Discussion
Dear FRONTLINE,
Maccoby in his book "Revolution in Judea" makes his case for Jesus having been in Jerusalem for at least a year before the Temple incident and Jesus' death. He also thinks that it wasn't a small incident, but an attempt at getting a revolution started. What do you think? Also, Maccoby thinks the gospels were written as spiritual messages by Christians who were tired of being persecuted by Romans. Their message was, "Hey, we're not the revolutionaries; it was those other Jews with James in Jerusalem who made the trouble for Rome." This makes the New Testament a political document, designed to exculpate Christians and indict Non-Jesusite Jews.
Charles J. Richey
crichey@onr.com
Austin, TX
Dear FRONTLINE,
Regarding the choice of interviewees for the broadcasts: I'm no expert on New Testament scholarship, but I have done a little reading, so why did you include scholars like Crossan and Pagels who are well known fro their almost self-consciously unorthodox views and not include some of the more well known scholars with a more "traditional" view, i.e. James D.G. Dunn, Ben Witherington, Raymond Brown, Marcus Bockmeuhl, or N.T. Wright whose 1996 volume Jesus and the Victory of God is arguably the most important book the "Third Quest" for the "Historical Jesus" has yet produced....
Jay Woodham
JAYMAN@prodigy.net
Birmingham, Alabama
Dear FRONTLINE,
It would appear from many of the comments that there were a lot of people looking for traditional religion in your broadcast. We have many sources available for that. I thoroughly enjoyed the piecing together of what acheological evidence is available for explaining what happened during those times and how certain beliefs evolved as they did.
I think PBS left the door open as to Christ's divinity. No one can ever "prove" anything either way.
It was a very dynamic period of history. Thank you PBS. I'll look forward to the next installment.
Christine Aichelman
Caich47@worldnet.att.net
Garden Grove, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Dear Frontline,
I would have hoped for more detail concerning the textual evidence in your series. However, I understand that you can only fit so much into four one hour segments. One detail which was not mentioned, which I think is important, concerns a statement that was made in the series to the effect: "none of the Dead Sea scrolls related directly to Christ."
In a past issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, a fragment was found which may directly relate to the gospel narritive. In Matt. 11:5, Jesus sends word to John the Baptist in prison of miracles which prove his messiahship: "the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up ...". These words occur in this formula nowhere in the Old Testamant, but only in a fragment of one of the dead sea scrolls. Thus, Jesus not only quotes a Dead Sea scroll as proof of his messiahship, but believes that John will recognize these signs as authorative. John was, of course, an Essene.
John F. Criswell
homeprj@aol.com
Murfreesboro, TN
Dear FRONTLINE,
The Frontline offering, "From Jesus to Christ," is more of the same one-sided commentary that is so prevalent in today's theological liberalism. It is merely the continuation of the "search for the historical Jesus" in an up-to-date format.
These "scholars" from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, DePaul, etc. seek to explain away the true divinity of Jesus- because it doesn't fit their own theological constructs..., namely they do not believe in the miraculous and the supernatural. Therefore, everything has its "natural" interpretation, discarding the rest of the Scriptures as mythological and/or revolutionary.
]Interestingly, these scholars disregard the Gospel writers as writing fictional accounts of the "man" Jesus, and yet they quote almost religiously from Josephus, who also lived around the time the New Testament was written. Why not see the Gospel for what they are as historical "witnesses" of the life of Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 1). For they ARE historically accurate and though they may have chronological differences (which can easily be explained) they have withstood the test of skeptics, cynics, emperors, empires, and the test of time. The Bible is the most attested in regards to its ancient documents. There are more copies than any other ancient text in existence..., yet it is probably the most scrutinized and "reconstructed" as Frontline has presented.
John Yeo
JNYeo@msn.com
Fullerton, California
Dear FRONTLINE,
You have succeeded in presenting a history of Christianity from the perspective of those who do not believe Jesus as the Christ. This is evident from the absense of His greatest claim, that those who had seen Him, had seen God... in your broadcast. For a view of the same archeological information from the perspective of someone who believes, I would suggest that you watch the video series "That the World May Know" with the historian and teacher, Ray VanDerLaan (spelling?). Perhaps you would broadcast this series to give equal time...
I wonder if you would have produced a series on evolution, with commentary from respected scientists who believe in creation? Yes, they do exist.
Dr. Edward L. Hepler
Edward Hepler
hepler@vlsi-concepts.com
Malvern, PA
Dear FRONTLINE,
What galls me is the ghetto of scholarship represented in this series. It is as if there are no scholars in the evangelical, orthodox, or Catholic world who have wrestled with the same information and come to different conclusions. You do people a disservice, because the instinct to trust and respect "scholars" -- especially scholars on Frontline -- is high. Yet we see no diversity, hear no debate, see no alternatives. The program appeals to the iconoclast, to a sort of conspiricy theory mentality, and to the arrogance that enjoys rocking the world of the poor, ignorant masses.
