Over at AdvocatusAtheist, well-read author Tristan Vick constructed a post regarding, what
he believes to be, the complete lack of evidence for the historical Jesus. This
post was actually a response to yours truly regarding a comment I left on a
previous post of the same subject, whereby I left a quote from New Testament
scholar Bart Ehrman regarding the abundance of evidence we have for Jesus. What
follows is my response to Tristan’s post, and I will quote him piecemeal and
object to what I disagree with. Tristan begins:
When you say that Jesus
was a real historical figure, what evidence would you be speaking of exactly?
You see, we have
stories of about [sic] a Jesus in the
Gospels but we also have stories about a Jesus in the Koran. And there are even
tales of a Jesus as far as south as India.
This is a fair question, yet I believe it is a
question that is answered in the vein of common sense: the evidence that bests
attests to the existence of Jesus (or any historical figure) is the evidence
that is far less removed from his life. That is to say, the Gospels and the
letters of Paul are closest to the time when Jesus lived and they claim to
derive from those who were closest to Jesus, whereas the Koran, written around
five hundred years after Jesus lived, shows absolutely no continuity with the
line of Jesus tradition and is too far removed to have any historically
significant bearing on said tradition.
This is pure common sense utilized when dealing with
historiography. In order to best deduce the historical validity of a person or
event, a historian wants the sources that are far less removed from them. To
quote Bart Ehrman, historians “prefer to have sources that are relatively near
the date of the person or event that they are describing.”
Now, which early sources
give us the best chance of deducing historical facts regarding Jesus? Well we
have the writings of Paul dated from 49 to around 62 CE (that is, only 16 to 29
years removed). Then we have the Gospels of Mark (70 CE), Matthew and Luke
(80-90 CE), Q material which Matthew and Luke shared, and John (90-95). Just
from these writings alone we have six, that is, six sources that attest to the
existence of Jesus. To quote Bart Ehrman:
For a historian these
provide a wealth of materials to work with, quite unusual for accounts of
anyone, literally anyone, from the ancient world[…] If historians prefer lots
of witnesses that corroborate one another’s claims without showing evidence of
collaboration, we have that in relative abundance in the written sources that
attest to the existence of the historical Jesus. [Note that Ehrman understands
that the Gospels have collaborated in many aspects. He claims: even if some of
these sources are dependent on one another in some passages—for example,
Matthew and Luke on Mark—they are completely independent in others, and to that
extent they are independent witnesses.]
Not only do we have an abundance of sources (and
there are more), but these sources are relatively early (see below as well for
substantiation of this claim). But, the question isn’t just regarding the fact of existing sources but, rather the
nature of these sources. Let Tristan
articulate:
What is the evidence
that constitutes that any *one of these is based off a real historical figure?
Citing the Bible
disqualifies the evidence, not only because it would be circular, but because
the Bible is untrustworthy when it comes to historical records of antiquity.
Tristan then delves into giving a few examples
where the Gospels have mistakes.
First, let me deal with Tristin’s charge of
circularity. The Bible is not a book that was delivered already intact. Rather,
it is a collection of pieces of historiography, poetry, philosophy, myth,
legend, and apocalyptic literature. The Bible is an anthology, and was only put together as a single book years
after the writings were written. So, to deduce the historicity of many things
in the Bible we must look at the Biblical
evidence. This is what historians do. In order to deduce the existence of
Caesar Augustus, we must look at the writings of Plutarch. It would be
unreasonable to say, “Hey, you can’t use Plutarch to deduce the historicity of
Augustus, because Plutarch already assumes he’s historical!” Similarly,
documents in the Bible claim to record the life of a Galilean preacher named
Jesus. It is unhistorical to claim that we can’t use the very the sources that
attest to his existence. To quote Ehrman, “The fact that [the Christian’s]
books later became documents of faith has no bearing on the question of whether
the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the gospels
from the historical record is neither fair nor scholarly.”
Now, let us turn to Tristan’s charges of
untrustworthiness. He seems to be conflating occasional unreliability with
untrustworthiness. There is, in fact, a difference, and scholar Robert Miller
explains it:
All critical scholars
agree that the gospels contain both historically reliable material based on
memories about Jesus, and historically unreliable material based on his
followers’ interpretations of his life, death, and teaching.
