What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of an Illusion: How Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" Has Laid the Case for an Historical Jesus to Rest
This book-length rebuttal by Earl Doherty to Bart Ehrman's much anticipated and unexpectedly disappointing case for an historical Jesus ("Did Jesus Exist?", published March 2012) first appeared in installments from March to August 2012 on the Vridar blog (under copyright), and is now being offered in e-book form, with extensive minor revisions. It addresses virtually every claim and argument put forward by Ehrman in his book, and demonstrates not only the faultiness and inadequacy of those arguments, but the degree to which the author has been guilty of a range of fallacy, special pleading, and clear a priori bias against the very concept of mythicism and those who promote it. In "Did Jesus Exist?" historicism has demonstrated the bankruptcy of its case for an historical Jesus, while in "The End of an Illusion" Earl Doherty has both exposed the failings of Bart Ehrman's book and further developed the case for the non-existence of any traditional founder of Christianity.
- GenresReligion
334 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 3, 2012
12 people are currently reading
33 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 19, 2022
What happens when an otherwise brilliant scholar demonstrates that even brilliant scholars can suffer from reading into the data a preconceived notion? What happens when an otherwise smart person has a blind spot in their field of expertise? That’s Bart Ehrman, New Testament scholar employed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I’ve had the chance to read a few of his books and watch several presentations and interviews (thank you YouTube) and cannot recommend his work any higher on the subject matter. That is, except for one particular area: The historical Jesus.
Ehrman’s position is that there was a historical Jesus and, in his book, DID JESUS EXIST?, he lays out his case. Earl Doherty has written a lengthy rebuttal to this book, THE END OF AN ILLUSION, demonstrating point by point that Ehrman drops his otherwise scholarly demeanor in order to give room for a historical Jesus where none deserves it.
If Ehrman’s book is the best historicists can do, then I’m afraid Doherty is right; in that, the case for a historical Jesus is settled in the negative.
As noted previously, Ehrman’s New Testament work and books are highly recommended and he’s brilliant on the subject matter. But his attention to detail appears to relax when discussing a historical Jesus. Whereas in prior books he shows a scholarly take on the material, noting where things are just made up, in DJE, he is rather liberal in accepting certain things to make allowances for a historical Jesus. As an example, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, Paul advises on the Lord’s Supper, where Jesus broke the bread (his body) and drank from the cup (his blood) and proclaimed that when you engage in such behavior, it’s in remembrance of him, Jesus. Ehrman concludes that this must be Paul’s recollection of the Last Supper, a historical event. But Ehrman completely ignores that Paul tells us, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you…”. Paul is telling his reader the Lord told him this. But Paul was alive after Jesus’ time (even if he was historical) and could not have received from the Lord in conversation over coffee. Time and again, Paul tells us he received his information not by any man but through revelation. And yet when it comes to things like the Lord’s Supper, Ehrman thinks this is from word of mouth or oral traditions that Paul is getting his information.
Outside the New Testament, there is nothing at all regarding any historical Jesus. But that doesn’t stop Ehrman. As an example, Ehrman addresses Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum, the passage in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 which reads, “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
Although Ehrman admits Christians came along and jazzed up this passage to jive more with the Gospel tradition of Jesus, he thinks some of it is actually Josephus’ writing in reference to a historical Jesus. But Doherty shows that this is Ehrman stretching things to make a case for a historical Jesus where none is justified. Most New Testament scholars conclude the entire Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation. But Ehrman ignores this in order to make his historical Jesus case.
Ehrman, like numerous other New Testament scholars, conclude that the Gospels are not historical but assume there was a historical Jesus behind the myths. There is simply no reason for such a conclusion other than a preconceived notion.
An assumption is that there were sources the Gospel writers used in preparing their Gospels. Along with assumed oral traditions, there’s the alleged Q document supposedly used by Matthew and Luke as well as sources only available to Matthew (M Source) and Luke (L Source). The problem is that there’s zero evidence of any prior sources. For some reason, Ehrman and others in the field cannot fathom that Mark, Matthew, Luke and even John made up their Gospels, no prior sources necessary. In fact, analysis of the four Gospels shows they’re re-written midrash of Old Testament stories of Moses, Elijah and others. Dennis MacDonald has demonstrated the Gospels imitate Homer as well. If there are any sources the Gospel writers used, it was older classic stories they reworked to prepare their Jesus story not any information about a ministry of a rowdy Jewish preacher who got caught up on a cross on Calvary.
In my opinion, (and Doherty’s too), the smoking gun on whether or not there was a historical Jesus comes down to what the earliest writings say about him. Paul’s Epistles are our earliest sources. And Paul never speaks of anything remotely of a historical Jesus. Everything he knows about Jesus, he tells us came through personal revelations. If there were any oral traditions, earlier writings or eyewitnesses regarding a historical Jesus, Paul knows nothing about them. Instead, he tells us exactly where he got his knowledge. He says specifically in Galatians 1:12, “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” In other words, in his own head. It would be extraordinary for a person like Paul not to reference or know anything about a historical Jesus or reference his ministry if he had one.
