Dale B. Martin

Reading the New testament (NT) as the literal word of God turns out to be a real hindrance; if instead you read the NT as you would any other piece of ancient literature—and within its proper historical context—you’ll inevitably start to notice some things, for instance that the earliest Gospel—the Gospel of Mark—was written 40 years after Jesus’ death (70 CE), and that the other three canonical Gospels were written much later (John was written as late as 110 CE). Matthew and show more Luke, both written 10 to 20 years after Mark, borrowed heavily from Mark, as well as from other circulating works and oral traditions. The result is a patchwork of contradictory accounts and divergent theological positions that were written by individuals that never met Jesus and were decades removed from the reported events. And this doesn’t even include the noncanonical and Gnostic Gospels that portray Jesus and his teachings in a radically different light.

Here’s something else you’ll notice. Christians like to say that Jesus was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible, and it IS true that the prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah. But the Jews believed that the Messiah would be a king or priest (or both) and that he would lead a revolt against Rome within his own lifetime to establish a kingdom of God on earth. The Christian idea of the Messiah being a poor, illiterate carpenter from a rural backwater, who was killed before accomplishing any of these objectives, was, frankly, laughable, especially to the majority of Jews of the time. The Messiah was never supposed to suffer and die, and was certainly not supposed to be crucified, which was a humiliating form of execution reserved by Romans for slaves, disgraced soldiers, and political acitivists and rebels.

Knowing that, one can read the Gospels according to what they were, in all likelihood, intended to be: accounts trying to justify or rationalize what the Jews would consider the failed mission of Jesus. Christians retroactively changed the story so that the Messiah would be REQUIRED to suffer and die for humanity’s sins and would then return at a LATER time to fulfill the prophecy.

There’s a related logical fallacy referred to as “moving the goalposts,” whereby an opponent whose claim is refuted simply changes the terms of the argument on the fly. That’s a bit what the NT is doing; Jesus was supposed to be the Messiah yet failed to accomplish what the Messiah was supposed to do, so it’s then suggested that, well, it may SEEM like he failed, but that’s just because he’s going to rise from the dead and return to fulfill the prophecy at some unspecified later time. Then, when Jesus didn’t return (Jesus said his own generation would see his return), the story changed AGAIN and now, thousands of years later, we’re still waiting for it.

Maybe you still believe this, but even if you do, it shouldn’t be too difficult to understand why Jews, or the nonreligious, might not. The claims, frankly, don’t really make a whole lot of sense, which is probably why “faith” is so strongly emphasized in the Christian religion (remember, no one plays the “faith” card unless they really have no valid reasons for sustaining their beliefs).

Yale professor Dale Martin does a fantastic job explaining these issues and much more in this phenomenal book. Admittedly, I was never religious to begin with, but in taking some time to try to understand the religious beliefs of others, I’ve honestly discovered that Christian claims make even less sense to me than they did before. It’s not that the NT is not interesting literature to study, but it is not to be taken any more seriously as a historical document than the epic poetry of Mesopotamia or the mythology of ancient Greece.

If you still believe in the literal truth of the NT, this book will disabuse you of that fallacy, from a professor who has been teaching NT studies for decades. show less

Martin regularly reads Biblical interpretation and ancient Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman history in ways that remind me of how Foucault reads history. You may disagree, even deeply, with his reading. It’s never boring, though. Martin is an anti-foundationalist. I am not. But this book so consistently made me think more deeply about Scripture, Biblical interpretation, Biblical interpreters, the Church, and the formation of Christian ethics that it deserves the highest marks from me. show more And some further reading, including a few rereads of chapters here. show less

In this engaging introduction to the New Testament, Professor Dale B. Martin presents a historical study of the origins of Christianity by analyzing the literature of the earliest Christian movements. Focusing mainly on the New Testament, he also considers nonbiblical Christian writings of the era.

Martin begins by making a powerful case for the study of the New Testament. He next sets the Greco-Roman world in historical context and explains the place of Judaism within it. In the discussion show more of each New Testament book that follows, the author addresses theological themes, then emphasizes the significance of the writings as ancient literature and as sources for historical study. Throughout the volume, Martin introduces various early Christian groups and highlights the surprising variations among their versions of Christianity. show less

The author demonstrates that the concept of superstition was invented by Greek intellectuals to condemn popular religious practices and beliefs, especially the belief that gods who are the superhuman beings would harm people or cause disease.