This is the continuation of the article: ‘Did Jesus exist?’
In this article we move from the historicity of Jesus into the question of the reliability of the Christians Gospels. The subject area is so vast that I can only really present a skim of the issues, and leave it to the list of recommended works at the end. Although this is still apologetics, I will be as fair as I can be by presenting the ‘contra’ first.
Form Criticism
In 1906, Herman Gunkel imported from the study of folklore the idea that the text of the Old Testament may have identifiable stylistic emphases (e.g. myth, legend, historical narrative); it wasn’t long before this was applied to the text of the Gospels, especially by the likes of Rudolf Bultmann (died 1976, and part of the Existentialist school in theology), and the concept of the ‘life situation’ (German: sitz im leben) which became a very dominant force in understanding how the Gospels came together. By this is meant the situation which created the need to have the stories as recorded in the Gospels.
Form Criticism was also combined with the interests of David Strauss (died 1874) who pioneered the first quest for the ‘Historical Jesus’ – i.e. the man of history whom the disciples turned into the so-called ‘Christ of Faith’, the one we find in the Gospels. The Historical Jesus is said to be hidden under the accretion of ‘miraculous’ happenings which were made up to fulfil the Messianic expectations of the first century period.
What does this mean?
Quite simply, this means that the commonly held understanding of the Gospels as a set of stories bearing no resemblance to the person (i.e. Jesus) who generated them, and being made up out of the oral traditions which were generated within the Church, actually stems from these highly influential theologians. Their theories were the dominant force in Gospel studies for most of the 20th Century.
For Form Criticism (as one of the many ‘critical’ ways of understanding the Gospels) to be accurate, this means that the Gospels all have to be written in the Second Century CE, or later.
The Benefits of Form Criticism
Form Criticism brought to Gospel studies, particularly the Synoptics (Greek: ‘seeing together’, and referring to Matthew, Mark and Luke), the understanding that there has to have been a period of Oral Tradition, before the Gospels, as we now have them, were written. The fact that many of the Gospel narratives still bear the hallmarks of this oral transmission is unmistakeable. In particular, the Passion Narrative (the narrative beginning with the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and detailing the last week of his life) is universally recognised as having been a continuous unit before the Gospels were written.
Even within the New Testament, the letters of Paul bear witness to this sort of oral transmission. The most obvious example being:
‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…’ (1 Corinthians, Chapter 15, verse 3)
The highlighted section, in the original Greek, bears all the markers of a formulaic statement indicating the formal reception and transmission of authoritative teaching from the acknowledged keepers of those traditions to others, who are recognised as being able to keep and pass on these traditions in a trustworthy manner (i.e. accurately!). This letter was written approximately 55 CE.
The Problem with Form Criticism
Form Criticism, originally being the study of folklore, presupposes a lengthy period of time from the original stories to their current forms, and normally indicates a possible set of family connections between broadly similar stories. This lengthy period is normally of the order of centuries, and it has indeed given us some very strong variants in the same story.
But, this length of time, even by the most liberal dating of the written Gospels, just doesn’t exist between the end of Jesus’ life (c. 33 CE), and the writing of the Gospels.
Scholarly opinion is generally agreed on the following dates for the Gospels:
- Mark about 60 CE;
- Luke about 70 CE;
- Matthew about 80 CE;
- John about 90 CE;
Matthew and Luke are seen to be heavily dependent on Mark, and incorporate material that Mark did not use; John is regarded as being independent of the other three Gospels.
So, let’s get to it…
What are the Gospels?
The Gospels are what are recognised as first century bioi (i.e. biographies). However, first century bioi weren’t biographies as we understand them.
In the first instance, they involved only recording the most significant events/teachings of the person they were about, and the interpretation of them (as appropriate) to help in understanding why these were significant.
So, in the Synoptics, we have precious little about Jesus’ birth, almost nothing about the years between the age of 2, and the age of 30, a significant amount of the almost 3 years up to the last week of his life, and then a huge amount about the last week of his life. This tells us just what the authors thought was important.