Because people do not read or think for themselves, television enjoys a disproportionate impact. To me, integrity would have demanded opportunity for response from those who differ. The material is not new, not "shocking," and not difficult to address. I've been working with stuff in various forms for over twenty years. Some of it's challenging, some of it's legitimate, a lot of it amounts to people of like views talking to each other in an exclusive group. All-in-all, I find serious Evangelical scholars a lot more willing to be aware of and challenged by other views than the mainstream.
Anna, IL
Dear FRONTLINE,
While I appreciated the information received from the first 2 hours of the telecast, I found it interesting that none of the scholars interviewed came from a more traditional background. Their interpretation of the data is interesting, and, as to the beginnings of the early church, fairly balanced. But as to the person and work of Jesus, it is reflective more of subjective assumptions than hard and fast data. It may be asserted that the data is sketchy, but there are many good reasons to hold that the Gospels are the product of first century authorship (and thus reflective of first generation believers)rather than the work of second generation writers who merely appropriated apostolic names to make their work credible. I will, however, anticipate the remainder of the presentation.
Michael Hines
mwhines@neo.lrun.com
Canton, OH
Dear FRONTLINE,
Dear Frontline:
I found the program to be quite enlightening from two perspectives: One, that there are very many things left to speculation about the early Christian Church, that many confusing ideas written in the Bible could be answered from material that was purposely left out for political reasons; Two, that I feel more secure now in allowing the Spirit to guide me in what I should and should not adopt from the scriptures, in terms of what should be taken literally and what to consider symbolic. Thanks for continuing your excellence in programming.
G. William James
GWJ2000@aol.com
Atlanta, GA
Dear FRONTLINE,
I think some of the most ardent detractors of this balanced program have confused belief in the Bible (as "truth") with trust in the present Christ. This common confusion lies in the misunderstanding that a book, or words, hold transcendent truth rather than seeing that truth is portrayed in the transcendent EVENTS of the life of Jesus and the dynamic engagement with that same vital spiritual presence. The Bible's purpose is to inspire engagement with a palpable and dynamic spirit of God rather than to inspire fundamental engagement with itself. It appears that those who hold on to the Bible as "truth" do themselves a great disservice. In doing so they focus on an inanimate tract in search of a STATIC truth when they would be much better served searching their hearts for a dynamic truth that has life.
They seem to be confused that yours was not a show about spiritual quests, but a show about the historical realities of a compelling age. If they, or anyone, wants to find the truth about Christ they first need to give up the idea that facts and truth are synonymous.
Thank you for your historical view of the time of Christ.
brian mays
asource@juno.com
dayton, ohio
Dear FRONTLINE,
I don't believe that we should fault FrontLine by not representing everyone's point of view in the series. After all that is not even the intent . . . "Drawing upon historical evidence, the series challenges familiar assumptions and conventional notions about Christian origins."
Even the most “conservative” reading (by which I mean literal) of the gospels, depicts Christ as one who himself challenged the familiar assumptions and conventional notions taken from the current religious tradition. Given His model, I think we, as Christians should be awfully careful when criticizing those who challenge our own views.
To me, as I struggle to understand my faith, the authors of the Bible are among the text�s most important figures. If we are to comprehend how the Holy Spirit might be speaking and working in each of us, it is essential to my faith to understand in as much detail as possible, the particular historical circumstance which inspired the writing or editing of the Biblical account. When the account is different than history then we must examine why the author was inspired to interpret the event in that way and not assume that God was somewhere absent from the process.
Mark Sturgess
mfsturgess@usa.net
Redondo Beach, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
I just watched the second part of the series and I applaud you for an excellent exposition on the cultural context in which the New Testament took place. In particular I enjoyed the presentation of early christianity as a very diverse group of beliefs and how different cultures in the era adapted Jesus's teaching into their own culture and the subsequent homogenization of beliefs by Constantine. It certainly livens up my future study of the Bible and helps me to understand how different cultures TODAY interpret Bible with different overtones and emphasis.
Jason Shey
skyjay@aol.com
Houston, Texas
Dear FRONTLINE,
Frontline,
I am shocked at the low level of scholarship evidenced in the commentaries (by the so-called scholars) featured on Frontline. Trying to define Jesus in terms of his just being a man of his age, and outlining those things (people, places and events), which might have influenced him to become what he became, is, to say the least, missing the entire point. You will not ever find any explanation as to how an ordinary man, using ordinary means became The Christ. Jesus was not an ordinary mortal, nor was he just an extraordinarily skilled orator and scholar of Judaica. But you talk about Jesus as though he was just a carpenter, hardly much more than a 1st Century Labor organizer. Jesus, alas, cannot be diminished in scope to fit the diminished capacities of your so-called scholars.