The gospels are not only either completely trustworthy
or completely untrustworthy; this is a false dichotomy. Rather, there are
varying degrees of reliability, and the gospels contain both reliable material
and unreliable material. The unreliable material no doubt stems from the
theological lenses that Jesus was interpreted through. Yet these types of
biases are not original to the gospels alone. As scholar James D.G. Dunn
states, “[f]ew if any historical sources regarding figures or significant
events of the past are unbiased or completely objective.”
Scholars have long recognized that the gospels are
not perfect or faultless pieces of historiography. Yet, they do believe that
the gospels all give an overall picture of Jesus that we can be relatively certain of,
and it is this overall picture that scholars look for. Critical scholar Dale
Allison articulates my point:
When we look back upon
our encounters with others, our most vivid and reliable memories are often not
precise but general.[…] [C]ertain themes and motifs and rhetorical strategies
are consistently attested over a wide range of material. The point is that it
is these themes and motifs and rhetorical strategies, if it is anywhere, that
we are likely to have an accurate memory.
Therefore, while there might be discrepancies
regarding minute details of Jesus life (e.g. what day or hour he was
crucified), the overall picture of Jesus’ life is rock solid (e.g. he was in
fact crucified). In fact, we can make a list of facts about Jesus’ life that
virtually all sources agree on:
·
He had a failed ministry in Nazareth
·
He was baptized by John the Baptist
·
His parents were Mary and Joseph
·
He had a brother named James (even
Josephus corroborates this)
·
He had a ministry in Galilee
·
He had a group of followers
·
He welcomed and conversed with those
seen as “sinners”
·
He was seen a wonder worker and miracle
performer
·
He engaged in frequent disagreements
with the Pharisees and religious leaders of his time
·
He frequently preached to groups of
people
·
He vigorously preached the coming of the
Kingdom of God
·
He made a final trip to Jerusalem
·
He made a scene in the Temple
·
He ate a last meal with his followers
·
He was betrayed by one of his followers
·
He was handed over to the religious
leaders
·
He was sentenced to crucifixion by
Pontius Pilate
·
He died by crucifixion
Notice that all our sources (including Paul) agree
on these details. Such an abundance of convergence is a goldmine for
historians, especially since Jesus was not an aristocrat or any type of
higher-up, but was rather a simple Galilean preacher who gained a following. It is simply ridiculous, in my eyes and the eyes of most historians, to claim that the above facts have no reality in an early First Century person named Jesus. Once again, do the sources contain discrepancies? Yes. But discrepancies are expected from sources that most likely originate from oral tradition. Moreover, we see these kinds of errors all around the writings of antiquity.
Let’s look at an example. In 64 A.D. a fire broke
out in Rome and lasted for six and a half days. After the fire subsided about
seventy percent of Rome was left in ruins. This event is known as the famous
Burning of Rome. This fire was recorded by Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio,
all of whom were not eye-witnesses to the
event, as it was completely recorded. (And the mythicists complain there
should be an abundance of contemporary evidence for a Galilean preacher, yet
even a huge event such as the Burning of Rome does not have any contemporary
literary corroboration!) Stories circulated around Rome regarding where Nero
was during this whole disaster and what his involvement was; and all are
contradictory. Cassius Dio claimed that Nero sent thugs to set the fire.
Tacitus claims that Nero watched Rome burn while playing his fiddle miles away
in Antium. Suetonius says little regarding the origin of the fire, but seems to
half-heartedly implicate Nero.
The point is that even though these well-known
historians disagree on the minor details, they converge on the major details, and
this exactly how historiography functioned in antiquity. So, for Tristian to
claim that the gospels cannot be valid simply because they diverge at certain
points and get some things wrong is simply poor historical investigation. Tristan
continues:
So what of the Jesus of
the Gospels? The Gospels are also stories, are they not? If not, and they are
historical documents, why don’t they read like other historical documents of
the day?
