We now come to the third post of my series on Richard Carrier and the “mythicist movement” which claims there was no historical person named Jesus, and that the Gospels are just myth. Of course, as I said in my first post, Carrier doesn’t define “myth,” and it becomes apparent that what he means is simply that he thinks the Gospels (and Paul) are “weird,” and “we know that can’t happen, so it’s fiction.”
In any case, over the weekend I was able to get my hands on Carrier’s book, On the Historicity of Jesus. It is over 700 pages long, and it is as misinformed and comical as it is long. It is thoroughly impossible to tease out every problem in the book within one post, so I am not going to even try. Instead, in this post I am going focus on three things. I will (A) summarize Carrier’s basic thesis and argument, (B) explain the major flaw in his claim about Philo, and (C) touch upon just a couple of problematic claims Carrier makes about Paul and the Gospels.
Carrier’s Main Thesis
Carrier asserts that Christianity got started when Hellenistic Jews (like Paul) decided to borrow from pagan myths of dying/rising gods and combine it with the Jewish worship of an archangel named Jesus—the result being Jesus was presented as a celestial deity (like any other celestial deity) who communicated through dreams and visions. (According to Carrier, Judaism was essentially polytheistic—only that instead of other gods, they had angels). [Spoiler alert: that is utterly false].
In any case, Carrier claims that Paul presented Jesus’ incarnation, death, burial, and resurrection all as happening in a supernatural realm in outer space and was thus not historical in any way. At some point, though, some Christians decided to make up a story of Jesus as a divine man who lived on earth, and thus “historicized” Paul’s original “archangel/celestial deity Jesus.” Over time, that sect of Christians successfully snuffed out all other of the early forms of Christianity that viewed Jesus solely as a celestial deity. Hence, Orthodox Christianity is just one colossal cover-up of the truth about the true origins of Christianity [Note: this is what is known as a conspiracy theory].
How is Carrier able to come to this conclusion about Christianity? Simple: he dismisses the Gospels out of hand as possibly being historical because they are clearly creatively-shaped literature. In Carrier’s opinion, because the authors were creative in their presentation of Jesus (that is true), they can’t possibly be about real history (that is not true). In Carrier’s opinion, they are nothing more than examples of later Christians “historicizing” the “archangel Jesus myth” that Paul taught.
That leads us to the next thing Carrier does: he declares he is only going to use the seven undisputed letters of Paul to make his determination whether or Jesus was a historical person. And since Paul didn’t write a biography like the other Gospels, Carrier concludes that Jesus never existed. But wait—what about those places in Paul’s letters that do, in fact, mention historical/biographical details about Jesus? Things like: Jesus was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4); was in David’s line (Rom. 1:8); had brothers (I Cor. 9:5), James being specifically named (Gal. 1:19); was crucified in Judea (1 Thess. 2:14-15) under Roman authorities (I Cor. 2:6-8); and was buried (I Cor. 15:4)?
Well, Carrier effectively dismisses them with his basic rationale of, “Oh, that could be referring to mythical Jesus in outer space!” and then engages in some rather uninformed and questionable exegesis.
Much like the typical strategy of the “Gish Gallop” many YECists engage in, it is effectively impossible to address every single one of Carrier’s specific claims. As soon as you address one, the YECist or mythicist will immediately jump to another decontextualized “proof”—and when you address that, they go to another, and another. No matter how much you try, there will always be another talking point ready to go.
The problem is that the very premise of the whole thing is a combination of smoke and mirrors, a denial of basic history and competent exegesis, and some outright falsehoods. Nevertheless, let’s look at just a few things that mythicists like Carrier love to claim.
Philo…He’s Not Saying What Carrier Says He’s Claiming
Carrier claims that Paul was not talking about a historical person named Jesus. Instead, Carrier claims that Paul preached a “celestial deity Jesus,” and that this concept was really just a variation of a Jewish tradition (as expressed in Philo) of worshipping an archangel named Jesus who was a pre-existent being who was called the firstborn son of God and who was the high priest of God’s celestial temple. As Carrier states, “We know from Philo there was already a Jewish tradition of a preexistent being named Jesus who was the Form of God” (OHJ 534).
There is just one problem: Philo never talks about an archangel named Jesus. Nowhere in the passage in Philo that Carrier cites (Confusion of Tongues, 14:62-63) does Philo ever mention an archangel named Jesus. The passage in question reads:
“
Behold, the man named Rises!” is a very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul. But if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of “Rises” has been given to him with great felicity. For the Father of the Universe has caused him to rise up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn. And he who is thus born, imitates the ways of his father…”
Philo is not talking about archangels, let alone one named Jesus. Rather, he is talking about the Logos. In Greek philosophy, the Logos was essentially the rational principle that permeates all of creation. In the intertestamental Jewish writing The Wisdom of Ben Sirach (Ch. 24), the writer takes this Hellenistic concept of the Logos and equates it with the Jewish concept of Wisdom—as in Lady Wisdom found in Proverbs 1-9. Ben Sirach thus says that the Logos is really God’s Wisdom through which He made all creation. Furthermore, Ben Sirach claims that God’s Wisdom dwells among God’s people Israel and is to be found in the Book of Moses.
Simply put, Ben Sirach is personifying the concept of the Logos/God’s Wisdom. Similarly, Philo further allegorizes and personifies the divine Logos as God’s firstborn son who resembles God Himself. But there is no talk of “archangels” or “Jesus,” and only a fool would think Ben Sirach or Philo were claiming that Wisdom was literally a woman or literally God’s son. So where in the world does Carrier this idea from? Here’s where he gets creative.
The Greek word translated as “Rises” is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint translation of Zechariah 6:11-12, in which the Hebrew word “Branch” is used. Now, in 6:9-15, Zechariah is told to make a crown and put it on the head of Joshua the high priest as a prophetic/symbolic act: “Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak; say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD” (6:11-12).
Simply put, Zechariah is saying that Joshua, who was the high priest in Jerusalem (i.e. a real historical human being who was one of the returning exiles from Babylon), would be instrumental in the rebuilding of the second temple. Ah, but in Greek “Joshua” is the same as “Jesus”! So…Carrier makes claims that Philo is talking about an archangel (although he’s talking about Logos), and then, based on that one Greek translation of the “Branch,” he says, “Joshua…that’s mythical Jesus!” and completely ignores the plain historical context of Zechariah 6:9-15. And voila! Instead of Zechariah 6:11-12 talking about a real historical person who helped rebuild the second temple in 520 BC, Carrier claims it is about archangel Jesus building a celestial temple—look! Philo says so!
Sorry, no, he didn’t.
In addition, we can just look at Paul’s letters themselves and see how absurd this idea of a Pharisaic Jew mixing pagan myths of dying/rising gods with Jewish angelology and coming up with worshipping “archangel Jesus”:
- Colossians 2:18: Paul expressly speaks out against the worship of angels—how could one who is supposedly touting the worshipping of an archangel be against the worshipping of angels? (Incidentally, if Carrier dismisses this verse because it isn’t among the seven undisputed letters of Paul, he puts himself into quite a bind, for it is in Colossians 1:15, 18 that we find talk about Jesus being the “firstborn.” Carrier likes to say, “Look! Philo speaks of the Logos as the ‘firstborn,’–Paul calls Jesus the ‘firstborn’, so therefore Jesus is the Logos-archangel etc.” But then you can’t have it both ways. If Carrier is going to use the language of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15, 18 and attribute it to Paul, then he has to accept Colossians 2:18, where Paul expressly speaks against the worship of angels.)
- I Corinthians 8: Paul expressly prohibits participating in any kind of association with pagan temples—it is utterly unbelievable to think that this same Paul would then have borrowed from pagan myths.
- Hebrews 1: Although probably not written by Paul, it expressly makes a clear distinction between Jesus as God’s Son and the angels—the Son isn’t an archangel, he is superior to angels.