But bioi also had the twofold task of only using the most reliable sources, and, in particular, eyewitnesses where possible. Bioi also had the convention of being anonymous, with literary clues as to who wrote the bioi left within the text, and, possibly, reinforced by a ‘tag’ on the spine of the book (if they were using Codex form), or dangling from the handles of the scrolls.
So, yes, that means that the Gospels are anonymous, and should correctly be listed as: The Gospel according to . . . in the Greek New Testament, used for academia, this is exactly how the Greek reads: e.g., kata (according to) Markon (Mark).
All the earliest traditions and writers list the names associated with the Gospels, and there are no rival claimants within the sources we have (the other so-called Gospels, mostly from the Nag Hammadi library, would require a separate article).
But how do we know the Gospels were written so early?
This is answered by stepping into what is called textual evidence, i.e. what scrolls/codices/parchments do we have?
Let’s begin with an excursus. The best way to understand why I, and others, are convinced of the reliability of the Gospel text is to begin by looking at the textual evidence for other historical books of a comparable age.
Let’s take the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar. If from the hand of Caesar, then it has to have been written prior to 15th March 44 BCE – please tell me you don’t have to ask why! 🙂 For this work we have 10 extant copies, with the earliest copy dating to approx. 900 CE. No sane historian doubts the veracity of this text.
For the letters of Pliny the Younger (completed c. 113 CE, see my last article) we have 7 copies, with the earliest copy being dated to approx. 850 CE. Again, the veracity of this text is not doubted.
Seutonius’ Lives of the Caesars (c. 120 CE): we have 8 extant copies, with the earliest being dated to approx. 950 CE. Veracity accepted.
I could go on, but I hope I have said enough.
When we turn to the Gospels, one might expect a similar story. But no, this is not the case.
Of the Greek text alone, we have in excess of 5,300 copies, with the earliest being dated to approx. 125 CE. When the Latin translation of Jerome (died 420 CE, his translation is called The Vulgate) is added, that includes another 10,000 copies. In total we have in excess of 24,000 copies of the text (or fragments thereof) in various languages. And if all these were to be lost, then just from the earliest Christian writers (i.e. those of the second and third centuries CE) we could reconstruct over 95% of the New Testament text.
Conclusion of a number of people: veracity doubted.
Sorry, folks, but that doesn’t sound logical to me. You can disagree with me, of course, but you need to consider why.
But are they eyewitness accounts?
Good question. Let’s return to bioi. Although they were anonymous, there was the convention of the inclusio. This was a way of bracketing information so as to indicate the eyewitness source behind the text. Let’s take Mark’s Gospel.
From the earliest traditions, Mark’s Gospel was credited as being from the testimony (or preaching) of Peter. Is there anything to back this up? Yes.
In total, Peter is mentioned 26 times (as either Simon or Peter) in the text, far more than any other disciple. Combine this with the idea of the bracketing inclusio – Peter is the first disciple mentioned (chapter 1 verse 16) and the last one (in the penultimate verse of the entire Gospel (chapter 16 verse 7 [the debates around the extended ending to Mark are not needed here]) – and this is highly significant evidence for Peter as the source of the majority of the information in this Gospel alone.
In Luke, we find that this same convention indicates that the eyewitnesses are those of the women in Jesus’ party of disciples (in addition to using Mark), and this is extremely significant given the culture of the period. Why? Because, like it or not, women were considered little better than scum in that time and place. To give any credence to a woman’s testimony would have been laughable, as they were invalid as witnesses in a court of law due to the fact of their being a woman!
So, to let women be indicated as a source of information, and to have the earliest account of Jesus’ resurrection be that of him appearing to women, would have been the height of stupidity. The tendency in the other, later, so-called Gospels is to denigrate the role of women, and one of them pictures Jesus telling Mary Magdalene that in order to be saved she has to become male.
The same goes for the shepherds in the Gospel of Luke. Shepherds, although men, were little better than women when it came to trustworthiness or veracity in the eyes of the Law.
What else is there?
Far too much for me to go into, and I’ve already exceeded the word limit I set myself.