And yet, Ehrman tells us that Paul spoke of Jesus as a great teacher, that he had a brother, etc. But this is simply not true. Nowhere in Paul’s Epistles does he speak of Jesus as a teacher of any sort. And the comment regarding James, the brother of the Lord, is more likely a reference to James being a Christian, not a blood relative. It was common for Christians to refer to each other as brothers. And Paul uses the word in clearer context elsewhere.
But the smokiest of guns appears to be in the Book of Hebrews, where Jesus’ sacrifice is compared to the earthly temple that Jews conducted a yearly animal sacrifice in. Whereas a priest of earth would enter a manmade tabernacle to conduct the sacrifice, Jesus conducted his in heaven, somewhere up in the sky, in order to be more permanent. If Jesus died on Calvary Hill, why isn’t this mentioned? Additionally, the passage in Hebrews 8:4 reading, “If he (Jesus) were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.” This is extraordinary passage telling us there was no historical Jesus and that the Jesus of the first Christians was more like an archangel.
Quite frankly, were in not for the Gospels, Jesus wouldn’t be any more thought of as historical today as Osiris, Mithra, Zalmoxis or any of the other thousands of gods in human history. Putting Jesus on earth (as the Gospel writers did) was no more of a declaration of historicity than Homer did with the Iliad or Odyssey. Or what other writers did putting their gods into human, earthly affairs.
And yet Ehrman is willing to make allowances for a historical Jesus based off of assumed prior sources we don’t have and oral traditions we don’t have, ignoring what we actually do have that’s right in front of our faces: That the earliest sources we do have speak nothing of a historical Jesus. What we’re dealing with, as Doherty makes clear in END OF AN ILLUSION, is that the case for a historical Jesus is over. The original form of Christianity dealt with myth and revelation no different than all the other gods and heros of old.
It’s rare a book review turns into a book in itself, especially one of the size of END OF AN ILLUSION. But Doherty took the time to deconstruct, almost sentence by sentence, of Ehrman’s DJE. And rightly so. If Ehrman’s DJE is the best case for historicity, I’m afraid there is no case for historicity. If the subject matter interests you, my little essay here simply will not do. A full reading of END OF AN ILLUSION is necessary.
Why does Ehrman stretch and do gymnastics to make room for an historical Jesus where in his other work he all but declares everything we know about Jesus is ahistorical? Who knows? Perhaps the reason lies in grants and funding. David Fitzgerald had noted that Jesus’ scholarship is primarily funded and conducted by religious institutions. Maybe money and a career is what it comes down to. I don’t know. Or perhaps it comes down to what I said at the beginning of this essay: What happens when an otherwise brilliant scholar demonstrates that even brilliant scholars can suffer from reading into the data a preconceived notion? What happens when an otherwise smart person has a blind spot in their field of expertise? Perhaps Jesus historicity is Ehrman’s preconceived notion that most New Testament scholars suffer from.
It was once thought there was a historical Moses and Abraham but that has since passed away. Perhaps the notion of an ahistorical Jesus is next on the chopping block. Perhaps it’ll just take time for a new generation of scholars to make such an admission.
I’ve had the chance to read a few of his books and watch several presentations and interviews (thank you YouTube) and cannot recommend his work any higher on the subject matter. That is, except for one particular area: The historical Jesus.
Ehrman’s position is that there was a historical Jesus and, in his book, DID JESUS EXIST?, he lays out his case. Earl Doherty has written a lengthy rebuttal to this book, THE END OF AN ILLUSION, demonstrating point by point that Ehrman drops his otherwise scholarly demeanor in order to give room for a historical Jesus where none deserves it.
If Ehrman’s book is the best historicists can do, then I’m afraid Doherty is right; in that, the case for a historical Jesus is settled in the negative.
As noted previously, Ehrman’s New Testament work and books are highly recommended and he’s brilliant on the subject matter. But his attention to detail appears to relax when discussing a historical Jesus. Whereas in prior books he shows a scholarly take on the material, noting where things are just made up, in DJE, he is rather liberal in accepting certain things to make allowances for a historical Jesus. As an example, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, Paul advises on the Lord’s Supper, where Jesus broke the bread (his body) and drank from the cup (his blood) and proclaimed that when you engage in such behavior, it’s in remembrance of him, Jesus. Ehrman concludes that this must be Paul’s recollection of the Last Supper, a historical event. But Ehrman completely ignores that Paul tells us, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you…”. Paul is telling his reader the Lord told him this. But Paul was alive after Jesus’ time (even if he was historical) and could not have received from the Lord in conversation over coffee. Time and again, Paul tells us he received his information not by any man but through revelation. And yet when it comes to things like the Lord’s Supper, Ehrman thinks this is from word of mouth or oral traditions that Paul is getting his information.