- John 1: While we’re at it, let’s consider John’s prologue, where he expressly uses the concept of the Logos (i.e. the Word) as a way to express who Jesus is: the Word made flesh. Carrier claims that Christianity was originally based on Philo’s “archangel/Logos Jesus,” but then was “historicized” by later Gospel writers. If that was the case, then how can you account for the latest of the Gospel to be using that very Logos imagery…and clearly tying it into a portrayal of a very historical Jesus? And since John is depicting Jesus as the Logos, and since the later Christians who wanted to “historicize mythical Jesus” zealously tried to snuff out all traces of this mythical view, why would they have kept the Gospel of John in the first place?
Paul and the Cosmic Sperm Bank
Therefore, Carrier’s claim that Paul preached a non-historical, mythical celestial-deity named Jesus is problematic from the jump. There is no “archangel Jesus” from Philo, and the idea that Paul would borrow from pagan myths and promote the worship of an archangel while forbidding association with pagan temples and condemning the worship of angels also defies logic.
Nevertheless, there are a few specific things Carrier claims about Paul that I just have to comment on. First, Carrier claims there is nothing in Paul about a historical Jesus—but of course, there is. Carrier simply explains it away. For example, Paul refers to “James the brother of Jesus,” but Carrier isn’t buying it: “Brother” clearly is just a generic term to denote any fellow Christian—so James is probably just another Christian in the community. Well, if that was the case then why does the Jewish historian Josephus, when making reference to the martyrdom of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in about AD 62, call him “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ”?
Second, in regard to I Cor. 11:23-25, when Paul talks about the Last Supper, he specifically mentions what Jesus said, “on the night he was betrayed”—clearly a historical reference to the night Jesus was betrayed and arrested by the temple police. Well, according to Carrier, Paul isn’t talking about the Last Supper—Paul was simply talking mythically, about the night Jesus was handed over to Satan in outer-space. I don’t even know what to say about that…
And third (although there are many more examples), there is Carrier’s bizarre claim regarding Romans 1:3, when Paul claims that Jesus was “descended from David.” Technically, this phrase in the Greek is “coming from the seed of David,” but the Greek word for “seed” is spermatos—we get the English word “sperm” from it—but it basically means “seed” or “offspring.” Carrier, though sees spermatos and proceeds to claim that it means literal sperm.
Now this phrase in Romans 1:3 is meant to evoke the Davidic covenant in II Samuel 7:12-14, when God promises David that He will raise up his offspring (Hebrew word zerah) after him who would establish his kingdom and build a temple for God’s name. Again, zerah basically means “seed” or “offspring.” In the immediate context, it seems to be talking about Solomon building the temple; Christians re-interpreted it as also pointing to Christ building the Church. This is not hard to understand.
Yet Carrier looks at the Greek word spermatos and declares, “one could easily conclude that God was saying he extracted semen from David and held it in reserve until the time he would make good this promise of David’s progeny sitting on an eternal throne” (576). He even says, “It would not be unimaginable that God could maintain a cosmic sperm bank. After all, God’s power was absolute; and all sorts of things could be stored up in heaven, even our own future bodies” (576).
That’s right: a cosmic sperm bank. How did I miss that over these past 20 years of doing Biblical Studies?
Back to the Gospels
Carrier’s take on the Gospels themselves is also highly problematic. As I said already, his basic take is that since the Gospels are creatively shaped, they cannot possibly be historical. And although he occasionally points out valid parallelisms and allusions in the Gospels, he clearly shows that he’s not an expert in Biblical Studies in some of his wilder claims.
For instance, although there are many instances in which the NT writers depict Jesus as the new Moses, Carrier’s claim that the woman with the menstrual flow is a parallel to the water that flowed from the rock in the Exodus, and that Jesus taking three disciples in with him to heal Jarius’ daughter echoes the three elders who accompany Moses as he strikes the rock well–let’s just say that is a bit of a stretch.
He also tries to connect the blind man of Bethsaida in Mark 8:22-26 with the “magic sky tree” episode in Exodus 17. What’s the connection? When first healed, the blind man still can’t see clearly, and he says he sees “men walking around like trees.” So, since he mentions “trees,” Carrier thinks it is entirely valid to connect it to Moses’ “magic sky tree,” (despite the fact that there is nothing in Exodus 17 about a “magic sky tree”).
The biblical scholar Richard Hays has written extensively about intertextuality, and specifically about understanding how the NT makes literary allusions and connections to OT stories. There are guidelines and rules that ensure whether or not a proposed connection has merit. Carrier’s attempts, though, follow no guidelines whatsoever and seem to be a product of highly imaginative free-association in his own mind. To show how ridiculous it is, allow me to use what I call “the Carrier method of biblical interpretation” and give a somewhat more contemporary reading of some biblical passages…
Storms, the Sea, and the Son of Man
Let’s start off with the idea of a cosmic sperm bank from II Samuel 7:12-14 and Romans 1:3. This is obviously the way a future cosmic messiah-king was to come about, right? Can we tease this out a bit more? Well, we read in Mark 4:35-41 that Jesus calmed a storm on the sea, and the disciples didn’t understand who he was; and then in Mark 6:45-52 there is another storm on the sea, and this time Jesus is walking on the sea! Clearly this could be taken to be a reference to the mythical storm on the sea that Odysseus and his men had to battle because of his war with Poseidon! And we all know that in ancient mythology, Tiamat, the great female sea serpent represented the power and danger of the sea.
And so, the disciples are like Odysseus’ men, the storm is a threatening female figure…STORMY….
And then a little later, in Matthew 16:17, when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Peter son of Jonah: JONAH…STORM at SEA. And then the “son”—clearly a reference to DANIEL 7, where the Son of Man appears to defeat the creature that COMES FROM THE SEA!
It all makes sense: Stormy Daniels represents the sea serpent of chaos that threatens Trump, who is obviously like Jesus, because Jesus is triumphant over the stormy sea!
Voila…that is how you come up with zombie hoards, monsters from outer-space with death rays, magic sky trees, archangels named Jesus, gay Lazarus-lovers, and cosmic sperm banks.
…I’m going to need to write a Part 4 to conclude my thoughts on Carrier’s mythicism.
Another good post. I would qualify one thing though — Carrier probably doesn’t accept Colossians as written by Paul (which is why I cite Romans 8:37-39 for Paul clearly distinguishing between created things, like angels, from God and Christ), and he wouldn’t accept the Josephus reference to James as brother of Jesus because, well, he comes up with a fanciful theory about how that part of Josephus is really an interpolation. Which is why I find O’Neill’s crushing of Carrier on the James the brother of Jesus passage highly important, to show he just can’t get around this with his concocted theories. I’ll repost it:
https://historyforatheists.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased/
I added this to the post regarding Colossians 2:18:
Incidentally, if Carrier dismisses this verse because it isn’t among the seven undisputed letters of Paul, he puts himself into quite a bind, for it is in Colossians 1:15, 18 that we find talk about Jesus being the “firstborn.” Carrier likes to say, “Look! Philo speaks of the Logos as the ‘firstborn,’–Paul calls Jesus the ‘firstborn’, so therefore Jesus is the Logos-archangel etc.” But then you can’t have it both ways. If Carrier is going to use the language of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15, 18 and attribute it to Paul, then he has to accept Colossians 2:18, where Paul expressly speaks against the worship of angels.
Doesn’t Romans 8:29 call Jesus the firstborn?
Carrier was on my reading list however I have no real desire to slog through 700+ pages of that kind of silliness.
With his aim to use only the undisputed letters of Paul he puts me in mind of Marcion, who used only the letters of Paul and Luke-Acts purged of any Jewish content.
And aren’t these writers like Carrier aware that scholarship has moved on over the past 75-100 years so that, nobody nowadays seriously believes that Christianity borrowed from dying/rising god cults? That most scholars, even skeptics like Bart Ehrman and Marvin Meyer, doubt whether such dying/rising cults really ever even existed? Meyer, in his textbook on the ancient mystery religions warns again drawing hasty conclusions of that type just because some of the terminology in Christianity and the mystery religions sounds similar.