Luke and its companion volume, Acts, forms over 25% of the New Testament, and there are many, many archaeological studies which indicate the careful nature with which he recorded the events he reports – exactly as he says in the opening verses of each book.
There are also the comparative anthropological studies regarding not only the way in which Oral History works, but also how people of the Palestinian area might understand Jesus’ sayings and parables today, and how that has influenced our understanding of what Jesus is doing. And the book, listed below, by Richard Baukham is the first to fully utilise the psychological studies into the nature and functioning of memory, and its reliability.
So, I, personally, have no doubt as to the veracity of the text of the Gospels. If you have stayed with me over two articles (I thank you once again, and apologise if I got a little preachy in this one) and still remain unconvinced, well, that’s fine by me. But if you do want to take it further, then do look up the books listed below. I promise my next article (on the Genesis creation narrative, as recorded in Genesis chapter 1 through to chapter 2 verse 4) will not be of the same apologetic nature of these two.
Honest :).
Further reading:
Baukham, R. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness testimony (2006) – now retired from lecturing in St. Andrew’s, but holding the post of Senior Scholar in Residence at Ridley Hall, Cambridge where I had the privilege of being lectured by him, and debating with him in the post-grad discussion group. An extremely highly recommended read.
Metzger, B. Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism (1963) – a leading expert in the Greek of the New Testament. Now dead, but was the chair of the translation committee which produced the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The standard text for the Church of England, and for all reputable academic studies of the Bible.
Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? (1964) Now dead, but a world renowned British Scholar in both the Biblical text (particularly the New Testament), and early Church History (up to 500 AD). Many of his commentaries on the Greek text of the New Testament are required and standard at degree level.
Strobel, L. The Case for Christ (1998) – a very non-academic book of a series of interviews of leading academics in America, each an expert in their own field. It does have some weaknesses in it.
RevDMac is an Anglican Priest who guest-writes for CoolReligion. He’s a long-time friend of UbiquitousRat but, more significantly, a very talented theologian who manages to put complex stuff into simple enough terms that even the Rat can understand them. 😉
Pingback: Did Jesus Exist?
I have been chastised by the RevD so here I am to get some more. To quote the fella:
“revdmac says:
June 26, 2011 at 3:33 pm
@ FH:
hi mate, was a little surprised to find a response here instead of on the article itself. But feel the need to offer a clarification anyway.
The point of textual criticism (which is a discipline borrowed from historians) is to establish how accurately the text has been transmitted over the generations from the autograph (i.e. the original). In so doing the issue is not the truthfulness of the content, but whether or not the text has suffered from transmissional errors or, in some cases, deliberate corruption.
The point being is that if just 7 – 10 copies of a text are sufficient to say that these are the same as the original text, then there can be little doubt of the transmissional accuracy of the Gospels given the sheer wealth of textual evidence available. (This deals with the issue of ‘Chinese whispers’ often cited as a justification for saying that the Gospels have been changed over time.) Therefore if the Gospel text is not accurate, then how can we be sure of the veracity of the text of the other texts cited?
That there differences in the Gospel text is acknowledged. examples include:
Bethsaida, and Bethzatha for the same place.
a scribal error which alters a word completely just by inserting one letter, so that Jesus is saying remove the fruit from your own eye, instead of the plank!
A more serious one being the story of the woman caught in adultery. Very few doubt that it is a story associated with the ministry of Jesus, but where should it be? It floats around in the various texts of John’s Gospel, and all competent translations acknowledge it.
So, I have to say that your analogy is, at best, off the mark. But, here is a serious thing to think about: if these texts weren’t ‘faith-based’ would there be an issue in accepting them? More importantly, as all ancient documents of the same period, and for hundreds of years around them, are written with a definite bias, why don’t we just write them all off as irrelevant to providing grist for the historian’s mill? Some of these texts are just as faith based if not more so, and definitely have the bias of being written to please the patron for whom they are written. Let’s not forget that Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English people is one of a very few sources which we have for the period of which he writes. Should we just write it off and put ‘Here be Dragons’ in history books from this point on?
