In his book "A Brief Introduction to the New Testament", Bart Ehrman describes an individual from the first century:
From the beginning his mother knew that he was no ordinary person. Prior to his birth, a heavenly figure appeared to her announcing that her son would not be a mere mortal but would himself be divine. This prophecy was confirmed by the miraculous character of his birth, a birth accompanied by supernatural signs. The boy was already recognized as a spiritual authority in his youth; his discussions with recognized experts showing his superior knowledge of all things religious. As an adult he left home to engage in an itinerant preaching ministry, he went from village to town with his message of good news, proclaiming that people should forgo their concerns about the material things of this life, such as how they should dress and what they should eat. They should instead be concerned with their eternal souls.
He gathered around him a number of disciples who were amazed by his teaching and his flawless character. They became convinced that he was no ordinary man but was the Son of God. Their faith received striking confirmation in the miraculous things that he did. He could reportedly predict the future, heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. Not everyone proved friendly, however. At the end of his life, his enemies trumped up charges against him, and he was placed on trial before Roman authorities for crimes against the state.
Even after he departed this realm, however, he did not forsake has devoted followers. Some claimed that he had ascended bodily into heaven; others said that he had appeared to them alive, afterward, that they had talked with him and touched him and become convinced that he could not be bound by death. A number of his followers spread the good news about this man, recounting what they had seen him say and do. Eventually some of these accounts came to be written down in books that circulated throughout the empire.
The person here described is...wait for it...'Apollonius of Tyana' and not Jesus Christ, as you may have (and as I) thought! Apparently, it was not uncommon in those times for (certain) mortals to be represented as something not quite mortal, but as something of a mix between a mortal and a god, as is evidenced for example in special powers and godship being attributed to Caesar. Ehrman makes an interesting point in connection with the timing of these claims though, in relation to Jesus and Apollonius: they appear only after the death of the men - the son of man becomes the son of a god, or even the son of God, at a later point in time. He notes how the book of Mark, the earliest written gospel, does not tie in Jesus to Jesus' own words respecting a "son of man" coming in glory - he could be speaking about someone else, if we had only the book of Marks words on the matter - and how Mark indeed presents by far the most "human" Jesus, whereas as we progress in time to the later gospels, and especially to the latest - John - we see how Jesus is presented as being much more than 'just' a man. Is there some sort of a competition between the followers of various "Christs" going on here, "no, ours is the true Christ because he did this...", "yes, but ours did this so ours is the Christ" etc? If we ascribe legendary status to the story of Apollonius, then why not to the story of Jesus? If it seems natural that legends could build up over time about Apollonius, given the lack of living eyewitnesses to him at the time that most words were written about him and the lack of fact-fixing technology (e.g. cameras, printing presses), why could it not be a natural process for Jesus?
I found one of Ehrmans points particularly good here, showing how "facts" can be elaborated, or let's face it distorted, to fit a theology, over time. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus is crucified on the day of the Passover, yet in John he was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover - the day before. Now, obviously he could not have died on both days, he either died on the Passover, or on the day before. If the writer of John had at least some of the sources available to the writers of these other gospels, or perhaps even had the gospels themselves, then why would he make such an obvious error? Because it fits perfectly his message throughout the gospel: Jesus died for our sins, he is the "Passover lamb" which "takes away the sin of the word". And when was the Passover lamb slaughtered? On the day before the Passover, the day of preparation! Couldn't this be an example of facts being made to fit theology? And if this could be, what else could be?
On less religious matters (t'is the season;-) - Joni has a favourite saying at the moment: "I thought..." - as in, I thought you said we were going to the park/you were buying me sweeties etc etc! You should see the thoughtful expression she pulls when she says it too.
New babies a'comin, look at Bex now below. Hope it comes soon, think she's gonna blow!
Funny thing happened at "work" the other day. The staff nurse phoned and said the keyboard wasn't working, actually one of the keys was sticking, so I went down and pulled out my professional key unstickerer - my car keys - and flicked off the key...which flew across the room towards a patients head. Imagine me watching the letter "A" flying towards a complete stranger, in slow motion it seemed, thinking about the ensuing suing, loss of job, failed degree, breakup of marriage - all dancing on the head of the letter "A" - but the target in question didn't even notice when it hit her. Thank you, oh thank you, perm loving patients everywhere.
We had our first placement visit last week too, and we've been graded "C" for our work, which I'm slightly annoyed at. The mark is artificial in that (as we were warned by previous students) our supervisor 'starts low' and gets higher with her grading on our Monthly reports; but as our standard of work doesn't start bad and get good why should our grade? Other students on other placements are awarded A's and B's, so we should at least in theory be able to achieve that standard. I think we did, but there you go, it's only 5% of the overall degree mark. Let's hope I'm not borderline, a 'good 2-1'...