It seems to me that if the early Church had wanted to fake a religion and then dupe gullible pagans into believing it what they’d have come up with was Gnosticism, with it’s a-historical, purely spiritual, non-human Jesus, much more palatable to a typical pagan (though as Frederica Mathewes-Green notes, Gnosticism was too complicated even for most pagans). The last kind of religion they’d invent and then try to sell to pagans was a literal dying/rising human with claims to deity. And we know that critics like Celsus in the 2nd century took issue with Christianity just on those grounds. Nobody in antiquity save orthodox Christians wanted a real, flesh-and-blood, human Jesus who was at the same time fully divine.
So from Carrier’s perspective, just exactly who were these early Christians trying to fool?
Nor does Carrier seem to understand Philo if what you say is correct (and I have no reason to doubt that it is)
Carrier’s arguments appear to be no more sophisticated or intellectually challenging than dozens of atheists and skeptic laymen I’ve debated online..
Pax vobiscum.
Lee.
And there is a lot more in the book that just is silly, to say the least. At one point he points to Ireneaus’s writings against 2nd century Gnosticism, and he concludes that thing Irenaeus was attacking was an example of an EARLY/original Christian belief–it is just so historically laughable.
His “method” is basically this: he’ll first read a passage ASSUMING it is myth, and see if it makes sense–he then (throughout the book) concludes, “Yes, that could be read as myth, 100% certainty!” Then he reads the same passage assuming it is history–and if there is ANY question, that takes the certainty below 100%, and therefore that indicates that myth is more likely. I mean, how do you respond to that???
As for Philo, I’m just going off what he provided–I’m no expert in Philo, but all it takes is a basic reading of that passage to see that Philo isn’t talking about Jesus. Someone did share with me in another place that Philo does call the Logos “an archangel.” But still, he allegorizes everything, and that still doesn’t prove that any Jews WORSHIPPED an archangel named Jesus.
How do you respond to that, indeed! What you’ve described sounds like a Monthy Python sketch gone horribly wrong.
Even the Jesus Seminar used (and in many cases overused, such as dissimilarity) various historical criteria when assessing whether a text went back to Jesus or not, but Carrier probably wouldn’t give the Seminar the time of day because even the Seminar took Jesus’ basic historicity as beyond serious question. I didn’t believe it was possible to get any stranger than the views of some of the Fellows like Crossan, Funk and Thiering (though Crossan’s views seem less out there nowadays) but it seems we have a winner.
Your grasp of Philo undoubtedly far exceeds mine and yet even I’ve read enough to know that Philo was referring to the logos, YHWH’s divine reason, and not an archangel. Carrier seems to share Ehrman’s problem of not really having a solid grasp of ancient 1st c. Second Temple Jewish theology.
Carrier reminds me of scholars like Archbishop John Spong and Prof. Barbara Thiering, who simply make up rules of exegesis as they go along. Spong got a couple of books out of his flawed understanding of midrash and Thiering got a couple of books and a THC cable documentary out of her bizarre view of pesher.
But as Philip Jenkins wrote in his excellent *Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way*:
“Despite its dubious sources and controversial methods, the new Jesus scholarship of the 1980s and 1990s gained such a following because it told a lay audience what it wanted to hear.”
Carrier’s still riding that wave.
Pax vobiscum.
Lee.
Hi Joel,
I’m confused by your position and I’m hoping you can clarify.
You appear to have disdain for both the “wooden literalism of the most ardent fundamentalist” and for Carrier’s mysticism camps. (I myself would most closely align with Bart Ehrman’s camp and yes, I’ve read those blogs as well).
My confusion is; What camp are you in?
You refer to the Gospels as historical stories, ancient historical biographies which allow the authors ‘wiggle room’ to be creative. Which seems to indicate that you believe that some portion of the Gospels is historical fact and some is fiction (I won’t use the word myth because that seems to really irritate you).
Now I realize that the purpose of your posts was not to identify fact vs fiction but to point out the issues with Carrier’s arguments.
But as I read through them (and the Ehrman posts) I kept wondering what does Joel believe?
So what percentage of the Gospels do you believe to be historical fact vs fiction? And, more importantly, how do you tell the difference?
You indicate that you can tell the difference:
“The problem with everything he said was this: he seemed to think that the literary shaping of the
Gospels somehow meant that they were not historical.”
“This would be an example of the kind of literary artistry the Gospel writers engaged in, as I mentioned
in my previous post.”
Is it only the really important stories (resurrection) that are unquestionable fact and a lot of the other stories are just fluff?
At what percentage of fiction does Christianity become like all the other dismissed religions?
I don’t know if you’ve already shared your beliefs in a previous blog or if you choose not to disclose them but these were the confused thoughts that went through my head as I read your posts.
Thanks,
Jim
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your question. Let’s see if I can give a succinct answer.
Let me use “Hacksaw Ridge” as my working analogy. When you watch that movie, you understand it is about a historical event, and yet you also understand that the director has purposely shaped the storyline and undoubtedly used creative license. But you don’t watch the movie and think, “Oh which part is ‘history’ and which part is ‘fiction’?” You simply understand that it is basically “historical fiction”–meaning, it is about history, but it comes in the form of a crafted story, and you leave it at that.
That’s how I see the Gospels. The basic historical facts are pretty clear: Jesus was from Galilee; he had a following; he was considered a prophet and some thought he was the Messiah; he was considered a healer, exorcist, and miracle worker (even Jewish sources acknowledge he healed people and cast out demons, but they attributed it to magic or demonic power); he was arrested by temple authorities, he was crucified by Pilate; his followers claimed he resurrected a few days later.
I don’t think the Gospels are giving a strict chronological account. They’re moving things around into their own story line. So, when the Synoptics have Jesus’ temple action during the Passion week but John has it early on in his ministry–it doesn’t bother me. I tend to think during the Passion week is more historically plausible. Heck, maybe he disrupted things early on in his ministry and then did it again a second time later on–but the point is I think at some point he caused a disturbance in the Temple and prophesied that it would be destroyed.
Or did Jesus cast out demons of ONE man in the tombs or TWO? I don’t know or really care–but Jesus was known to cast out demons. Did he literally heal the woman with the flow of blood as he was on the way to raise Jarius’ daughter, or did Mark creatively weave those two events together into a single episode? Possibly, but there’s no way of knowing. But what can be known is that Mark is paralleling the two episodes to emphasize that Jesus’ healings weren’t just physical healings, but actually restored people to full participation in the people of God.
Or let’s look at a more difficult example: Jesus calming the storm or walking on the water. I wrote a MA thesis on Jonah and even a few articles on how the Gospels writers using Jonah themes in a major section of both Mark and Matthew. Those literary/theological allusions and themes are clearly there–did Jesus LITERALLY order the storm to stop or LITERALLY walk on water? From a strictly historian perspective, you can’t prove that–but those stories are in the Gospels, side by side with other things that are undoubtedly rooted in history. Now, I can talk for hours on how those two scenes fit within the overall narrative of Mark and Matthew and how they emphasize the Gospel claims that God’s glory is made manifest in Jesus. But if someone asks me, “Is it possible those scenes didn’t really, literally happen?” I’d have to say, “Maybe…” But there’s no way to “prove” it either way. Let’s face it, the scenes happen, then things move on.
With the resurrection accounts–that’s different. All four Gospels attest to the resurrection, but they clearly DON’T tell the same story. On top of that, the resurrection is front and center throughout the rest of the NT–and it is pretty clear that the NT writers are claiming that Jesus was really raised from the dead in history.
And so, having said all that, I don’t fall into either the “fundie” camp, or the Ehrman or Carrier camps. I think they all suffer to varying degrees of wooden literalism. I believe Jesus was a historical figure and that he did those things I opened with (healings, casting out demons, teaching, death, resurrection); I also have no problem acknowledging that the Gospel writers are crafting their presentation of Jesus in a creative way, and are not putting it in strict chronological fashion.
Thanks for sharing your views.
I was raised in a very conservative, fundamental home; Father was a Lutheran pastor, Lutheran schools, etc. So of course I was raised to not doubt anything in the Bible, all events were literally true. Once I got out on my own I realized that it was very probable that quite a few events were simply stories as you described. I actually made a woman cry in Sunday School when I told the group that I didn’t think Adam and Eve were historical figures and the Earth wasn’t 6,000 years old. She said she would pray for my soul.
