Rene Salm has clued me in to another important new peer reviewed journal article, by Tom Dykstra (M.Div.; Ph.D. in Russian History), who is best known for his critically acclaimed book on how the Gospel of Mark is built out of the Epistles of Paul (Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel, reviewed by Neil Godfrey at Vridar). His new article is “Ehrman and Brodie on Whether Jesus Existed: A Cautionary Tale about the State of Biblical Scholarship,” published in volume 8.1 of the Journal of the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies in 2015.
Comparing the books pro and con historicity by Thomas Brodie and Bart Ehrman, Dykstra makes many remarks critical of both authors, but especially Ehrman, and like Philip Davies, argues for greater caution and humility from historicity defenders. He also dismantles Ehrman’s arguments for historicity. Not always effectively (his treatment of the “Brothers of the Lord” argument is conspicuously weak; and he is, IMO, too sympathetic to the all-Paul-as-forgery thesis), but still often illuminatingly.
Dykstra also opens with a good brief on the Thomas Thompson parallel (which ended in the field’s acceptance of OT mythicism), illustrating how Ehrman’s (and McGrath’s) threats to destroy the career of anyone who even tries arguing against historicity in the field have a frightening precedent in biblical studies that scholars today are still embarrassed by. Even more material on that comes up later as well (pp. 20-21).
Two Interesting Observations
But what I noticed the most about this thirty pages (almost all of it well worth reading) are two things in particular worth calling special attention to.
First, how much it parallels, corroborates, and vindicates Lataster’s similar article, against desperate trash-talking from the likes of James McGrath. Dykstra makes many of the same points. Including accusing Ehrman of resting his case on “imaginary” sources (sic). And this in yet another serious academic journal. He likewise extends, corroborates, and shores up the arguments of Davies that historicists need to start taking challenges to historicity seriously and stop resorting to the fallacies, ad hominems, lies, and threats they have been resorting to instead. (And like Davies, he references the Thompson affair as illustrating his point.)
Second, how much Dykstra’s argument is (unknowingly?) Bayesian.
He makes two arguments throughout, which are in fact the two arguments that compose any complete Bayesian case for a conclusion about history. On the first prong, he says:
If you apply criteria that help determine intertextual relationships and reach the conclusion that Mark was created by reworking Pauline epistles and Old Testament texts, and if he was writing in a genre characterized by historicized fiction, that changes your whole approach to interpreting Mark. It forces you to recognize that the text does not have a historical focus, but rather has a didactic or polemical focus. The Gospel was written in order to build or strengthen a community and tell people how to behave within that community. It was written to provide an authoritative argument against opposing views of how the community should be constituted. History, if present at all, is taking a back seat to making a point. Even if you find that something in Mark is historical, that doesn’t reflect on the historicity of everything else in it. (pp. 17-18)
This statement should be 100% uncontroversial. There is no basis for Ehrman, or any honest, competent historicist to reject it. It is demonstrably correct. Yet it has consequences. Logically inescapable consequences.
This is a Bayesian argument from prior probability.
Ehrman claims the Gospels belong to the genre of oral memory, and in that genre the historicity of the named subject is most commonly true. That’s questionable, of course. Studies of ideological oral traditions, e.g. Moses, King Arthur, Romulus, Hercules, Aesop, Ned Ludd, John Frum, and of urban legends as an entire genre, actually call into question the prevalence of central-subject historicity in that set. But Dykstra is making a different point: that in fact the Gospels belong to a different reference class altogether. They are demonstrably not “the genre of oral memory,” but in fact of literary artifice, and “historicized fiction” as Dykstra puts it (I demonstrate this conclusively in Chapter 10 of OHJ; there citing numerous, and many renowned, experts who concur; it really should be a settled point by now).
Dykstra makes this point in several different ways throughout. He likewise deploys many arguments that represent the second prong of Bayesian reasoning: an argument from likelihood ratio.