Outside the New Testament, there is nothing at all regarding any historical Jesus. But that doesn’t stop Ehrman. As an example, Ehrman addresses Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum, the passage in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 which reads, “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
Although Ehrman admits Christians came along and jazzed up this passage to jive more with the Gospel tradition of Jesus, he thinks some of it is actually Josephus’ writing in reference to a historical Jesus. But Doherty shows that this is Ehrman stretching things to make a case for a historical Jesus where none is justified. Most New Testament scholars conclude the entire Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation. But Ehrman ignores this in order to make his historical Jesus case.
Ehrman, like numerous other New Testament scholars, conclude that the Gospels are not historical but assume there was a historical Jesus behind the myths. There is simply no reason for such a conclusion other than a preconceived notion.
An assumption is that there were sources the Gospel writers used in preparing their Gospels. Along with assumed oral traditions, there’s the alleged Q document supposedly used by Matthew and Luke as well as sources only available to Matthew (M Source) and Luke (L Source). The problem is that there’s zero evidence of any prior sources. For some reason, Ehrman and others in the field cannot fathom that Mark, Matthew, Luke and even John made up their Gospels, no prior sources necessary. In fact, analysis of the four Gospels shows they’re re-written midrash of Old Testament stories of Moses, Elijah and others. Dennis MacDonald has demonstrated the Gospels imitate Homer as well. If there are any sources the Gospel writers used, it was older classic stories they reworked to prepare their Jesus story not any information about a ministry of a rowdy Jewish preacher who got caught up on a cross on Calvary.
In my opinion, (and Doherty’s too), the smoking gun on whether or not there was a historical Jesus comes down to what the earliest writings say about him. Paul’s Epistles are our earliest sources. And Paul never speaks of anything remotely of a historical Jesus. Everything he knows about Jesus, he tells us came through personal revelations. If there were any oral traditions, earlier writings or eyewitnesses regarding a historical Jesus, Paul knows nothing about them. Instead, he tells us exactly where he got his knowledge. He says specifically in Galatians 1:12, “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” In other words, in his own head. It would be extraordinary for a person like Paul not to reference or know anything about a historical Jesus or reference his ministry if he had one.
And yet, Ehrman tells us that Paul spoke of Jesus as a great teacher, that he had a brother, etc. But this is simply not true. Nowhere in Paul’s Epistles does he speak of Jesus as a teacher of any sort. And the comment regarding James, the brother of the Lord, is more likely a reference to James being a Christian, not a blood relative. It was common for Christians to refer to each other as brothers. And Paul uses the word in clearer context elsewhere.
But the smokiest of guns appears to be in the Book of Hebrews, where Jesus’ sacrifice is compared to the earthly temple that Jews conducted a yearly animal sacrifice in. Whereas a priest of earth would enter a manmade tabernacle to conduct the sacrifice, Jesus conducted his in heaven, somewhere up in the sky, in order to be more permanent. If Jesus died on Calvary Hill, why isn’t this mentioned? Additionally, the passage in Hebrews 8:4 reading, “If he (Jesus) were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.” This is extraordinary passage telling us there was no historical Jesus and that the Jesus of the first Christians was more like an archangel.
Quite frankly, were in not for the Gospels, Jesus wouldn’t be any more thought of as historical today as Osiris, Mithra, Zalmoxis or any of the other thousands of gods in human history. Putting Jesus on earth (as the Gospel writers did) was no more of a declaration of historicity than Homer did with the Iliad or Odyssey. Or what other writers did putting their gods into human, earthly affairs.
And yet Ehrman is willing to make allowances for a historical Jesus based off of assumed prior sources we don’t have and oral traditions we don’t have, ignoring what we actually do have that’s right in front of our faces: That the earliest sources we do have speak nothing of a historical Jesus. What we’re dealing with, as Doherty makes clear in END OF AN ILLUSION, is that the case for a historical Jesus is over. The original form of Christianity dealt with myth and revelation no different than all the other gods and heros of old.
It’s rare a book review turns into a book in itself, especially one of the size of END OF AN ILLUSION. But Doherty took the time to deconstruct, almost sentence by sentence, of Ehrman’s DJE. And rightly so. If Ehrman’s DJE is the best case for historicity, I’m afraid there is no case for historicity. If the subject matter interests you, my little essay here simply will not do. A full reading of END OF AN ILLUSION is necessary.
Why does Ehrman stretch and do gymnastics to make room for an historical Jesus where in his other work he all but declares everything we know about Jesus is ahistorical? Who knows? Perhaps the reason lies in grants and funding. David Fitzgerald had noted that Jesus’ scholarship is primarily funded and conducted by religious institutions. Maybe money and a career is what it comes down to. I don’t know. Or perhaps it comes down to what I said at the beginning of this essay: What happens when an otherwise brilliant scholar demonstrates that even brilliant scholars can suffer from reading into the data a preconceived notion? What happens when an otherwise smart person has a blind spot in their field of expertise? Perhaps Jesus historicity is Ehrman’s preconceived notion that most New Testament scholars suffer from.
It was once thought there was a historical Moses and Abraham but that has since passed away. Perhaps the notion of an ahistorical Jesus is next on the chopping block. Perhaps it’ll just take time for a new generation of scholars to make such an admission.
Displaying 1 of 1 review