Customer Reviews

Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Alvar Ellegard's book, "JESUS, One Hundred Years before Christ" provides a fresh look at some familiar material. For those who are not familiar, the thesis is that Jesus did not live in Paul's recent past, and that the Gospels are creative fabrications. Professor G.A. Wells has published several excellent books on this subject. Professor Kamil Salabi has written a strange book entitled, "Conspiracy in Jerusalem: The Secret Origins of Jesus". Salabi's unconvincing ideas (that Jesus and Isa of the Koran were two different people)have been resurrected in recent books by Douglas Lockhart. Earl Doherty's website is even stronger. He maintains that Jesus did not exist at all, but developed from a "Theology of the Son". Check that site out! The argument rests on several premises. First is the argument from silence. Because Paul does not mention many biographical detail's of Jesus' life, the details had not yet been invented. This includes an "explaining away" of Pauline verses that indicate otherwise. This effort is aided by limiting the number of epistles genuinely written by Paul. The Gospels and Acts are then dated unusually late, pushing the dates of composition well into the second century. Dean Ellegard's contribution is to date several non-Canonical sources as unusually early. These include "1 Clement", "The Pator of Hermas", "The Teachings of the Apostles", and "Barnabas". These works are dated as early as Paul's epistles, rather than the late second century dates that are more commonly assigned. The point is that these books have few if any biographical details of Jesus' life. Alvar Ellegard then rounds it all out, by identifying the Essene Teacher of Righteousness as the distant historical origin of Jesus.

I've read several books representing "minority" views on the historical Jesus, and this one seems the most thought-out to me. The others are "The Jesus Mysteries" and "Jesus Christ, Sun of God," both of which are interesting, but more speculative than Ellegard's. Ellegard acknowledges when he is being speculative, but also sets forth in welcome detail the evidence for his ideas. He is deeply aware of counterarguments and deals with them at every turn. His linguistic analysis, while not conclusive (can any evidence about the historical Jesus be conclusive?), is quite convincing in my (amateur) opinion. Perhaps the most fruitful line of study would be some combination of Ellegard's thesis with the "purely mythical Jesus" thesis. Has anyone pursued that?

In any case, if you want solid arguments raising serious doubts about the existence of the 1st century Jesus, and a well-considered and careful hypothesis as to who Paul was actually referring to, Ellegard deserves serious consideration.

The author opens up this work: "I shall argue in this book for an entirely new perspective on the earliest history of Christianity." Hardly! As I write this, I have another book before my eyes - written in 1903, no less - entitled "Did Jesus Live in 100 B.C.?" by the Theosophical Society scholar G.R.S. Mead.
One would think that a former Dean of a University, in the process of presenting his thesis proposing the origins of Christianity a hundred years earlier than traditionally perpetuated, would have taken into consideration the work of a predecessor! Yet there is not even so much a mention of Mead in his bibliography, nor even so much a passing consideration of the intriguing material from Jewish and patristic sources covered by Mead in his classic work (such as the hostile gospel "Toldoth Jeschu", elements of which Mead traces to Tertullian and others), which Ellegard could have employed to his advantage. Such blaring omissions by Ellegard are most puzzling and disappointing, to say the least.
Comparitively speaking, back in 1900 Mead didn't have the advantage of material that scholars do today (the Dead Sea scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library, etc.) - but he certainly made the most of what little he had to work with at the time.

A consideration of the hypothesis set forth by Ellegard can never be complete without a review of G.R.S. Mead's volume and the material which he covered, which can be read online at the Gnostic Society library. A copy can also be ordered from Amazon.

Ellegard points out many of the right problems in the "orthodox" view of Christian origins based on a scientific study of the early texts. But his postulation that the Jesus belief came from some corrupted tradition about the Essene Teacher of Righteousness seems unnecessary to me. It's quite possible that Jesus was a mythological savior-god from the beginning, along with Mithras, Hercules, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, and all the similar figures worshipped by Mediterranean peoples at that time. (Refer to the book, _The Jesus Mysteries_.)

It's quite possible for a totally false belief system to arise from some misunderstood event or story. In our time we've seen one emerge from the crash of a "Project Mogul" scientific balloon near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947. An unusual event with a prosaic explanation has turned into a quasi-religious cult about the crashed alien spaceship, dead aliens, massive government coverup and conjectures that modern technologies were in fact reverse-engineered from alien artifacts recovered from that event. If a story that preposterous could gain adherents in our society, it's not hard to see how something similar could have happened on a much larger scale in a much less knowledgeable society like the declining Roman Empire.