Dykstra notes that the evidence Ehrman points to, Ehrman argues is unlikely on mythicism but likely on historicity, which is a Bayesian argument from likelihood ratio. Valid, if the premises are true (and the priors don’t mess with your conclusion). But Dykstra argues Ehrman is wrong, that in fact in every case Ehrman leans on, the evidence is actually just as likely on alternative explanations (explanations Ehrman ignores, doesn’t take seriously, or shows little competence in). Perhaps even more likely. In other words, contrary to what Ehrman claims, it is in fact quite obvious that none of his cited evidence actually supports historicity.
Dykstra also makes balanced points about Ockham’s Razor, which can be expanded with my treatment of the same question as it relates to historicity in my discussion of the case made by Bermejo-Rubio. Likewise, on the problem badly handled by Ehrman of how one defines historicity for Jesus in the first place (the central focus of my entire second chapter in OHJ). And the obvious inadequacy of the method of criteria (which is thoroughly demonstrated, citing even more experts than Dykstra summons, in Chapter 5 of my book Proving History).
Calling Out the Ad Baculum
Dykstra also calls Ehrman out for relying on the No True Scotsman fallacy, and on “the consensus” too uncritically (again noting the Thompson case proves the folly in that; adding to this would be my discussion in Chapters 1 and 5 of Proving History in light of my analysis online).
He closes by reiterating something else I’ve said many times; and he puts it quite well (on p. 22):
Ehrman accords special status to the opinions of scholars who teach at accredited educational institutions. Brodie was just such a person, and for four decades he doubted Jesus’s historicity but didn’t say so publicly. Why? Might there be others who are waiting until retirement age to say what they really think, or who maybe never will?
That possibility weakens Ehrman’s point here. There are good reasons why some of the best scholarship about the New Testament is written by people who don’t earn their livelihood by teaching in the field. Professional scholars have vested interests that they have to protect. A scholar’s livelihood depends in part on his or her reputation, and both can be lost if they say the wrong thing publicly. For many scholars, acknowledging doubts in Jesus’s historicity would be just such a “career-limiting move.” It’s not just a matter of losing your job. Any scholar who comes out for “mythicism” is likely to endure vilification and ridicule. …
No one wants to endure aspersions on their competence and integrity as Thomas Thompson experienced, or accusations of dishonesty as Thomas Brodie experienced.
Likewise you can lose grants, funding, offices, conference appointments; you can anger alumni and other donors whose money your school or department depends upon; you can create a perpetually hostile work environment, be perpetually targeted by political machinations, and face retaliation from peer reviewers, editors, and publishers. And then on top of that, you can cause problems for yourself with your family, friends, and personal life.
Even the false perception or belief that any of this might happen will be enough to silence a scholar. It is therefore especially disgusting and irresponsible of the likes of Ehrman and McGrath to threaten their colleagues with the implied pall of such consequences. As Dykstra points out, Thompson, Lüdemann, Brodie, and even Le Donne were all professionally punished by their peers for daring to say things “the consensus” didn’t like…and in all but Brodie’s case, these were things that have since become the consensus!
As Dykstra observes, “The result is self-censorship: people voluntarily refrain from saying what they believe, in order to avoid loss of income, loss of respect of their peers, or fear of unpleasantness.” (He then quotes me on the same point.)
Dykstra further adds that “professionals who have lived their lives teaching a particular interpretation of literature or history have staked their reputation on that interpretation” and “they tend to not be receptive to new proposals that involve a shift that would make much of what they taught and wrote over the years obsolete.” They are therefore highly biased against admitting they have been wrong all this time, and worse, fearful of ripping up the foundation of their own hard-earned reputation and having to rebuild it from scratch. Dykstra adds illuminating quotes from MacDonald and Goulder on how “the consensus” in this field is often a vindictive monster, and not the product of a genuine commitment to discovering the truth. As I often quote Thomas Paine saying, “Time makes more converts than reason.” When today’s professors die off and are replaced with a new generation, we will have a better chance of truth finally replacing the juggernaut of error.
In the end, Dykstra is at least as sympathetic to mythicism as Davies. Is he now a historicity agnostic? I cannot say. His closing declaration on this point is not clear enough, though it is certainly far more than any historicist would dare say, even Davies:
As for the question of whether Jesus existed, the best answer is that any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing.