I maintain that Tristan is simply ignorant of
modern scholarship regarding the nature of the gospels. Most scholars, even
critical scholars agree that the gospels are of the form of ancient Roman biographies.
The gospels seem to be written in the form of narrative because these gospels
were to be read aloud for an audience. Now, of course these writings were
written with theological biases, but they still attempt to give objective
accounts of Jesus’ life—in fact, that’s their whole reason for writing! Moreover,
scholars take the introduction of Luke to be a perfect example of a biographical
and historical introduction. Tristian continues:
How telling is it that
there is relatively no assumption for a ‘historical’ Jesus existing prior to
the third and fourth century?
This comment truly baffles me. All gospels assume
Jesus was a historical person, that’s why they’re writing about him. In fact,
they’re writing about him to tell others
his story—their primary goal was
evangelization. How does this not
assume historicity? Moreover, Paul assumes many things about Jesus that
converge with the gospels. Paul says that Jesus was crucified (1 Cor 1:23, Gal
3:1), that he was a descendant of David (Rom 1:3), that he was born under the
law and born of a woman (Gal 4:4), that he did not please himself (Rom 15:3), that
he had a brother named James (Gal 1:19), that his mission was to show the
truthfulness of God (Rom 15:8), and
describes the last supper with Jesus (1 Cor 2: 22-24). How can anyone claim
that Jesus was not assumed to be historical? Tristan continues:
At least with Socrates
we have mention of him in Xenophone and a handful of others who criticized him,
so we have independent sources outside of Plato’s narratives to suggest
Socrates was probably real.
Tristan is correct here that the existence of
Socrates is very well documented. Yet, this does nothing to argue against the historicity
of Jesus. Jesus is still very well attested—we saw the sources above, and there
are many more. In fact Jesus is better attested, or at least comparably
attested, than some well-known figures of Rome. Take the Roman Emperor Caesar
Augustus (63 BCE – 14 CE) who was the founder of the Roman Empire. You would
think that the sources for Augustus were miles above that of Jesus. Yet, the only contemporary evidence we contain
for Augustus is a funerary inscription. The next sources of his life come from Tacitus’
Annals (116 CE), Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars (121 CE), and
Plutarch’s Lives of Roman Emperors (96
– 98CE). Of these Plutarch is the earliest. This means that, aside from the
funerary inscription, the first literary source of Augustus’ life came a whole
82 years after he lived! Now, the fact that Augustus was a Roman emperor (can
you get any higher than that?) and has comparable attestation of his existence
with that of Jesus is remarkable. The
point is that we would expect Socrates, Augustus, and Cleopatra to be much
better attested than Jesus. These people are philosophers (who were very
famous), Emperors and Queens. Yet, Jesus, a little nobody from the slums of
Galilee, has evidence for his existence that
is at least comparable to the others. Here’s Tristan:
With
Jesus, we have zero independent outside attestation of his existence.
By outside Tristan means outside of Christian
tradition, yet we’ve seen that attestation does not have to be outside of
Christian tradition to be reliable. In fact, who is most likely to discuss,
report, elaborate upon and attest to a historical figure than those that are
partial and loyal to such a figure? The fact that Jews loyal to Jesus wrote the
gospels and letters does not mean they cannot be giving historically reliable
information. Does it mean that their attestation might be colored by
tendentiousness? Sure, but that doesn’t mean we need to throw them out due to
such aspects. Once again, Bart Ehrman: The problem, of course, is that most
sources are biased: if they didn’t have any feelings about the subject matter,
they wouldn’t be talking about it.
Yet, mythicists rarely tend to ask the question of
why Jesus has no contemporary outside attestation. Well first of all, many
writings from antiquity are lost to us. Heck, Tacitus, one of the greatest
Roman historians, wrote the Annals which
originally consisted of 16 volumes. Yet, we currently only possess half of these volumes and our earliest
manuscripts of them come from the ninth century! The fact is that many
writings from antiquity unfortunately never made their way down to us. Second,
who exactly would we expect to record Jesus? Jesus, remember, stayed in Galilee
for his ministry, and Galilee was the home of pious Jews. So which historians would
we expect to be in Galilee that would be around to report the Jesus movement? Furthermore,
it should be remembered that the Jesus movement was not the only movement in
Judea. There were tons of messianic and apocalyptic movements happening in
Judea, and it makes sense that none would see the need to bother to record one
more seeming fringe cult. As John Meier notes, “Jesus was a marginal Jew
leading a marginal movement in a marginal province of a vast Roman Empire.”