Ellegard's book is worth reading for the background information on the problems surrounding Jesus' historicity, but I don't find his solution all that persuasive.

Dr. Bourquin's review seems more a reaction against a new idea than a review of the book. The real problem is that Ellegard asks us to accept the redating of a large number of ancient manuscripts, including the gospels, before we can really consider the argument itself. Since dating is one of Ellegard's specialties we have to take him seriously, even if we may ultimately disagree. My feeling was that Bourquin was reacting against the notion that the Jesus of the gospels is a fiction. But Ellegard does not say that Jesus did not exist, only that he lived much earlier than most scholars have thought. This is a thought-provoking book and I think all serious scholars should read it carefully and open their minds to this new idea.

Gospel writers had several tasks. They had to transform a minor Jewish preacher into a supernatural God, the long awaited Messiah, and they had to explain his rejection by his own people (directly contradicting the prophecies). Orthodox Jews considered the union of a woman and a god as heretical, a pagan Greek idea. Countless Old Testament "prophecies" (and some not in the OT) are used to "prove" his Messianic calling though the leading of Israel to glorious victory is omitted.

We have learned that the order of the New Testamen is incorrect and that Paul did not write all the books attributed to him. He preceded the Gospels. It's always seemed odd that Paul never spoke of a historical Jesus but of a spiritual Christ. Odder still, the historical Jesus was fleshed out decades later by various writers, four of which were voted by Council as being correct. This accounts for the numerous contradictions and variances among the stories. Ellegard contends that Jesus was a historical figure but lived 100 years before. He was associated (or adopted) by the Essene movement that was still strong when Paul began preaching a new message - Jesus died for our sins and was raised by God. In the maelstrom of disorganized Christianity of the day this kind of talk had huge implications.

Ellegard reviews and redates several documents of the period (comparing certain words, writing styles) to show that the spiritual Christ became the physical Jesus rather than the reverse as most assume. The biographies are noteworthy for their reliance on OT "prophecies" chosen, it seems, for their applicability. Modern scholars have revised the order of the four Gospels. John, once thought to come last, now is seen as the first written and this fits in with Ellegard since it features a "spiritual" Christ. Hi Jesus makes long theological speeches referring to himself.

There's LOTS of repetition here, as if the author wanted to make sure we got the point. Some of the book could be ommitted with little problem. There is also a lot of casual assumptions...yes, most scholars think this was written in 60 AD but it was actually in 120 AD. But his message is valid - Paul's "vision" and Eusubius' words produced the Gospel tales of Jesus, not the other way around. It would be difficult to find such a complex theology fullblown as Paul presents it. More likely this was part of some ongoing movement when he received his vision. And the rest is, as they say, history.

Although Mr Ellegard is rehashing some sholarship, there is much in this book that is new and intriguing. His dating of many biblical and extra-biblical documents is insightful and well presented. He does not appear to be pre-judging or allowing a bias to draw his conclusions for him in advance of his research. He presents his evidence in a clear and readable manner.

This book should be read by anyone interested in biblical scholarship, especially those concerned with dating the Gospels. Ellegard analyzes the early Christian literature and makes an excellent case that the canonical Gospels and Acts are mid 2nd Century products while Paul, Hermas, Barnabas, Didache, 1st Clemens and Revelations are 1st Century works. This may be a minority view, but Ellegard provides ample evidence that it is not without foundation. From here, Ellegard cleverly and deductively composes a picture of Jesus from his 1st Century texts, and then compares this composite to what we know about the Teacher of Righetousness. Using Philo and Josephus as his base, he goes on to deconstruct the early Christian church as an extension of the Essenes and the Therapeutae (whom he considers Diasporic Essenes). The bottom line - the Jesus who appears in the Gospels in the mid 2nd Century is drawn from the Teacher of Righteousness.

Ellegard's theory is not new (see the works of G.A.Wells, Helmut Koester, Freke and Gandy, etc), but his scholarly approach is impressive. Readers of any alternative or non-traditional view of Jesus will find this book enormously useful.

My only reason for not giving this book 5 stars (on a 10 point scale I would give it a 9) is that the book is a little difficult to read and not necessarily organized in the best fashion (I suggest you start with Chapter 13 first). Otherwise this book is scholarly, well-documented, thorough, and innovative. It definitely warrant a look

While this book can be quite technical at times, it is indeed a very logical and well explained hypothesis on how the myth that a man can " rise in the flesh" to heavan could have started. In particualr, it is interesting how the author uses his linguistics background in chronologically dating the earliest chriostina texts to come to a logical, coherent hypothesis on the origin of the Christian myth and the conversion of its first (jewish) adherents.