-:-
“Even if you find that something in Mark is historical, that doesn’t reflect on the historicity of everything else in it.”
I agree with Dykstra on this, but the level to which he claims the Gospel of Mark is based upon Paul’s Epistles I believe may be overstated. In terms of pure intertextuality, Luke, Matthew and John all have more in common with the Epistles and Pauline theology than Mark does. However, Luke does contain more historical elements overall, especially when taken together with Acts as one combined text. For example, Luke is the only Gospel which mentions Lysanius, the Jewish ruler of Abilene, who is also mentioned by Josephus. Pauline doctrine and narratives used to assert Jesus’ divinity nevertheless increase from the earliest Gospel, Mark, to the latest Gospel, John. Mark’s portrayal of Jesus is largely as a divinely-inspired, apocalyptic prophet or sage, apart from the various interpolated endings to the Gospel asserting divinity. The way Jesus is described in Mark also fits extremely well with how a follower of John the Baptist would preach. It overall appears as a narrative that had an original, more authentic core more similar to the historical Jesus or Jesus-figure than the other Gospels are, which was then inserted with alterations later on to fit more in line with later, more Pauline-influenced teachings of the level of Jesus’ divinity which came to be viewed as orthodoxy in the church.
Additionally, the level of historical and geographical details in Mark of obscure regions on the fringes of the Roman world like Galilea, Golan, the Decapolis and Peraea, the latter two autonomous from Roman control, show the author had Judaean, Jewish Christian sources distinct from the Pauline branch of Christianity. The description of Jesus’ blood relations in Mark 6 also significantly detract from Jesus’ divinity, and more importantly, for the ability of the early Christians to defend their assertions of his uniqueness and divinity. Some of the Judaean Christian sources for Mark may or may not have been apostles like Peter. The need for such sources would be especially the case if Mark was indeed written in Rome, as Gentile Christians at that time simply would not have the knowledge of the events and features of 1st century Judaea, with Josephus’ works not yet finished. At around 65-70 AD, there would likewise have still been some divisions between the more culturally Jewish “Jamesian” Christians and the Pauline Christians. All of this, however, ignores the possibility of Mark being written based on older written documents, as in such a case oral, Judaean Christian sources would not be needed.
With all this being said, Mark had to have had important sources, either written or oral, apart from Paul’s letters and the Pauline Christians. If there was an earlier written source, such as a hypothetical “Q document” or the first stratum for what became the Gospel of Thomas, they would have been separate from the established Pauline communities in Anatolia and Greece. This older document may also have been a written source similar to the “other Gospel” mentioned by Paul being preached in Galatians.
“As for the question of whether Jesus existed, the best answer is that any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing.”
This is a false and unprofessional statement. The whole point of archaeological research is to provide a better understanding of the past through finding more evidence. It is not “a waste of time”, unless you have an agenda against historical and archaeological research. The discovery of the ruins of Troy provided evidence for some level of historical basis for the events of the Iliad. Everything from population genetics to geology to archaeology to satellite imagery is being used now to find evidence for historical locations, events and figures.
A finding of period documents or artifacts, either Christian or non-Christian, in modern Israel, the Golan Heights, Jordan or anywhere else mentioning Jesus or a similar contemporary figure, John the Baptist or their followers would certainly push the evidence for Jesus’ historicity even further. There are at least three earlier letters mentioned by Paul in his existing Epistles to have been written by him which have been lost. The discovery in 1961 of the Pilate Stone in Caesarea Maritima on the Israeli coast, for example, has certainly put the historicity of Pontius Pilate beyond doubt, and the stone has been reliably dated to between 26-37 AD. Most of these areas are nowhere near to being fully or properly excavated, due to obvious political and cultural restrictions in the region. Eusebius mentions that the small Judaean Christian community took refuge in the settlement of Pella, in what is now northwestern Jordan, during the Jewish-Roman wars between 65-70 AD. There have been some limited excavations going on there since 1979, mainly focused on other historical periods, but this area of the Decapolis is a strong candidate to find some early Christian artifacts or even documents. Given the political turmoil in the vicinity in recent years, excavations again are hindered.