Since then I’ve pretty much dismissed everything as embellished stories with possible kernels of historic fact, but how can one discern? And as I’ve learned more about how the Gospels were likely constructed it has only hardened my skepticism that anything or anyone in the Bible can be believed or worshiped.
For me the issue isn’t the chronology it’s that whole stories are just obviously made up, grafted from OT stories to try and make Jesus look more impressive. I fully agree with you that the Gospels are filled with “creative license” I’m just not sure why anyone should still believe that Jesus is a resurrected Savior based on those stories. Fear of Hell? Pascal’s Wager?
I do enjoy reading and learning about what other people think and believe which is why I stay engaged if you are wondering why I would spend time on a Christian’s blog.
I appreciate your viewpoints and your knowledgeable posts.
Thanks,
Jim
I’m in the middle of finishing up end of the semester work, but these comments on this post have been really good. I think Lee’s explanation of how the Gospel writers weren’t making things up is spot on–really good points. But also Jim, thanks for you background info. Since you’ve been reading my blog, I’m sure you’ve read (I think I said it about Ehrman) how I think that “far-right/ultra-fundamentalist” strain really does tremendous damage to people in terms of the Christian faith in general and assessing the Bible in particular. I count myself extremely lucky that, although my parents were generally conservative, they weren’t by any stretch of the imagination “fundie” in any way–and in that respect, I think I was just naïve about it. I just thought most Christians were kind of like my parents, so it was a rude awakening for me to find how rabid ultra-fundies like YECists tend to be. In fact, in my experience getting fired over the YECism issue by a very YECist fundie, one of the last things I wrote to him in regards to his pushing AiG stuff in the school was this:
“I fear that pursuing such a course of action will not only fail to prepare students for successful engagement in the academic world many of them will encounter after high school graduation, but will also fail to reverse the trend of defection by evangelically-churched youth from their spiritual heritage. In fact, it will probably accelerate it. For if you tell a student that if he doesn’t believe in a literal six day creation 6,000 years ago, then he can’t believe in the gospel and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then that student just takes an entry level biology class and learns just the basic facts about biology, do you know what he’s going to do? He’s going to completely throw away his faith because you will have told him that he has to. You will have attached to the gospel of Christ a debatable scientific claim and an interpretation of Genesis 1-11that has never been universally held in Church history, and you will have made adherence to that debatable scientific claim a prerequisite for the gospel of Christ. And that is indescribably sad.”
That mindset is spiritual and intellectual poison all the way through. It ingrains in people’s minds so much that the Bible is somehow LITERALLY 100% “perfect”–scientifically, chronologically etc., that when someone finds out that’s not the case, they chuck the whole thing. In any case, here’s hoping some of my stuff might be able to fight back against such a toxic view.
As I understand oral tradition, tradents are/were free to rearrange material to fit the occasion, but they were *not* free to just make up stories whole-cloth or delete important stories. And as it was a community endeavor, should a tradent get something wrong, the community was there to correct him/her.
And as NT Wright points out, all writing is edited, whether it’s Homer’s *Odyssey,* a biography of Barak Obama, a history of the Hundred Years’ War, or an article on Trump’s economic policies in the *New York Times,* so why should the gospels be any different? When the tradents wrote down the material contained in the gospels (I realize that some of the gospel material was probably written down at the time Jesus said it or did it) they sometimes used what we’d call “artistic license.” But as Doc Anderson says, artistic license doesn’t mean outright fabrication.
As Dr. Anderson says, Carrier and others seem not to understand how oral tradition works. In Ehrman’s case his academic writings seem to be much more nuanced and balanced than his popular books. Reading his popular works one would never guess that Ehrman studied under the justly famed late textual critic Bruce Metzger. Part of that can possibly be ascribed to his publishers, who package such books to appeal to skeptics, hence for example, will overemphasize the more sensational aspects of a book, on the book-jacket, yet at the end of the day the author’s responsible for their content. And yet his popular books vastly over-inflate the tiny handful of genuine textual variants found in the NT. So he seems to operate from Dr.. Anderson’s “wooden literalism” in his popular books but in his peer-reviewed academic studies is much more nuanced and careful.
My frustration has often come from encountering dozens of skeptics and atheists who refuse to read anyone but liberal scholars like Ehrman or Carrier. For example you can’t discuss how Ehrman’s critics like Craig Evans, Nick Perrin or Michael Bird have offered thoughtful, compelling answers to all of the major challenges Ehrman has raised because they haven’t ever read them, just dismissed them out of hand. Such authors are dismissed because they’re conservative, not based on the merit of their arguments.
Pax vobiscum.
Lee.
To answer Jim’s question above, Why believe the gospel stories which obviously seem made up?
They may look made up on the surface, but when you examine them carefully you see that they aren’t made up.
For example, the crucifixion and resurrection. No pious, 2nd Temple Jew on record before the gospels expected Messiah to be crucified, let alone raised bodily three days later. Every good Jew knew that a crucified Messiah was a *false* messiah, no better than the dozen or so messianic claimants either side of Jesus who were crushed by the Romans whose movements then disappeared. And as for the resurrection, while many Jews looked for bodily resurrection in new heavens and on a new earth, nobody expected *one man* to be resurrected ahead of everyone else, in the *middle* of history. And as NT Wright argues in his 800+ *The Resurrection of the Son of God,* without the resurrection you can’t explain the rise and spread of the church. No other false messiah’s movement on record survived his death.
The gospels present the disciples as refusing to believe Jesus’ resurrection as told to them by the women. The disciples walking to Emmaus at the end of Luke’s gospel represent the attitude of the rest of the band, when they say they initially thought Jesus was the Messiah but then he was killed, so they must’ve been terribly wrong.
And of course why attest that the first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were *women,* when the testimony of women wasn’t highly regarded in the ancient world? In the 2nd century critics like the philosopher Celsus were still objecting to Christianity among other reasons because the primary witnesses to its central miracle were a group of hysterical women. That’s not something anyone would make up. It definitely fits the historical criterion of embarrassment which says that liars don’t normally tell lies that could easily damage their credibility.
So if the Jewish disciples of Jesus were making up stories they hoped to sell to other Jews, why go off script so badly? Unless what they recorded really did happen essentially the way they recorded it.
Paul in I Corinthians 15, by reporting that Jesus appeared in the flesh to some 500 people, many who were still alive, was essentially saying, if you don’t believe me, go and ask them. As for the credal statement in I Corinthians 15:3-7, it has reliably been dated to ca. 33-35 AD, a mere 3-5 years after Jesus’ resurrection, showing that in that short a span of time the early Christians were already claiming Jesus was resurrected.
Pax.
Lee.
LEE: To answer Jim’s question above, Why believe the gospel stories which obviously seem made up?
They may look made up on the surface, but when you examine them carefully you see that they aren’t made up.
JIM: I’m guessing you fall in the ‘everything in the Gospels is true and historical’ camp? I don’t believe all the
stories are made up from thin air although there appear to be some. For example, John 8:1-11 (Woman
accused of adultery), most scholars accept that this story was not in the earliest manuscripts and was
likely added later and yet it is used in sermons constantly.
I do believe there are many invented stories based on events from the OT. For example. The Massacre
of the Innocents (Matt 2:16-18); this story is only found in one place, a fair number of scholars question its
authenticity. Is it possible it happened? Sure, but I think it more likely the author was trying to compare
Jesus to Moses and how Pharaoh ordered the Hebrew baby boys executed (Ex 1:15-22).
Or how about the feeding of the 5,000 (Matt 14:13-18) and 4,000 (Matt 15:29-37)? Unique stories? No,
look at 2 Kings 4:42-44. And here is the weird thing; the disciples question how they could feed the
4,000 with so little food when just did that with the 5,000. Talk about embarrassing.
There are many other OT parallels, it’s like the authors just went through the OT and found stories they
thought would be good for Jesus to do and wrote them down that way.