My article was not about converting people to the truth of the content of the texts (although apologetics are often the very preliminary stages in that process), but about putting the evidence for the historicity of Jesus at a very high level, especially against the charge that there is no evidence that Jesus existed.
I’m sorry that you didn’t feel able to comment on the actual article itself, and had been quite disappointed that you hadn’t as I value your comments and insights.
D”
OK there is a very serious point in here which, as a trainee historian, I will try to address, especially as my theology is almost non-existent.
Any historian worth his salt will not defend the absolute truth of a document, but the accuracy of their interpretation. Historians have moved on from the dry, absolute scientific approach to history from von Ranke’s day because any historian knows that one piece of recovered evidence could wreck a reputation. Indeed one slight mistake of verifying the hoax Hitler Diaries under intense pressure from a representative of one of his funders, almost totally destroyed Trevor-Roper’s distinguished and accredited career. The hardcore academic research of history is a long cry from history lessons of school, and historians accept a fact as a verified chronological event interpreted through the prism of a analytical approach. So all history is then written with a bias which has to be identified to understand the argument presented, and it is further complicated with unconscious time based comparisons.
As a historian I would not dismiss the Gospels as a source of historical data just because it is a document of faith; that would be unprofessional. That there are points within the Gospels which can be verified as chronological events is a given. It also appears that a man fitting Jesus’ description existed. No problems accepting that based on the evidence supplied. Indeed they could be great biographies of an amazing philosopher, up there with the best. But it doesn’t confirm that Jesus is the son of god.
Question then comes when we apply the filter of interpretation. As documents of faith, outlining the the life and teachings of the son of a supernatural being this is interpreted through the filter of a Christian perspective, and that is the only confirming filter. I understand that the Qu’ran comes close but doesn’t accept Jesus as a son of god, only a prophet. There we have the problem. The interpretation, especially over the growth of the Christian church, has now got to a point where it has gone from a biography, to a document of absolute certainty to something which can be interpreted at will; we even know that the Bible has had several incarnations that have been, shall we say, politically edited.
So what we cannot accept at this time, outside of a religious context, is that the Bible, and in this case the Gospels, are a divinely inspired piece of writing that is accurate enough to be accepted at face value, because we have evidence of interpretation, tampering and political machinations throughout the history of Christianity Therefore you can question whether Jesus was the son of god or just an amazing demagogue; you can question whether he walked on water or was a good illusionist; you can question whether he fed the audience with what amounts to a snack for me, or whether he got in local caterers who’s trading symbol was 5 fishes and 2 loaves. I think I got that last bit right.
What is frustrating for any historian is a lack of documentary evidence from a variety of sources. We use Caesar’s Gallic Wars as a historical document understanding well that it was also a piece of political propaganda and had an eye on the future; therefore its words have to be taken carefully and not fanatically and this process can be applied to almost every written document. The older it gets or the more personal it is (the majority of all ancient documents), the more impossible it gets to verify beyond doubt.
So let’s look at my example. If you have seen the Guardian’s CiF comments thread you would see a very biased and schizophrenic view of British society and the British interpretation of the world; to bring it closer to the Gospels, the same can be said of the Sun. If, in 2000 years, this is all historians have to judge or society, the hope will be that popularity will not be taken as historical accuracy or even chronological evidence. The hope will be that it is recognised that even this is merely an interpretation of what actually happened and as such is biased and inaccurate. Because the Gospels are articles of a faith, to compare them to today’s media may seem inappropriate; but isn’t this why so many copies of the gospels were made? A form of media to drive a message home to the literate classes who could then spread that message to others? In this case, they are not that far different from a newspaper campaign, a party political broadcast or a tv advert. Personally I think the Gospels are far more acceptable.
This is not meant to undermine or discredit your article; far from it. It is hoped that this can give people another tool with which to view the whole religious thing. Your’s is an amazingly smooth article compared to this clunky, noisy and bumbling reply but hopefully anyone of faith can use some of the points I have made to go back and really test the Gospels’ words for themselves; and for those with no faith it might encourage them to understand that just saying “it can’t be proven therefore it isn’t true” isn’t enough to consign the Gospels to the “Dear Deirdre” stack of literal output.