In any case, arguments by similar minimalists have been made in the past with regards to figures, locations and events in the Old Testament, but this has been flipped on its head due to archaeological finds giving evidence for the Kingdom of Israel and for Biblical documents. The amulets at Ketef Hinnom of a passage from the Book of Numbers proved that, at the very least, at least some of the Torah existed in written form by the 7th century BC, before the Babylonian Exile. Prior to this discovery, there were some people arguing it was purely a written concoction of the Babylonian Exile and Persian periods. The fact that excavations of the ruins of the Jewish Second Temple are still largely forbidden, due to political and cultural issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is probably the best example that there is significant evidence for a variety of historical figures and events just waiting to be found, but the search is hindered by various restrictions.
There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus.
That’s his point.
I wonder if Richard can say what artifact could be found which supported the historicity of Jesus? Some reliably dated graffiti, perhaps? Or a reliably dated memorial “Jesus of Nazerth cured my blindness, I make this gift to the …blah blah”
It sounds a wee bit dogmatic to say “there is no archaeological evidence” when someone is saying “We should keep looking”. I bet there isn’t any, but if someone wants to look ….
See my discussion in re: McGrath on that. Which I expand on with more qualifications in OHJ, Chapter 8.4.
Hi Richard, the sociology you describe here was amply explained by Thomas S Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he developed the theory of paradigm change. Have you analysed the paradigm shift in Jesus Studies as a scientific revolution?
Dykstra cites Kuhn himself in the article. He notes others have done so as well, e.g. Goodacre etc.
Good article…
“any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing.”
Which is, for me, the final, slam-dunk clincher that he didn’t. If the existence of HJ is not only impossible to verify but also entirely free of consquences one way or the other, HJ is doing no logical work in the fabric of history and can be discarded as superfluous.
I’ll have to add Dykstra’s Mark/Paul book on my reading list (along with the paper), as it relates to a question I’ve been pondering lately about whether and how the Gospel of Mark might inform the question of Gal 1:19 (“James the Lord’s brother”). Since this is roughly topical, I’ll jump the gun and just ask for your take even though I’m not sure I have all my ducks in a row.
Gal 1:19 is the best of the meager pieces of evidence supporting historicity of Jesus, and the argument typically comes down to whether Paul meant “brother” literally (biological sibling) or not (e.g. fictive kinship). I’m not sure if anyone has suggested or argued for textual corruption (redaction or scribal errors), but that would seem to be a third hypothesis (favoring mythicism).
So, the question I’ve been pondering is this:
Q: Considering that the Gospel of Mark is (probably) the earliest post-Pauline Christian text (and thus closest in time to the referent of Gal 1:19),
Did the author of Mark know of “James the (biological) brother of the Lord” as a figure in the early Jerusalem church alongside Peter?
Affirmative Hypothesis (H): the author of Mark knew of James, the biological brother of Jesus, [henceforth “bio-James”] as a figure of the early church. This could be due to the actual historicity of such a James or due to Mark’s possession of Gal 1:19 reading (roughly) as it does now AND his reading of this as biological and not fictive brotherhood.
Contrary Hypothesis (~H): the author of Mark did not know of bio-James as a figure in the early church.
Extended Contrary Hypothesis 1 (~H1): the author of Mark knew of James, son of Zebedee* and brother of John [henceforth “fictive-James”] as a figure in the early church.
Highly Speculative Extended Contrary Hypothesis 2 (~H2): Gal 1:19 is corrupt, and previously read something like “James, brother of John”.
I’m interested in reading Dykstra’s book, since so far I’ve been reasoning based on a simple reading of Mark without any background establishing a connection between the author of Mark and Paul’s epistles (particularly Galatians).
My take on the question shouldn’t be a huge surprise. The Gospel of Mark shows essentially zero evidence that its author knew of bio-James as an early church figure.
Consider the role of Peter in Mark. The most likely explanation of the prominence of Peter in Mark is that the author of Mark knew of Peter as the leader of the early church in Jerusalem. It would be very difficult to argue otherwise unless one were to adopt a Christian apologetic stance that the gospel is (primarily) historical and that Peter’s prominence is due to actual events.