LEE: No other false messiah’s movement on record survived his death.
JIM: The 1.8 billion Muslims, 1.1 billion Hindus and 500k Buddhists will all be happy to know that you don’t
think the leaders of their religions were false messiahs. All roads lead to God?
LEE: And of course why attest that the first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were *women,* when the testimony of women wasn’t highly regarded in the ancient world? In the 2nd century critics like the philosopher Celsus were still objecting to Christianity among other reasons because the primary witnesses to its central miracle were a group of hysterical women. That’s not something anyone would make up. It definitely fits the historical criterion of embarrassment which says that liars don’t normally tell lies that could easily damage their credibility.
JIM: I have never understood the “women’s testimony means everything is true” defense. There are lots of
examples of embarrassing situations for the disciples; Peter’s denial, Thomas demanding to see the
wounds, Disciples falling asleep in the Garden. My favorite is John 6:60-70 (Many Disciples desert
Jesus) talk about embarrassing. These men have been following Jesus and seeing all of these
supposed miracles and signs and then they desert him? You would be apoplectic if Jesus was in front
of you doing miracles.
Is it possible that a lot of these stories, including the women at the tomb, were crafted to make a
specific point or advance the story? That is exactly how it looks to me.
Back to the women; If we look at the story as intentionally created, we see that Mark (16:1) and Luke
(23:56-24:1) have a specific purpose for the women going to the tomb; they were going with spices for
the body. Matthew has added the whole thing about guards at the tomb and an earthquake; that
doesn’t look made up at all. So from the Mark and Luke accounts it makes perfect sense that the
women would be the first to witness the empty tomb, they had a reason to be there first thing in the
morning. Ironically, John (19:38 – 20:1) completely contradicts both stories which the apologists
conveniently choose to ignore. John has Joseph and Nicodemus prepare the body immediately after
death and Mary Magdalene, by herself, shows up out of the blue Sunday morning.
LEE: So if the Jewish disciples of Jesus were making up stories they hoped to sell to other Jews, why go off script so badly? Unless what they recorded really did happen essentially the way they recorded it.
JIM: How does anyone seriously believe this is historical eyewitness testimony by 4 different individuals?
LEE: Paul in I Corinthians 15, by reporting that Jesus appeared in the flesh to some 500 people, many who were still alive, was essentially saying, if you don’t believe me, go and ask them. As for the credal statement in I Corinthians 15:3-7, it has reliably been dated to ca. 33-35 AD, a mere 3-5 years after Jesus’ resurrection, showing that in that short a span of time the early Christians were already claiming Jesus was resurrected.
JIM: Yet another argument I don’t understand from apologists. Paul is saying that Jesus appeared to all
these people and then appeared to him. Jesus never physically appeared to Paul. So are you saying
that all appearances by Jesus were spiritual in nature and he never was physically resurrected (I
believe Carrier makes this argument) or that Paul meant that everybody else saw Jesus physically and
he saw him spiritually but he forgets to mention that little detail and we’re supposed to assume that is
what he really meant.
Thanks,
Jim
Sorry for the formatting issues. I was trying to indent my responses, didn’t work out so well.
Jim, my views are pretty much the same as Dr. Anderson’s. While the gospel authors undoubtedly use artistic license in places (what author doesn’t?) the gist of what they wrote comes across to me as essentially what happened. Compared to Greco-Roman myths the gospels look positively tame. Dr. Anderson pointed out that Prof. Ben Witherington III says, the gospels perfectly fit the criteria for ancient Greco-Roman biography. He’s right. They do.
As for the woman caught in adultery, like you I’m aware that it’s a textual variant not found in the earliest mss, and I have no problem with saying that. However nothing in that story contradicts anything else we’re told about Jesus and it certainly sounds like stuff he could’ve said/done. The early church fathers were aware that it was a textual variant. So. Use it or don’t use it. I’m fine either way.
As for the massacre of the innocents by Herod, true we have no independent attestation of this by secular historians nevertheless it certainly sounds in character for Herod who we know from secular sources was a paranoid megalomaniac, obsessed with plots against him. So on this one I give the gospels the benefit of the doubt.
As for the feeding of the 5,000 you say that the question of said miracle by the disciples is embarrassing. And I agree, which is why this story (and dozens of others) fits the historical criterion of embarrassment. Basically the way the gospels portray the disciples as clueless here argues against one or more of them inventing the miracle later on, because liars don’t usually tell lies that could make them look bad.
As for my statement regarding false messiahs, I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is that no other Jewish messianic claimant (Judas the Galilean, Simon Bar Kochba, etc.) had their movement survive their death. What *nobody* in ancient Judaism would’ve said was “Gee, y’know guys, I know our messiah was killed by the Romans, but, somehow, I feel a warm glow in my heart that tells me he’s somehow alive in heaven, and living on in our hearts on earth. I feel compelled to share that warm glow with others.” No, as NT Wright says, there were only two options available: choose another person to take his place, or disband the movement. The Jesus Movement/early Church is the only Jewish messianic movement to survive the death of the founder because the received wisdom of ancient 2nd Temple Judaism was that Messiah had to be and do certain things: a) restore/rebuild the Temple; b) gather an army and drive the Romans out of Palestine; c) re-institute the Davidic monarchy and reign from Jerusalem. Anybody claiming to be Messiah who didn’t fulfill these basic requirements, but instead got killed by Rome, according to this received wisdom, was obviously only a pretender. The disciples walking to Emmaus at the end of Luke’s gospel display this typical and understandable dismay at what appeared to them to be another failed messianic claimant. And again, that Luke purposely includes this story which demonstrates how two of Jesus’ disciples totally misunderstood him, argues against it being a fabrication, because why invent a story in which the closest disciples of your would-be Messiah are all clueless as to his true aims and purposes,not even recognizing him after they meet him after his resurrection?
As I said above, why would the Jewish disciples of Jesus, if they were fabricating the whole thing, depart from the script so wildly? Why purposely invent a Messiah that would go against what everyone in Messianic was expecting? And why portray themselves, the inventors and purveyors of this new religion,as such idiots? Unless it were true and they felt compelled to tell it essentially like it happened?
As for the women being the first witnesses to the resurrection, the very fact the all four gospels have women (it doesn’t matter how many or which ones, though Mary Magdalene is in all four accounts) is just too embarrassing a detail for them to have included if they were simply making up the story of the resurrection. The fact that they take great pains to show how Jesus attracted female disciples at all is very telling, as no other ancient Jewish rabbi I’m familiar would’ve had female disciples who followed him from place-to-place and whom he gave private instruction to. And the very fact that *all* of the male disciples except John deserted Jesus after his arrest doesn’t make them look good so hardly seems like something they’d make up later.
You ask how can anyone seriously believe the stories in the gospels were written by four different authors. Precisely *because* of the existence of many of the difficulties and differences you pointed out. If the gospels were deliberate fabrications they wouldn’t look the way they do. If the four gospels harmonized totally in every detail, skeptics would accuse their authors of collusion, of getting together in cooking up a story in which every detail harmonized perfectly. But that isn’t what you see in the gospels.
As Richard Bauckham says, the accounts of the resurrection in the four gospels read exactly like accounts of something truly bizarre written by astonished people who don’t know what to make of it all and haven’t had time to process any of it and reflect on it.You’ll notice none of the gospel authors when describing the events of the the resurrection use phrases like “this is so that what was written in Isaiah would be fulfilled,” or refer readers back to OT prooftexts: they simply state what happened, with all the attendant confusion and head=-scratching which followed.
So it doesn’t really matter whether there was a literal earthquake or how many women came to the tomb or when the guards were posted, etc. Contradictions (assuming for the moment that these are genuine contradictions) are not themselves evidence that mean *nothing* happened.You *want* testimony that diverges somewhat because it argues that it likely isn’t made up. Don’t fall into the trap of Ehrman and Carrier who seem to interpret *everything* in the NT in a wooden, literal manner. This is a kind of biazzro, backwards fundamentalism which mistakenly views everything in the NT through a fundamentalist prism then objects to the NT on those grounds. As Dr. Anderson said, the NT contains many genres of writing, not all of which were/are intended to be interpreted literally. Reading the Bible in such a rigid, literalistic way is a pretty recent development, really only 100 years or so old. For most of Church history people understood that there are different interpretive lenses through which to view different texts in Scripture.