Tristan continues:
[I]t seems most of the
Jesus stories are simply retellings—or reformulations—of many Old Testament
patriarchs. So much so that they parallel each other in plot, structure, and
form. A Midrashim of sorts.
Tristan has picked up this hypothesis from Robert
Price. I myself have read Price’s books and find them to be rife with errors
and sloppy scholarship. Nevertheless, it is true that many stories in the
gospels resemble stories in the OT. And Tristan is correct to label these
midrash. Yet, I’m afraid Tristian seems to be ignorant of what exactly midrash
is. Midrash is a literary technique that is well known to scholars because the
Second Temple Qumran exegetes constantly employed them. Here’s a description of
midrash from scholar Paul Eddy:
[Jewish exegetes]
tended to use midrashic techniques to correlate current historical events, or
anticipated future events, with Old Testament texts as a means of bringing out
the perceived Biblical significance of those events[…]we find it far more
likely that the midrashic techniques we find in the Gospels are used to
interpret events that had taken place in history than that they represent
fabricated events[.]
Therefore, we see that midrash was used to interpret
historical events in light of the OT,
and was not used, with the aid of the OT, to fabricate events. So, the fact
that the gospels employ midrashic techniques actually argues for the opposite
thesis Tristan is pushing; that is, the use of midrash in the gospels
demonstrates that most of these stories were based in fact and were only
subsequently formulated to mirror OT narratives. Tristan continues:
And all this is merely
scratching the surface of the many *types of Jesus archetypes we can find
present in Christian tradition. To say they were all the same divine/historical
figure is simply to conflate, combine, and formulate a Jesus based on the
desire to harmonize all the discrepant versions of Jesus we already have.
There are many responses here. First, it is the job
of the historian, when given discrepant accounts, to try to find areas of
convergence and agreement. The act of attempted harmonization is necessary in
historical investigation. And scholars find tons of areas of convergence with
regards to the Jesus tradition, just see the above points. There is no major
problem of harmonization here.
Second, we know that the areas where the portraits
of Jesus diverge is most likely due to the theological interpretation that the
authors utilized. This is expected and is recognized by scholars. But, most
scholars don’t believe that the theological biases embedded in the accounts of
the Jesus tradition are so bad that we cannot recover the objective history
behind it. And to claim that this is the case is question begging.
Third, let it be known that any and every historical
account is subjective. History comes to us through human mediums and human
mediums, by nature, record events through their own interpretations. Therefore,
any biography of a person is not identical with that person. A biography of
Abraham Lincoln is not going to give you an objective glance into Lincoln. You
are only receiving interpretations of
Lincoln’s life. That being said, no single report of Jesus is identical with
Jesus himself, but every single account is a portrait that has been painted
through the eyes of a subjective observer. Thus, we expect four accounts of Jesus’ life to paint four different
pictures; this is just the nature of written mediums.
Conclusion
Well, I’m exhausted, aren’t you? I maintain that we
have seen no good evidence for denying the existence of Jesus. I’m sure
Tristan can produce much more cogent arguments and was simply producing
off-the-cuff questions. Yet, his arguments are the kind that most mythicists
bring forth and I felt the need to object to them. Mythicism, I will remind
you, is a fringe position. It is not a position held by the majority of
scholars, even critical scholars, and hopefully we have seen why. Now, this is
not to insinuate that since a large group of people believe X, therefore X is
true (argument ad populum). But, it must be remembered that these individuals
are experts in their field, and if the experts have a hard time adhering to the
Jesus Myth Thesis, then perhaps there is good reason for that—and I maintain
that I have demonstrated why there is good reason to deny such a hypothesis.
I thank Tristan for his response and thank him for
participating in this discussion with me.