In contrast, while bio-James does appear twice in Mark, he is in no way marked** as particularly important or distinguished from the rest of Jesus’s (biological) family. He appears implicitly as part of the generic “his [Jesus’] brothers” in Mk 3:31-35, but not specifically named***. He is referenced, but does not appear in person, in Mk 6:3, as do 3 other named brothers. He is never singled out from the rest of the family.
And that’s it. Let’s call this evidence “e1”.
The lack of any prominence or distinction of bio-James in the Gospel of Mark stands as fairly strong evidence against H. Put another way, the probability P(e1|H) that the author of Mark would (barely) portray a known (and noteworthy, considering the family tie) figure of the early church, bio-James, as a complete NothingBurger seems extremely low. The gospel provides no hint or foreshadowing that bio-James would later distinguish himself from the rest of the family, convert to his brother’s cause, or join Peter in the early church.
Frankly, the meager inclusion of bio-James in the Gospel of Mark lowers the probability P(e|H) more so than would a hypothetical Gospel of Mark that simply excluded any mention of bio-James and Jesus’s family (call this e1′). IMO, silence would have raised P(e1’|H) > P(e1|H).
On the other hand, the non-prominence of bio-James in Mark is fully expected on ~H. P(e1|~H) => 1. If the author of Mark did not know of bio-James as a member (in any capacity) of the early church, he would feature him indifferently at best. If Jesus’s family were not subsequent followers, the author would most likely portray them negatively or indifferently (or not at all).
To take things further, I think GMark provides good evidence for ~H1, the hypothesis that the James of Gal:19 is fictive-James, son of Zebedee and brother of John.**** Fictive-James, John, Peter and sometimes (Peter’s brother) Andrew are frequently portrayed as Jesus’s inner circle.***** Like Peter, James and John are bestowed a special name “Brothers of Thunder”******; the rest of the disciples (including Andrew) aren’t given special names beyond “the Twelve”.
The author of Mark appears to assign prominence to fictive-James and John, similar and only slightly secondary to that assigned to Peter and closely associated with Peter. Call this evidence e2.
This evidence is strongly expected on ~H1: James and John are prominent followers (and closely associated with Peter) in the Gospel of Mark because James and John were known to the author of Mark as prominent figures (closely associated with Peter) in the early church. P(e2|~H1) approaches 1. *******
The evidence is somewhat unexpected on H, though, but only slightly. Knowledge of bio-James as early church figure does not preclude knowledge of fictive-James (and John) as early church figures, and on this one might view Gal 1:19 “brother of the Lord” as Paul distinguishing which James he met: bio-James rather than fictive-James. The weakness of P(e2|H) ultimately rests on the weakness of P(e1|H). Still, I think P(e2|~H1) / P(e2|H) is greater than 1, maybe about 2:1? And 1:1 a fortiori.
I haven’t gotten so far as to evaluate the author of Mark’s knowledge of Galatians, but (peeking ahead), if Mark knew Peter, John and James as early church figures (primarily) through Gal 2:9 etc. then we run into the uncomfortable (for historicists) position that the author of Mark knew Gal 1:19 and did NOT read it as indicating a bio-James [otherwise, why does the author portray bio-James as a virtual non-entity?]. Which nears “game over” for historicity.
Hypothesis ~H2, that Gal 1:19 originally read as “James the brother of John” is admittedly highly speculative. I throw this out because it appears to be a third option in the argument over Gal 1:19 alongside the usual hypotheses that assume the language of Gal 1:19 as received but differ in interpretation (bio-James or fictive-James). The conjunction of James and John alongside Peter in Gal 2:9 makes the reference to “brother of John” sensible.
I clearly don’t have the Greek language tools to address the text itself, and it depends on “facts not in evidence” other than the dilemma created by the (possible) unexpected reference to a bio-James as a member of the early church.
I didn’t find any mention of this third possibility in OHJ and don’t recall it being raised elsewhere. Is there sufficient reason to discard this hypothesis? It may be less likely than the fictive kinship hypothesis, but is it so unlikely to omit from the probability space? If highly unlikely, does it deserve mention (alongside reasons for dismissal) for completeness sake so amateurs like me don’t spin our wheels on it?