As for Paul, he makes plain in I Corinthians 15 (and in numerous other places) that Jesus’ resurrection was a physical, bodily, material resurrection. He tells the Corinthians that if Jesus wasn’t literally raised from the dead that Christians are a sad bunch of people because we believe a fairy-tale. Whatever exactly Paul saw on the road to Damascus (we know it included a light and a voice) convinced him of this fact, so that he tells doubting Corinthians that there are still people alive who met the resurrected Jesus and they can ask them what/who they saw./met.
And the fact that Paul quotes that short credal statement in I Corinthians chapter 15 is significant because that creed has been dated to three-five years after Jesus’ crucifixion. What this demonstrates is that belief in Jesus’ resurrection began very early rather than very late.
Pax.
Lee.
So basically, you are saying that as long as a story adheres to a person’s perception of what that person might have said or done it doesn’t matter if it really happened?
What is your (and Joel’s) opinion of the Synoptic Problem? I don’t adhere to the strict 2 source hypothesis and I’ve read many variations. My point is that it seems that most scholars would not agree with “the accounts of the resurrection in the four gospels read exactly like accounts of something truly bizarre written by astonished people who don’t know what to make of it all and haven’t had time to process any of it and reflect on it.” It seems rather obvious that someone copied someone and some of the stories were altered and embellished to fit specific audiences. You continue to make it sound like the original 11 disciples (minus Judas) were cub reporters on the scene of an accident. These simple fishermen most likely couldn’t read or write Greek. I don’t know how you keep defending that position.
Where exactly does Paul say that it was a physical bodily resurrection, specifically the same body he died with? I see 1 Cor 15:44 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. I see verse 50 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,
I would love to see where Paul states that Jesus was raised in the same physical body; nail holes, hole in the side and all and appeared to him and all these other people.
Jim, what matters is whether Jesus was literally bodily resurrected or not. How many women showed up at the tomb or whether or not there was an earthquake prior to his resurrection isn’t really that important. The peripheral details of what color the cars were, which one was a compact and which a full-sized, how many times the red one flipped as opposed to the red one, aren’t as important as the fact that a wreck occurred.
And my point about the gospels’ resurrection accounts is that they *aren’t* edited as other parts of the gospels are. They read as a series of bizarre occurrences none of Jesus’ disciples was ready for let alone expected. So if they’re fabrications why didn’t the four gospel authors edit them to smooth out all the rough edges, and then connect the dots to OT prophecies? Why present the disciples as clueless that Jesus was about to die and be raised three days later? Why present all of the pre-Easter disciples save John and the women as cowards who run away after he’s arrested? And as I keep pointing out, why in the world would they invent stories of *women* being the first witnesses to the resurrection when everybody in that culture knew that to have women that heavily involved would render the stories just so much nonsense? If the disciples were tailoring the resurrection accounts to specific audiences in order to make them more believable to those 1st century groups they did a really *bad* job of it.
I’m aware of the so-called “synoptic problem” (David L. Dungan’s *A History of the Synoptic Problem* is one great book on the subject). The early Church was debating the synoptic difficulties (such as the multiple endings of Mark) 1700 years ago. I have said that it’s obvious to me that many of the NT gospel accounts have been edited; that neither surprises me nor worries me. So no, I don’t believe the disciples/apostle were “curb” reporters. That being said, after twenty years of study I don’t think the disciples simply made up the accounts in the gospels. Hearkening back to an article by Prof. Darrell Bock from the 1995 collection of essays *Jesus Under Fire,* titled “The Words of Jesus in the Gospels: Live, Jive or Memorex?” the gospels often present Jesus’ *ipsissima vox* (his very voice) rather than his *ipsissima verba* (his very words). In other words, the Sermon on the Mount, for example, in Matthew’s gospels, presents the gist, a summary, of what Jesus said rather than his precise words (which likely stretched over several hours of verbal teaching hence would take up several chapters of the gospel). As a believer that doesn’t bother me in the least because, as I said above, nowhere does scripture itself insist that all of it must be read/interpreted literally. Reading scripture through a fundamentalist lens is our problem, not scripture’s problem.
As I said above, the resurrection accounts don’t display the kind of editing that, say, the cleansing of the Temple does. Th texts in the gospels which recount this episode are obviously edited and structured in such a way as to make a point, actually several points. As Dr. Anderson said, whether the cleansing happened at the end of Jesus’ ministry (the synoptics) or the beginning (John) isn’t as important as *that it happened.*
As for the literacy of the disciples (Matthew), at least one was a former tax collector, thus would be literate, possibly in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek *and* Latin. As for the others, we can’t say with certainty. Jesus himself likely spoke/read Greek; he was at least literate enough to read the Hebrew of the Isaiah scroll in the Luke 4 synagogue account, although in Luke’s gospel Jesus on a handful of occasions speaks Greek.
As for I Corinthians 15:44, the GK word translated “flesh and blood” is *sarx,* which refers to the natural, fallen, unregenerate state of human beings, and not to a human body, which would be the word *soma.*
And when the apostle refers to “natural” and “spiritual” bodies the words he uses are *psychikon*, which is translated as “natural,” and *pneumatikon,* which is translated as “spiritual.” These are poor translation choices. As NT Wright in his *The Resurrection of the Son of God* explains:
“There is, of course, no question there of ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ as appropriate translations. Nor would those words, with the connotations they normally have today, be appropriate at [I Cor.] 3.1, where Paul declares that he could not consider the Corinthians as “pneumatikoi,” but merely as “sarkinoi,” or perhaps “sarkikoi.” The words clearly refer to matters quite other than whether the people concerned are ‘physical’; clearly they are, and the question is rather to do with whether they are indwelt, guided and made wise by the creator’s Spirit, or whether they are living at the level of life common to all corruptible creation (“sarkinos”). So, too, when Paul discusses “pneumatika” in chapter 12, these ‘spiritual gifts’ are certainly not ‘spiritual’ in the sense of ‘non-physical,’ but involve in most cases the operation of the Spirit precisely on aspects of one’s physicality, whether through gifts of inspired speech, healing or whatever. They are things which, though operating within the human body and life, enable that body and life to do things which would otherwise be impossible. . . . ” (pp. 348-351)
The Roman Catholic *Jerusalem Bible* gets I Corinthians 15:544 right:
“If the SOUL has its own EMBODIMENT, so does the SPIRIT have its own EMBODIMENT. The first man, Adam, as scripture says, became a LIVING SOUL; but the last Adam has become a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT. That is, the first one with the SOUL, not the SPIRIT, and after that, the one with the SPIRIT.”
Besides which, Paul is Jewish, more specifically a former Pharisee for whom a “spiritual,” disembodied resurrection would’ve been a contradiction in terms, thus would’ve made no sense.
Any time Paul wishes to denote sinful human nature he uses *sarx* and any time he wishes to denote a physical body he uses *soma,* as in Romans 8:11. In Romans 8:11 Paul plainly says that the Spirit “will give life to your *mortal bodies*” and in verse 23: “Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the *redemption of our bodies.*”
In I Corinthians 15 Paul ties our bodily resurrection to Jesus’ bodily resurrection. If Jesus wasn’t resurrected, nobody else will be, either, he says.
Pax.
Lee.
Jim,
Well I don’t see the “Synoptic Problem” as a real problem. Basically, the way I see it is that the stories and accounts of Jesus ministry years, crucifixion and resurrection were being communicated from the very beginning–probably sometimes orally, and hey, I’m sure that people wrote things down. Mark is considered the earliest of the four gospels, dated to around 65-70 AD. So, I think the author of Mark put those accounts and stories together in his particular storyline. Matthew clearly takes Mark and his entire basic storyline, and then simply elaborates on it and adds a few more stories. Luke takes a lot of Mark’s material, but then along with other material, crafts his own storyline. John is unique altogether.