Apologies for the length.
@ FH: However, tongue-in-cheek, I think chastened is a bit strong. 😉
No need to apologise for the length. I enjoyed the read. But you now understand why I elected for two articles which only really ‘skim’ the issues. There are several things which I wish to respond to, again, very briefly.
1) definitely agree that all ancient documents have a bias. The Gospel of John is very open about its bias: Chapter 20 verse 31, “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” So far, so agreed. Which also acknowledges your other point. It is a step of faith to see Jesus as the Son of God, or to accept any form of divine inspiration in the text. The bias of each Gospel is studied and acknowledged completely: Matthew has Jesus as the new Moses, and the expected Davidic King; Luke has Jesus as the champion of the marginalised and excluded; etc. These biases are normally studied under Redaction (editing) and Narrative (structure and themes) criticism. Other disciplines from post-modern literary theory are also making in-roads. The work of Paul Ricoeur, and the Reader Response school being obvious examples. (Hey, I’m just a simple country parson 😉 )
2) Jesus and the Qur’an. First point, the Qur’an is several centuries after the Gospels, and from my Christian perspective, suffers from the same issues as the later ‘Gospels’, so-called, it either alters or adds to the preserved storyline within the 4 Canonical Gospels. E.g. the Qur’an states that Jesus did not die on the Cross, but a substitute did. By the time the Qur’an was written several variant understandings of what it meant to call Jesus God Incarnate had developed. the version which Mohammed knew was called Monophysticism. This denied the physical reality of the doctrine that Jesus is believed to be both fully divine and fully human. For a monophysite, there is only the divine nature wearing the physical like a set of clothes, and not a full reality in and of itself. (This is a very short, and poor explanation, but it’s late, and it is my busiest day, after all!!) However, the Qur’an also calls Jesus the Word of God, Just as John’s Gospel does, and so raises the question as to how Muslims understand this term, as in John’s Gospel that is a statement of Jesus’ deity. There are also various schools of Muslim Theological thought, and some would regard Jesus as more important than Mohammed, which is an exceptional statement to make.
3) The issue of several incarnations of the Bible is one I find intriguing. I have noted before that my two areas of special interest are Early Church History, and the Reformation (mainly in its Continental variety, but I am reading and studying more on the English variety as time permits). So I am fully aware of the rival Canonical lists of books which varied from region to region, and with which books were in favour in the Early Church (This was, and is a very popular exam question at A Level.). However, this does not include, in general, the 4 Gospels as conatined in the New Testament. Where there were edited varients, they normally came from people whose biases are blatantly evident, e.g. Marcion (2nd Century AD) who was so anti-Jewish that he expurgated any and all references which appeared to put Judaism in a positive light. What he left of Matthew’s Gospel is an apposite example of this. He also outright rejected the Old Testament. (It’s a shame that a number of Christians today are ‘unconcious’ Marcionites, but there you have it *sigh very deeply*.) Thankfully the extent of textual evidence makes it very clear just how much we don’t have to worry about this sort of editing and tampering.
4) Whilst the text is acceptable, the idea that rival theologies were politically tied is not disputed, nor has that habit died out. The obvious being the ‘interference’ of Constantine the Great, and the legacy of Imperial Interference which he left. A cursory read of the life of Athanasius of Alexandria (4th Century AD) shows just how true this is. Though it is in the writings of Athanasius (a Festal letter of 367 AD) that we have the earliest witness to the 27 books of the New Testament as it stands. The Reformation, of course, stands out as an entire article itself on the issues arising out of the tumultuous disputes over understanding the Bible. That Jerome mistranslated some of the Greek text to fit the nascent theology of penance is not disputed (Example: Latin Penetentia (Do penance) by no means equates to the Greek metanoia (Repent)). However as the great theological ediface of Mediaeval Catholicism was built upon it, this made the issue of interpretation and accurate Biblical text extremely important. And, rather bizarrely, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) created an Index of Forbidden Books which included the Bible in any language other than Latin, precisely because of this.