I am rather disappointed (though I didn't really expect any better) that you did not have any real theologians; instead, baseing your program on the utterances of some rather leftist university professors who spout much modern-day, agenda driven social theory. Jesus was not just an overly talented bright person who lucked out by living next door to some up-scale Roman villas, and/or who may have influenced by Hellenism.
You cannot define or describe Jesus in terms of the ordinary and commonplace, for no amount of tweaking of social or psychological theory can possibly explain the rise of Christianity, its power, mystery, beauty and staying power. If you do not believe in God, then Jesus can be nothing to you other than just a bright person who got lucky. That Jesus was infinitely more than just a product of his times, infinitely more than just a wise man, is obvious to one who believes. To someone who doesn't believe, Jesus is just a man, and cannot be explained.
In future I would be more comfortable if Frontline got back to its usual business of presenting biased programming favoring the usual sacred-cow hot topics of the Left, and leave us religious whackos to have our religion without the stamp of PBS approval.
Tom McHugh
tbmchugh@ainop.com
Fort Fairfield, ME
Dear FRONTLINE,
It is refreshing to see the national media attempt a presentation on one of the most socially,politically, and emotionally explosive topics in contemporary north american society. The attempt is laudable and worthy of the air time given. However, the show is a dismal failure in explaining, even in the most jaded manner imaginable, its very own title of "From Jesus to Christ." The information presented seems to totally lack any faith perspective and as a result it has a rather hollow presentation of the most dynamic series of events in history. To put it in the most secular of terms--what's the motavation of these people? None of the learned commentators has even made an attempt to explain to the viewer why any of the characters are doing what their doing. Why was Jesus scurryng about the countryside with his message or why was Paul suddenly undertaking his mission activities? While the show presents some interesting, new, and perhaps controversial socio-economic information about the times, it fails to address this most material of questions and as a result fails in its attempt to explain its very premise.
Win Minton
mintonbf@msn.com
Spokane, WA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Dear Frontline,
I applaud you for choosing such an important topic to explore. Each episode has been very thought provoking. It is interesting to hear opinions from specialists who are from the outside looking in. This is a valuable perspective for believers and non-believers to hear. However, the apparent inability of the specialists interviewed to seriously consider the perspectives recorded within the canonical New Testament as factual or "valid" leaves one with a very unsatisfactory (un-balanced) perspective. This is clearly seen in the comment by one scholar that the inclusion of the crucifixion narrative in a "canonical' gospel was to encourage those being martyred to remain faithful is absurd. As apparent from the nature of crucifixion narrative, most people in their right minds would be ashamed of it - to the Jews it is a stumbling block, to the Greeks foolishness, but to those being saved it is the power of God. The crux of the Christian message however is this death - its meaning and lasting impact and the resurrection of the one who died - and how this can change our lives now and forever.
The message of the New Testament that is in the hymn that Paul apparently quotes (or composes) in Philippians chapter 2: that Deity would dare to don human form, walk among humans as one of us, serve them and submit Himself to the most denigrating form of punishment imaginable. This scandalous claim is issued that this act resulted in the redemption of mankind and the fulfillment of the long-awaited Jewish prophesies. Going even beyond this, Christians claimed that this executed man was raised from the dead and ascended to be the Judge of the living and the dead. If there were ever a message that "scholars" would not buy, this would be it. However, this well developed message is found in one of the very earliest of our biblical texts. And it is presented without explanation or apology, suggesting that its remarkable claims were part and parcel with being "Christian". How this message can now be secondary to much later works, such as the Gospel of Thomas, is fairly amazing. I would hope that the gospel of Thomas would be viewed in light of this central message.
The early Christians had many forces acting on them internally and externally determining the direction and content of extra-new Testament documents. However, this primitive (yet remarkable) message in Phil. 2 was the centerpiece of the faith. Contrary to the canonical New Testament works, the Gnostic literature clearly remove Jesus from his Jewish soil and context and places Him within that of the Greek, Persian and Egyptian religions. Contrary to the impression of the experts, the Gnostic writings do not outline a more inclusive faith (suggesting that the doctrinal agreements demanded by the orthodox were too narrow) but indeed demanded a more exclusive faith where initiates could only obtain the precious "special" knowledge through jumping through certain "hoops". There were obviously political and social expediencies for eliminating messages competing with that of the orthodox - but one was not mentioned: the orthodox position may have just been the historical one, a life changing one, and one worth dying for.
Thanks for the chance to comment,
Greg Pogue
Greg Pogue
poguehouse@aol.com
Vacaville, CA