Alvar Ellegard, a swedish scholar originally known for his work on tracing the periodicals concerning Darwin's theory after he published his book, Origin of the Species, takes a different turn here by trying to trace the historicity and reliability of the person of Jesus from his sources. Though his book on Darwin was very well done, putting together much great research and discussion from the sources he had at hand, Ellegard decides to get away from looking at the main sources and finds that scarce, unreliable sources are more reliable than the main sources found on the life of Jesus.

He is interesting, we can say that. He makes some interesting claims concerning dates of writers such as Clement of Rome, whom he rejects Eusebius' dates on (who placed him in the time of the Emperor Dionysius), and dates him early and possibly a contemporary of Paul. He also dates epistles such as Hebrews as earlier than 70 A.D., which I believe is correct, and he notes correctly because it does not mention the fall of the Temple in 70 A.D.(see chapter 2).

His appeal to these early dates, however, are to show that these writers in their writings wrote quite different then what we see in the Gospels. The Gospels, for example, use the term "synagogue," to refer to a "building," but Ellegard states that in early Jewish writing that "synagogue" was actually a reference to a gathering, not a building, until the Second Century. He states that Paul did not even use the words in his epistles or what he deems his pseudo-epistles, and it is rarely used in First Century literature as a "building." So, since the Gospels use it, and it is characteristic to be used as such in the Second Century, he then places the Gospels and Acts in the Second Century A.D. (which, by the way, such dating is rejected by almost all critical scholars of the New Testament).

It is interesting that he argues this and at the same time tries to make an argument for the book of Hebrews to be before the Temple destruction due to no references being made to it. Acts, for example, never makes any references to the Temple destruction either, and yet, he places it in the Second Century? Also, just because Paul doesn't use the term "synagogue" in his letters, does not mean that it demonstrates the Gospels as "Second Century" myth texts. Paul was not writing to Jews, but to the church. He referenced Jews (such as in Romans 9-11) but has no need to mention the synagogue. The Gospels mention them because of the fact that we are getting a glimps of Jesus in a Jewish setting! And it was referred to by both Philo (whom he does mention, but as a spiritual entity) and by Josephus, and later Jewish scholars say it all goes back far in Jewish history. Ellegard ignores these facts. He is correct that it has very little reference in Pre-Christian references, but it may be seen in a possibly late Psalm, 74:8, which makes reference to it (Hebrew mo'ed). Also, remains of an ancient synagogue were found near Alexandria, dating to the 3rd, Century B.C.

The Crux, however, of Ellegard's work is to demonstrate that the "Jesus" referred to in Paul and early Christian writings (before he supposes the Gospels ever appeared)are most likely interpretations of the Essenes teaching from the Dead Sea Scrolls of the "Teacher of Righteousness." He tries to prove that the Essenes were a very large group of Jews who he believes are actually the first Christians, who followed the "real" Jesus, the "teacher of Righteousness," from the 3rd or 2nd Century B.C. to the time of the Christian writings. This belief is not new at all, and can be dated back to the 50's and 60's when the Scrolls were being originally researched.

The whole purpose of Ellegard's attempt to prove Jesus as a 3rd-2nd Century B.C. "teacher of Righteousness" is to demonstrate that the earliest Christian writer, Paul, was not even closely related to the historical account of Jesus. Although Tacticus dates Christ in the time of Pilate, Ellegard tries to excuse that as a rehash of tradition from the Christians, and not true scholarship. Yet, his very own scholarship is never able to demonstrate the connection of Jesus to the Essenes Teacher by referring to any sources which demonstrate this, nor is he able to prove that Paul was referring Jesus to that person.

All of the resurrection accounts, in which the foundational structure of the Christian church stand, is now interpreted by Ellegard as simply a "spiritual" experience by those that saw Him (1 Corinthians 15), not a "physical" reference, by Paul. But he clearly misses the cross references which without a shadow of a doubt show the physical body is what is being raised (Philippians 3:21; Romans 8:11-30; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Corinthians 4-5).

The main problem, however, with Ellegard's work, is that it wouldn't hold water among most critical Biblical Scholars (such as the Jesus Seminar). Even they would see the many historical problems Ellegard falls into that as simply opinion because they are without any historical sources to account for them (such as Jesus being the Teacher of Righteousness, coming out all simply as conjecture painted in "factual" clothing). He is simply proving his bias that he does not desire to believe that Jesus Christ is what the Gospels paint Him as, so by making him someone who no one in ancient history ever mentioned him as, he is making a very unreliable case of who Jesus is.