5) Very close, 5 loaves and 2 fish is the most popularly known story, but there is also the other story which has 7 loaves and a few small fish. You may be surprised to know that some schools of theology (which generally tend to reject the miraculous, and so are highly influenced by the Enlightenment, and Rudolf Bultman) would go down the catering route, and suggest that the people were shamed into sharing the lunches they hoarded. Being at the very shallow end of the Conservative end of the spectrum, I have no problem with the miraculous, so have no issue with Jesus multiplying the gift of a boy’s lunch (John 6 verses 8-9).
6) the Gospels are not propoganda documents. One of the factors which makes this clear is the number of anonymous people mentioned. If, as in the article, the dates of the writing of the Gospels are accurate, then one would expect there to be protective anonymity as the authorities were very definitely hostile to Christians. The most obvious reason for the writing of the Gospels is to preserve the testimony of those who had actually seen, and heard, Jesus. The number of extant texts is more easily explained by the interests of those who preserved the texts of the Ancient World, than any level of popularity – i.e. first Christian communities themselves, and then the Monastic Orders.
Right, I’m going to stop now. Can’t think straight anymore, and bed is calling. 😉
I am going to challenge you on your last point there RevD. We have to think about the wider context in which these documents were made, distributed and horded. In such a hostile environment any names would be as good as a pointing finger; yet the greater crime is having this information committed to media on such a (relatively) huge scale. Secrets are difficult to be kept at the best of times, if as you suggest there is so much surviving documentation at the time we have to assume two things; either early christians were a bit stupid and therefore all the names in the gospels could well be real people; or this was a deliberate thing and as such the breadth of names might be codes, pseudonyms or even something else.
I find it hard to accept that reading was as proliferate as the documentation quantities suggest (although it was almost certainly an order of magnitude more wide spread than after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire). So being the cynical old man that I am, I ask myself that if I was in a society that was under prosecution, was hounded and yet was commanded to spread the word what could you do?
You need to get influence into the circles that are the power and influence the decisions. In a post enlightenment Western Europe we identify these people as the middle classes and the intelligentsia. These sorts of people will value the written word more, especially as they can horde it, hide it and review at at leisure, something far more difficult to do with an oral tradition. The gospels are also written in the same style that Jesus taught; close and personal to the audience. Abstract concepts don’t go down well but people can identify with names, and with someone who comes from an area they think they know. Building that connecting bond is easier.
Finally, historically, we get almost nothing left from the masses, the lower classes of society. Most of our records come from those with a degree of importance so you could almost say from the petty bourgeoisie upwards. So did these gospels, so carefully horded and protected, become a symbol of original belonging, a status symbol in the new rising structural power of the Christian church, as well as a way of creating a place of worship where ever you were. Was this an attempt by land owners and landlords to hedge their bets to retain their positions in the world.
Actually I should stop there, the questions are endless. One of the joys and lows of being a trainee historian 😀
I have no interest of proving anything here to be honest (unless I have a sudden jump in prospective career direction), only to say that I don’t think that the volume of surviving copies of the gospels is a reason to affirm their accuracy. But unless we explore all the questions and disprove each one withuot recourse to faith then we have to accept that there will be a large degree of uncertainty, bias etc in these records. They are, in essence, a political biography from the founder of a movement seeking a certain form of societal structural power therefore a comparison with Tacitus or Caesar is difficult, although not inappropriate.
Hi Mate,
unfortunately, whilst I am at my desk, I am ‘shutting office’ as I am in enforced retreat for the next few days, and so don’t have the time to reply fully, and will do so after ordination part 2 (on Saturday).
What I didn’t write, of immediate importance, was that as one moves forward in time, the later the canonical Gospel, the more people lose their anonymity. So, John, the last one of the 4 written, actually names more people than Mark (the first one written), which, according to Baukham (see suggested reading) suggests is a fit with an environment increasingly distanced from the hostility of Jerusalem heirarchy, and further in time form the events recorded. This is a very brief summation of his argument which is over several pages, and contains many tables of comparative information!
See you on the other side. D 🙂
An interesting article that founders on the point the Frustrated Historian nails – that having a lot of copies of something doesn’t mean it is factually correct. If it does, in 2000 years people will be worshiping Harry Potter because of copies are in circulation.