Despite was some scholars say about the “Q” and “M” and “L” “documents”–I think such characterization goes to far. Both Matthew and Luke used Mark, incorporated other material (we do NOT know of any Q, M, or L “document”).
As far as the resurrection accounts go, they all pretty much agree in all the main details–that’s the important thing. Again, each author is shaping things with a certain about of artistic license. Luke has Jesus tell the disciples to stay in Jerusalem, because Luke-Acts has a specific storyline. Luke begins the Church and goes in concentric circles out to the known world–hence Acts 1:8 is like the thesis statement. Matthew, though, has Jesus tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee–he’s not telling the larger account of the early Church, so he just basically brings things full circle: Jesus started his ministry in Galilee, and Matthew’s story ends there.
And then if you want to do a little bit of speculation, both COULD be true. Immediately after Passover, the disciples could have very easily gone back to Galilee, and then returned to Jerusalem for Pentecost–it’s not that hard. Jews did that all the time.
As for the specifics of the concept of resurrection, the Pharisaic Jewish concept of “resurrection” MEANT the physical raising of the formerly dead body into a new kind of life–hence the same, yet transformed body. Therefore, since Paul was a Pharisee, it is simply inconceivable that he would say “Jesus was resurrected” and NOT mean that very thing.
Finally, in regards to authorship–yes, they are “anonymous,” in that the author isn’t named in the actual document. But Church tradition from the mid-second century says it was Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. First, both Mark and John are written in VERY grade school level Greek. In any case, I believe Mark was a Hellenistic Jew, and thus probably knew Greek; Luke was a Gentile convert, and thus knew Greek; Matthew, being a tax-collector, would have known Greek. And so, even though I’m not convinced that Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were the ACTUAL authors, the “not knowing Greek” argument is weak.
I think Matthew’s authorship would be the biggest question for me. I think Luke wrote Luke-Acts, and I don’t see how it be hard to think that Mark wrote Mark–according to tradition, Mark really got in information from Peter, and so it isn’t surprising (for example) that in Mark the disciple who cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest isn’t named, but in the other gospels we’re told it was Peter. I could see why Peter would tell Mark, “Oh, and then one of the disciples cut off the ear…let’s not name names!” lol
My whole point about Paul and the bodily resurrection was that the Gospels, specifically John, state that Jesus was resurrected into his old, flawed, damaged body. That completely contradicts what Paul writes about the resurrected body. Whether he believes it to be physical or spiritual is a secondary argument.
As far as the Synoptic Problem, I believe it can be demonstrated that there was a lot of editing and changes made as the Gospels grew more complex. And I don’t think those changes were because of eyewitness testimony. They were deliberately made to speak from a specific viewpoint, target a specific audience or “clean-up” a previous story to make it more Christ-like.
It is interesting how both of you are so quick to dismiss “peripheral details” as unimportant and could be fiction but the important pieces are accepted as fact without question.
The devil they say is in the details.
Lee, you seem to think that the resurrection stories are all individual eyewitness accounts that have not been edited. But even a cursory glance at the accounts seems to refute that belief.
The original ending of Mark, who according to tradition is transcribing stories directly from Peter, has the women going specifically to anoint a body that has been in the tomb for 3 days which doesn’t make any sense and then encounter a young man in white robes who tells them that Jesus will be in Galilee waiting for them. The women are afraid and tell no one (which kind of refutes the women as eyewitnesses argument). Matthew comes along and all of a sudden we have Roman guards and violent earthquakes. An angel comes down where his ‘appearance was like lightening’ the guards become ‘like dead men’. The women are told about Galilee and as they run to tell the disciples they actually meet Jesus himself and he confirms the meeting in Galilee, the disciples do not run to the tomb and to top it off somehow Matthew finds out that the guards were bribed to not tell anyone what had happened. How did he find out? Luke comes along and now there are 2 men in clothes that ‘gleamed like lightening’, the women go and tell the others who don’t believe them except Peter who runs to the tomb and finds it empty (strange this isn’t in Mark) and then they meet Jesus in Jerusalem, they never make it to Galilee. John comes along; no young man or angel(s), Mary Magdalene is there alone I suppose because she is grieving since Jesus’ body was already prepared after his death. She tells the others, Peter and another disciple come running (again, not in Mark?) and they find just the strips. Jesus appears to Mary alone and she doesn’t recognize him (odd how this differs from Matt) finally he speaks her name, she recognizes him and he tells her not to touch him (but Thomas can touch him a few verses later? Odd) Then he appears to the Disciples in Jerusalem, this is only version that has them hiding in fear, no mention of Galilee.
Both of you have repeatedly said that the resurrection stories ‘display no editing of any kind’, ‘are not edited in same way as other stories might be’ and ‘agree on the main details which is the most important thing’. Really?
I left Christianity not for just one big reason, it was more of a death from a thousand cuts. YEC, having to constantly rationalize the divine hiddenness of God, coming up with ‘just so’ reasons for apparent contradictions in the Bible, the perceived unfairness of an eternal Hell, judging people for their lifestyle choices and on and on. Once I made the transition, and it was about a 2-3 year transition, it was like an enormous weight off of my shoulders. I have no more fear of asking questions or doubting and most importantly, no fear of eternal torture. It’s been quite liberating. And my current beliefs are continually reinforced when I get into discussions like this, seeing Christians contort themselves into pretzels trying to explain all of the discrepancies.
I don’t have all the answers and it’s possible I am completely wrong but I know I couldn’t accept (or dismiss) all the inconsistencies found throughout the Bible (don’t get me started on the Birth narratives). I applaud people who can, who find comfort and hope in the Bible and choose not to get caught up in the details. I’m a details guy, I do believe that there are certain personality types that can’t ignore the details and just accept whatever somebody tells them without questioning. I had too many questions and a not a lot of good answers.
Anyway, thanks for the conversations and Joel for the content, I may pipe up again in the comments sometime.
Jim
As for the two-source theory I have no real problem with it per se but am not fully convinced. Nobody’s ever discovered an original of “Q” yet. The whole thing is hypothetical.
No other names in antiquity were ever put forward for the authorship of the gospels, not even by early 2nd century heretics like Marcion, Basilides or Valentinus. Everyone, even the earliest heretics, took for granted that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them. Besides which, ancient scrolls often had tags attached, which gave the author’s name. Over time, assuming they originally had them too, these tags could’ve been lost from the NT gospels. Had the authorship of the gospels really been anonymous, according to Prof. Timothy Paul Jones:
“Most likely, each church would’ve connected a different author with each Gospel. Churches in Asia Minor might have ascribed a Gospel to the Apostle Andrew, for example, while churches in Judea might have connected the same Gospel with Thaddeus or James or Jude.
“But what would be the likelihood that every group of Christians in the Roman Empire would come up with Mark’s name to describe the shortest Gospel or that everyone would name Matthew as the author of the Gospel that begins with a genealogy? And what’s the probability of every church in the Roman Empire choosing Luke as the writer of the Gospel that bears his name or selecting John’s name for the last of the New Testament Gospels? In mathematical terms, the answer would be pretty close to zero. In practical terms, the answer is, it ain’t gonna happen, baby.” (Timothy Paul Jones, *Conspiracies and the Cross,* pp. 101-102)
And by ca. 90-100 AD, early Christian writers like the author of I Clement were quoting from the canonical NT, including the gospels, as authoritative. For example, Clement quotes or alludes to: Titus, I Peter, Hebrews, Romans, I Cor., James, Matthew, and Luke.
In 110 AD, the martyr bishop Ignatius of Antioch quotes or alludes to: John, James, Acts, Galatians, I and II Timothy, II Thessalonians, Philippians, Matthew, Romans, Ephesians, Luke, I and II Cor., and possibly Revelation.
All of that being said, at the end of the day it doesn’t even really matter whether the gospels are really anonymous or not. What matters is their *content.* And *that* has been persuasively shown by numerous textual scholars to be reliable.
