is Bart Ehrman's trademark... the exteme care in not offending the faithful. He handles the topic with wit and sensitivity, reassuring the reader that he is not attempting to undermine anyone's faith, but merely to illustrate what is historically probable based on the materials we have to work with.

On the downside, in order to preserve this view of Jesus one must edit out huge portions of the gospels, and while Ehrman does a good job justifying which parts are likely true and which are probably made up, the question still arises how you can trust what's left in a religious text after you've stripped out the parts that are obviously false.

In the end, we still can't really know anything for sure... this message seems to be written between the lines of every page in this book. The book feels like it's more of an answer to the many other Jesus books on the market that try to paint him as some kind of early Marxist or gay rights advocate. And I believe that's this book's true purpose: To present to the layperson the limited information an honest critical review of the gospels gives us about the historical Jesus while keeping him in his own context, as a Jew living in the first century, instead of as a screen to project your world view onto... whether it's cynicsm, feminism, Marxism, Republicanism, Christianity or any other modern belief structure.

There are an awful lot of books about Jesus, but in three years of divinity school I didn't find any as clear and readable as this one.

Ehrman takes the view generally prevalent in top American universities, that Jesus was a Jewish apocalypticist who believed that the world was about to end, and consequently preached a message of extreme morality to ensure one a blessed existence in the afterlife (an idea which apocalypticism probably introduced to the Judeo-Christian tradition). This view holds that the common Christian ideas, that Jesus was the divine Son of God who was born from a virgin and died for the sins of humanity, were all later traditions invented as the early Christian community tried to make sense of the crucifixion and the fact that the world had in fact failed to come to an end.

At first, this one made me nervous. All too often, when I hear that a scholar has written a work about the historical Jesus that is geared for the general public, I brace myself for yet another wild ride on the roller coaster of unfounded assumptions, misapplied historical methods, and everyone's favorite-a selective use of scripture references that proves one's case beyond a shadow of a doubt. The result? A mass embracing of some wild-eyed theories about who Jesus "really" was.

The strength in Ehrman's work is that he will have none of this nonsense. Ehrman is committed to an honest, thorough historical investigation that is consistent in its application of criteria for evaluating ancient texts and personalities. His conclusion (in the tradition of Schweitzer): Jesus was a first-century Jewish apocalypticist who saw his mission as one of preparation for the Kingdom of God, a kingdom that was to come in power in Jesus' (or at least in his disciples') own lifetime.

Such an assertion, while common in academia, is not usually espoused by members of the general public. In fact, I don't agree with Erhman's conclusion. However, the reader will get a glimpse at a fine scholar using the tools of a historical critic to reconstruct a feasible portrait of who Jesus of Nazareth was. Because of his methodological integrity, his conclusion is much more responsible and well-founded than Crossan's cynic or Fiorenza's feminist revolutionary. Especially helpful is his discussion concerning context (see esp. chapters 7 and 11), because Jesus HAS to make sense as one addressing the concerns of someone living in first-century Palestine, a truth that is all too often ignored.

Despite Ehrman's fine accomplishment in this volume, though, more trees are likely to tumble in order to produce the canvasses for the novel ideas of Jesus scholars who are less prudent. One who has read Ehrman's work, however, will not be so easily tossed to and fro on the winds of speculation as those who wish (or even prefer) to stay uninformed about responsible historical investigation.

Bart Ehrman conveys to us an historian's view of who Jesus was. His conclusion is the same as that of the famous humanitarian doctor and theologian, Albert Schweitzer, in the early years of the 20th century: Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, who was convinced that Doomsday was about to arrive very soon, even in his own lifetime. The present age was evil, and the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God would change everything. Hence you must prepare yourself. Give away all your possessions to the poor: a rich man has little chance of entering the Kingdom of God. Everything will be turned upside down: the weak and poor will prevail over the rich and mighty. Mend your ways: Love God above everything! Love your neighbour as yourself! Love even your enemy!

Apocalyptic ideas were common in Palestine 2000 years ago. And they turn up, in various forms, throughout Christendom. Ehrman provides illuminating examples from present-day America. However, the apocalyptic interpretation of Jesus is rather out of favour with most contemporary Christian scholars. But Ehrman can rely on solid arguments. The first third of his book is an admirably clear presentation of the way a professional historian goes about constructing his picture of the past. He has to assess the date of his sources, and analyse their relation to each other, their possible bias, and their context. All this should be required reading for people who think they must interpret their Bible literally.

In most of the rest of the book Ehrman uses his critical apparatus for discussing the Jesus figure of the Gospels and Acts. This leads him to a conclusion which is very much in line with that of the majority of modern Christian scholars. Regrettably, Ehrman's main point, Jesus' apocalypticism, tends to recede into the background in this part of the book. However, it is reasserted with some force in the final chapters.

As the product of a clear-sighted and well-informed liberal scholar, this book has much to offer. Ehrman presents current scholarly opinion clearly and fairly, and in a very readable style. In my opinion, however, he could have been more controversial on some basic issues. I am thinking especially of the case for considering the Gospel Jesus as a deliberate and wholly mythical construction of the second-century Christian church, which needed a Jesus figure which was both human and spiritual, in its struggle with the Gnostics of their time. That is the picture presented, with considerable supporting new evidence and fresh arguments, in several recent books by George Wells, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, Earl Doherty, and myself. But perhaps it is just as well that Ehrman avoids scaring away readers of a less liberal turn of mind than himself. They will certainly find much food for thought in his book. I should also like to draw attention here to a recent book by Michael Wise, The First Messiah, which provides additional and unexpected grist to Ehrman's apocalyptic mill.