More interesting is why we believe the, say, the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar despite only a handful of copies exist.
The answer is believability and supporting evidence.
Caesar only did things a normal (if highly talented) human could do. There is no claim of him performing miraculous acts. No magic powers. No claim of divinity. This makes his account of the Gallic Wars more believable than, say, Harry Potter. Because of this the acceptable standard of evidence is a lot lower than that needed to verify claims of super-natural powers.
Secondly, we know Caesar existed from other sources. Some, quite literally, written in stone. There is a whole web of evidence that supports the fact that Caesar existed and conquered Gaul. Not least of which is that the Roman did conquer Gaul around that time and assumed it into their territory. It is credible that Caesar was the one to do it.
Finally, we do not accept Gallic Wars as gospel (pun intended). We know it was written by Caesar (or one of his friends) and when Caesar claims to have killed 10,000 gauls we take it with a large pinch of salt and assume the number was closer to 1000.
This is different from your claim that the Gospels are a true record of fact.
Unlike Caesar, there is no direct evidence to support the fact that someone called Jesus even existed around AD 30. Let alone had magic powers or divine status.
There is also no web of evidence. Apart from a few place names and the reference to Herod there is little that links the bible with undisputed events. Unlike the conquest of the Gauls which all accept happened even if Caesar’s role can be debated. Events such as the feeding of the 5000, the star over the manger and the massacre of the innocents are pretty public events yet only the bible records them.
The claims in the gospels are fantastical and such claims need fantastically good evidence from sources other than the Gospels to support them. This is why belief is an act of faith not of reason.
Hi Guys,
a major apology for the delay in responding, but life has been hectic the last few weeks with me in sole charge of the parish for two of them.
Here are the points which I have picked out to respond to overall, as I think that they are the essence of the two responses:
from FH:
They are, in essence, a political biography from the founder of a movement seeking a certain form of societal structural power therefore a comparison with Tacitus or Caesar is difficult, although not inappropriate.
from Chris:
If it does, in 2000 years people will be worshiping Harry Potter because of copies are in circulation.
More interesting is why we believe the, say, the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar despite only a handful of copies exist.
The answer is believability and supporting evidence.
There is no claim of him performing miraculous acts. No magic powers. No claim of divinity.
I do not expect to convince anyone with what I say, merely to point out that not only am I aware of the difficulties, I am very awre of them from many and various angles, and have been for almost as long as I have studied the Bible seriously.
I refer Chris again to the first of the two articles. The information recorded about Jesus, if about another historic figure, would be considered enough to at least acknowledge that the person existed even if nothing else could be said or found out about that person. If one adds the graffitti which began to appear as the Christian sect began to spread (such as the insulting graffito of a crucified man with an ass’s head bearing the legend of ‘X’ worships his god, dated to late first, early second century) then there is a considerable amount of corroborating evidence about not only the period of Jesus, but also about the claims made about Jesus.
I also FULLY agree that sheer volume of text does not equate to fact, it is intended as an argument of accuracy of transmission and preservation of the original copy (or copies if intended for more than one Patron). There may well be a cult of the Blessed and resurrected Potter in years to come ( 🙂 ), just as there is a cult of Jedi even now, but what was intended by the argument, simply put, is that there is very little doubt that the texts of the 4 Gospels have come down to us as unaltered as is possible given the years and vagaries of copyists.
To build upon that, let’s take one of the more problematic translation issues regarding Luke’s Gospel: the issue of the Census taken at or about the time of Jesus’ birth. For ease of reference, here is the text in the New International Version (2011), and the Authorised version (1611). Then I will highlight the issues:
1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
a.Luke 2:2 Or This census took place before
1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
Now, you will clearly see that verse 2 is the key. What does it mean? the record of Quirinius clearly indicates that he was appointed as a consul of Rome in 12 BC, and in AD 6, he was the Governor of Syria, but Matthew’s Gospel clearly has Jesus being born before the death of Herod the Great (4BC), and Jesus would have been NO MORE THAN 2 when Herod issued the decree for all the infant boys to be executed (i.e. all boys 2 years old and under). This then creates quite a discrepency as to the dating of Jesus’ birth. there are two considerations which provide a way forward.