Thanks for the forum.
* Strictly speaking, the paternity of Zebedee is not strictly necessary to the hypothesis and may have been an invention. This merely identifies this particular James (and John) as that of Mk 1:19 and throughout the rest of the Gospel of Mark.
** pun not intended
*** Ironically, Jesus bestows fictive kinship on fictive-James (and the rest) immediately after in Mk 3:34.
**** I’m certainly not breaking new ground here, just fleshing out the analysis
***** Andrew is a special case. Sometimes he’s included along with his brother Peter and sometimes relegated to the undifferentiated group of the Twelve. The issue of Andrew seems like it may be the fulcrum on which future speculation about the early church may hinge, but we’re not going to get to any of those questions under historicity.
****** Not to be confused with the late 60’s Christian “rock” band, the Christian metal band, or the Christian R&B/hip-hop groups of the same name.
******* I’m conducting my analysis without reference to Paul’s epistles, but this comports exactly with Gal 2:9, and together make the likelihood of Peter, fictive-James and John as actual early church figures extremely probable. The prominence of fictive-James in Mark argues for ~H1 and further lowers the probability of bio-James in Gal 1:19 [P(~H1) > P(~H) > P(H)] since it establishes a more likely referent (fictive-James) in Gal 1:19 than if we didn’t have fictive-James. Gal 2:9 locks this down.
I concur Mark shows no sign of knowing any brother of Jesus ever held any significant position. None of the Evangelists do, not even Luke, the author of Acts, a putative history of the first thirty years of the church (as I point out in Ch. 9.3 of OHJ).
But I don’t think it’s likely Gal. 1 read James the brother of John. It’s possible, sure, but it’s conjecture without specific evidence, so it’s not a high probability. And it wouldn’t explain 1 Cor. 9. I think my explanation of both passages (in Ch. 11.10 of OHJ) is far more probable as it requires no conjectures, just the evidence already in the context of both passages and elsewhere in the letters of Paul (e.g. Element 12); and it explains both passages with a single theory.
It is allejd:
In “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”, Richard Bauckham (professor of New Testament studies at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland)
What he finds is that there is a remarkable correlation between the frequency of names found in the Four gospels and Acts and the frequency of names found in writings outside the New Testament.
The top 2 men’s names (Simon and Joseph) in first century Palestine outside the New Testament is 15.6%. The frequency of those two names in the four gospels and Acts is 18.2%. The frequency of the top 9 men’s names outside the New Testament is 41.5%; whereas the frequency in the Four gospels and Acts is 40.3%. The frequency of the top two women’s names (Mary and Salome) outside the New Testament is 28.6%; the frequency in the Four gospels and Acts is 38.9%. The frequency of the top 9 women’s names outside the New Testament is 49.7%; and 61.1% in the Four gospels and Acts.
The top 6 male names in first century Palestine are:
1) Simon/Simeon
2) Joseph/Joses
3) Lazarus/Eleazar
4) Judas/Judah
5) John/Yohanan
6) Jesus/Joshua
The frequency of New Testament individuals with those names is 8, 6, 1, 5, 5 and 2 respectively. We can see, therefore, that there exists a remarkable correlation between first century Palestinian names outside and inside the New Testament. What is especially remarkable about this is that the rankings of names in Palestine does not correspond with the rankings of those names in other regions. For example, the rankings of names in Egypt during that period are:
1) Eleazar (ranked 3rd in Palestine)
2) Sabbataius (ranked 68th in Palestine)
3) Joseph (ranked 2nd in Palestine)
4) Dositheus (ranked 16th in Palestine)
4 – tied) Pappus (ranked 39th in Palestine)
6) Ptolemaius (ranked 50th in Palestine)
6 – tied) Samuel (ranked 23rd in Palestine)
That is a terrible correlation. Jesus is conspicuously absent, despite it being one of the most common names. Yet somehow they never meet one. Likewise not once in Acts or the Synoptics is there an actual Lazarus met, despite it being so common they should have met several (and the sole Lazarus in John is fabricated: see OHJ 10.7). Many names in the Gospels are bizarre (e.g. Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus). And all the most common names, in both the NT and Palestine, are OT names (e.g. Mary, Joseph, James), thus already expected on symbolism alone.