Pax.
Lee.
Jim, you donm’t have to reply to this (or either of my other two posts above) but just think about it.
As a public historian I, too, am a “details guy.” I like to have specifics for the who, what, when, where and why. More times than I can count I’ve howled in frustration when a historical source, in many cases the *only* historical source for a particular event, is light on the details. Yet as a historian I understand the way written historical sources work. They don’t always tell us everything *we* wanna know. In many cases they assume that their original audience knows the details (this is one reason why Paul doesn’t rehash all the Jesus material he knows but only goes back over the parts his churches were having problems with in the specific letters addressed to them). In other cases an author will record details that he and his initial audience would find compelling or important but that later generations of readers don’t. It’s terribly annoying, but it’s simply the nature of the game.
You hafta remember that the gospels were not written (in the first instance) to convince 21st century skeptics and atheists to sign on board to the Jesus Movement. No, they were originally written to mid-late 1st century AD Jewish and Greco-Roman Christians to strengthen their faith and then to encourage non-Christians to believe. As such they include the kinds of evidence that ancients would find compelling. That’s one reason the gospels say extremely little about Jesus’ childhood and formative years–the ancients didn’t feel that a person’s formative years played a significant role in defining who they would grow up to be. However the ancients *did* believe that the manner of a person’s death was extremely important in assessing their character, which is why the gospels spend so much ink discussing Jesus’ arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection. Thus expecting the gospels to answer all (or even most) of the objections modern skeptics raise is unrealistic and asking them to something they were never even designed to do.
I’m afraid you’re missing the forest because your;e unduly worrying about each individual tree..
Of course there are discrepancies. I’d be amazed if there werren’t. The idea of a totally “inerrant” Bible, free of any discrepancies and which is essentially perfect, isn’t itself biblical, nor was such ever asserted by any Christians until about 100 years ago. As I said, as early as the mid-2nd century the church fathers were discussing the handful of serious various textual variants in the gospels.
Yet, again, the existence of discrepancies isn’t proof that nothing really happened. If three people witnessed the same wreck, one might insist that a 1998 blue Ford pulled out in Front of a red Saturn while another witness might state that the Ford was actually more green than blue, with a third arguing that it wasn’t a blue 1998 Ford at all but a blue 2000 Ford. Their disagreement on the details doesn’t alter the fact they all saw the same wreck. Disagreements as to the precise make/model/color of the cars wouldn’t invalidate the main fact that a blue (or bluish-green) Ford pulled out in front of a red Saturn to cause a wreck.
Medieval chronicles, say for an important battle like Crécy in 1346, are often at variance; just because the French chronicler Froissart says the French had 100,000 troops and French chronicler Jean Le Bel insists the number was 132,000 doesn’t mean that no battle actually occurred. You have to understand the way medieval chroniclers often exaggerated such figures for propaganda purposes. What you *shouldn’t* do is therefore conclude that because a chronicler embellished his battle stats that that invalidates everything he/she wrote about the battle.
You’re asking the gospels to agree one hundred percent in every detail. That’s an unrealistic demand. If the gospels *did* harmonize that closely skeptics would be accusing them of collusion, of getting together and cooking up a story which agreed down to the smallest detail; if two or more witnesses in a trial harmonize to that degree their testimony then becomes suspect. No, you *want* a certain amount of difference in the eyewitness testimony. So how many women came to the tomb and which disciples got there first, or whether they immediately went to Galilee or Jerusalem or went home, isn’t nearly as important as the fact that they *all* insist that Jesus was literally bodily resurrected. THAT’S the game-changer. They can disagree all day long about which women showed up and I don’t care (as I’ve said the fact they have *any* women show up argues strongly for the truth of the stories!) but if one gospel says Jesus was still dead and in his tomb 50 days later, then we’ve got a real problem!
You argue that the resurrection accounts are edited yet then insist that they display irreconcilable differences. So which is it? If the resurrection accounts really *were* edited, why are there all of those discrepancies? Why not smooth them out so that they all agreed in every detail? And why don’t we find the kind of commentary on the resurrection, explaining it for the reader, which ties it into OT prophecy the way we do the entry into Jerusalem, the cleansing of the Temple or other significant episodes in the life of Jesus?
If they’re edited whoever edited them did a poor job.
All of the above being said, the gospels do harmonize on the essentials; they do closely resemble other ancient Greco-Roman biographies; they do read to me like eyewitness accounts (certainly they get the geography, Jewish customs, officials of 1st century Palestine right on the money).
Pax vobiscum.
Lee.
I’ll make a short response.
Is it an unrealistic demand that documents supposedly “God-breathed” should have few issues?
1 Peter 1 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Of course normal historical documents are going to have issues. They’re written by fallible men. Unless you’re saying that none of the Gospels were actually God inspired then I will reduce my unrealistic expectations.
You should do some more reading of the formation of the NT canon, pretty interesting stuff. There actually were a number of Infancy gospels that were commented on by early Church Fathers and very popular. There actually was an attempt to create one harmonized edited version of the Gospels, it was called the Diatessaron created by Tatian.
The authors of the canonical Gospels were not trying to harmonize with other Gospels, they were trying to tell the stories from their POV. It was only hundreds of years later when they were officially made part of the canon and dozens of other Gospels were left out.
I have to disagree with your take on Paul, which I believe many Bible scholars do as well, he would have used quite a few of the Jesus stories if he knew about them. That’s one of the reasons the Gospels are dated late, Paul doesn’t reference any of the stories.
James, I think we have a disagreement about how to define “God-breathed.” For nearly 1900 years the Church, while believing the NT to be inspired nevertheless didn’t take inspiration to mean what you seem to want it to mean. For while the *message* of scripture is held to be God-breathed, it was still written down by fallible mortal men. The Holy Spirit didn’t squash each author’s distinctive voice and/or writing style. “God-breathed” thus doesn’t necessarily = “infallible.”
What matters ultimately is whether Jesus of Nazareth was bodily raised from the dead, not whether we have an inerrant NT. If that’s true whether the NT is 100% totally infallible is really irrelevant.
Obviously the gospels weren’t trying to harmonize the way Tatian was. Equally obviously they’re telling the same stories from different POVs. That’s my whole point. That being said, while each gospel is obviosuly different they each harmonize in the essential story they tell.
And BTW, the gospels weren’t canonized “hundreds of years later,” They were being quoted as authoritative by ca. 90-110 AD (I Clement, Ignatius, etc.) and by as early as ca. 175-200 AD there was a nearly complete NT canon. You’ve no doubt heard of the Muratorian Canon Fragment?
Certainly Paul’s letters were considered canonical by the mid-60s AD if we take the traditional dating of the Petrine letters, 110 if we take the view of some modern textual critics. II Peter 3:16 says:
“So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the OTHER SCRIPTURES.”
Even assuming II Peter was only written ca. 110 AD it refers to Paul’s letters as “scriptures,” which is still pretty early for any of the NT texts to have been considered sacred scripture considering the majority consensus remains that most of the NT texts were written by 100 AD.
Those “dozens of other gospels” were “left out” because they didn’t fit the criteria: they were all written too late (125-150 AD at the earliest), were not written by apostles (Matthew) or disciples of apostles (Mark); they didn’t teach orthodox doctrine; and they weren’t universally recognized by all churches everywhere. For example the *Shepherd of Hermas* was wildly popular, esp. in the 2nd c. however it was rejected as canonical because it was written in the 2nd c. by the brother of the Bishop of Rome.Hence it didn’t meet two of the criteria of canonicity. Actually the kinds of infancy gospels you mentioned above were never contenders for canonization anyway because everyone knew they were too late, truly anonymous, and often taught questionable doctrine.
Paul doesn’t reference all of the Jesus stories he undoubtedly knew because he had no reason to. Paul was writing letters to specific churches to trouble-shoot specific problems; he wasn’t writing gospels. For him to rehash everything he’d already taught the Corinthians, for example, about Jesus would be redundant. And a close examination of Paul shows much more Jesus material than might at first glance be noticed.
Pax.
Lee.