first, the greek word variously translated as while or before or first actually means all of those things, and one has to choose carefully dependent on context as to which is the most appropriate. In the case of the most recent translation (NIV 2011), it opts for ‘while’, and then puts ‘before’ as a footnote, whereas the AV of 1611, opts for ‘first’. then there is the question of the significance of the word, because it can mean first in importance or superior. What a wonderful headache translation actually is.
second, as FF Bruce (see the last article) has noted, there is a record of the career of an officer whose name is not preserved, but whose career bears a close resemblance to that of Quirinius, and it notes that this man was a Governor of Syria twice, and the first time is prior to that of the noted one of AD 6. Is this the Quirinius of the Lukan record?
My preference out of this quagmire is to take the Greek word in question to be ‘before’ in this instance, and not worry overly much about whether or not Quirinius was a Governor of Syria once or twice. Feel free to disagree with me.
Now, I fully agree that Caesar may have made no claims to miracles in the records, but the issue of divinity is another matter entirely. It was very common for rulers in the Ancient world to stake their claims to rulership on some form of quasi-divinity – normally, at the very least, being descended from a demi-god or god. However, let’s not ignore the fact that caesar did, like others make this claim to divine ancestry, and lets not ignore the fact that even Anthony appealed to caesar’s divinity after caesar’s death.
As to believability of the texts, I can only reiterate what I have already said: if they were made up, and done to put Jesus in as positive a light as possible, then I would not expect to find women as eyewitnesses, a positive affirmation of women, or telling such subversive stories. I don’t expect you to accept the miracle stories, precisely because the vast majority of people, even the vast majority of Christians, buy into Hume’s definition of miracle as a breaking of the laws of nature. That I can defeat Hume’s definition using Hume himself is neither here nor there.
Are the Gospels political documents? Perhaps. But not as much as their contemporary texts within the NT, such as Paul’s letters. To say that Jesus is Lord was not only a theological clarion call, it was also a direct challenge to the divinity of the emperors, i.e. Caesar is Lord. This idea of the war of symbols has been around for a while, and is currently being popularised by the fromer Bp of Durham, Tom Wright.
Likewise, the issue of an ability to read is always to err on the side of underestimation. It was very fashionable for a long time to deny the possibility that Peter could have written the first letter ascribed to him in the NT precisely because it was assumed that he wouldn’t have had the necessary comand of the Greek language, or because he wouldn’t have been able to write. The archaeological evidence is telling another story. The people of Galilee may have been functionally trilingual, even if they couldn’t all read it, they would have been verbally proficient in Koine Greek (language of trade), Aramaic (local dialect), and Hebrew (language of the majority of the OT), and if business people of the level of Peter (owning and running his own fishing ‘company’), then they most certainly would have been able to both read and write Koine Greek, and other languages as needed.
I don’t pretend to have convinced either of you in what I have just said, but I think this might be a case of the proverbial irresistable force-immovable object. I was convinced before I studied, and my studies have only convinced me even more.
I can only thank you for your interest in what I write, and for the time you take to make commens.
Cheers, D
RevD
“I was convinced before I studied, and my studies have only convinced me even more.”
I would say for me that is the point of such debates. Its not just about the small, and to me illogical, hope of victory or conversion, but having the opportunity to be intellectually challenged and pushed; to have your logical thinking process and your rhetorical skills tested and sharpened. While lines are quickly drawn and positions rarely abandoned, the cut and thrust of debate is less damaging than the lack of challenge which can lead to sloppy thinking, poor explanations. This inevitably leads to the undermining of our own beliefs and understandings – and possibly the questioning of faith. If you can maintain your passion, clear thinking and balanced oratory when pushed to the limits, this reflects more on your own personal abilities, values and behaviours than the position defended.
Convincing me was never the goal, neither was disproving your position. The point was you made me think, and for that I thank you 😉
@FH: likewise, mate. Long may it continue. 🙂