So there is no statistically remarkable correlation between names in the Gospels/Acts and the population of the time.
Bauckham is just making that up. His own data does not even sustain his claim. And he gives no mathematical argument, because math would not support him–he would then have to include the names that don’t fit (names not expected and names expected that are absent) and a definition of expectation by chance (he would have to calculate what the name range in the NT should be, based solely on using the OT and symbolic purpose to invent the names, to show significance, a mathematical concept).
Currently, the US government is engaged in using drones to kill Muslims, women and children included, without trial, without a state of war. It has even murdered US citizens. It has supported or engaged in military actions and mass violence by its own hands or by (Christian) proxies since WWII against Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Uganda, Yemen, Afghanistan. It funds the colonialist enterprise of Zionism, a position popularly supported by millions of Christians because it was God who gave Palestine to the Jews. Simultaneously with this the Us government has given powerful, constant and remorseless support to the most tyrannical and bigoted elements and dynasties among Muslim nations, notoriously in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Morocco, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, It has approved the rise of religious reaction in Muslim nations such as Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, It has stood by indifferent when Muslims were slaughtered en masse in Myanmar and Central African Republic and Algeria while claiming to have been motivated by the smaller number slain in Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya in struggles against political enemies of the US government.
All of this is done with widespread approval of people who by and large deem themselves to be believing Christians, who unhesitatingly affirm the historicity of Jesus, and condemn the denial of Jesus. They think there is something to say about
what Jesus wanted then, and now.
Given this, I’m not very impressed with Dykstra’s posture of serene indifference. No doubt it’s more flattering to imagine yourself as the voice of reason. But a reasonable tone of voice and a religious commitment to manners is not the same as reason.
That’s not anything Dykstra was referring to.
He means that when scholars debate a scholarly question, they should manage their demeanor for purely diplomatic reasons of being heard and effective. That’s always true…except when one side starts lying and resorting to threats. But that’s where I disagree with Dykstra. Otherwise he’s right.
There isn’t any sense in which the historicity of Jesus causes Christian war mongering. That isn’t even supported by the fictional Jesus in the NT.
Luke 19:
…26 I tell you that everyone who has will be given more; but the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.
27 And these enemies of mine who were unwilling for me to rule over them, bring them here and slay them in front of me
[ prhaps a visual – a five metre screen will du just as well]
No points fr gessing whu the parabolik king is…..
I can’t understand why atheists need to protect historicity. At best a cowardly agnostic should only need to assert that they believe in historicity. If you want to engage with Christians, whether there are other atheists who are mythicists or not is irrelevant and if a Christian wants to argue against mythicism, such an atheist is actually less prepared and ends up a stooge for the Christian.
That’s what Dykstra is writing about in that section: why atheist scholars have a stake in defending historicity (I summarize the whole list of reasons he gives above).
I think it’s worth noting that the presence of an historical figure in the gospels does not mean Jesus (if he existed) had any relation to that historical figure: Quirinius and his census comes to mind. It’s like including Abe Lincoln in a historical fiction piece about the civil war.
We see this with the presence of John The Baptist in the gospels. John may have lived, but he is serving a purely literary function in the gospels:
The way for Jesus was prepared for Jesus by John the Baptist, a purely literary figure in the bible (whether or not there was an historical John the Baptist). The character of John the Baptist was created by the gospel writers as a hagaddic midrash on Malachi 4:5-6, and Isaiah 40:3-4. Building on this foundation of the midrash and intertextuality of John the Baptist, Mark says “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ ; AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS.” Mark then immediately interprets John the Baptist as a forerunner of the Messiah (a la Elijah in II Kings 1:8). Mark then clothes John similar to Elijah (Mark 1:6. II Kings 1:8.) He then says John ate locusts and wild honey,the food of the wildernes in which Elijah lived (and so on and so on). John’s character is haggadic midrash through an through.
Following this, as Price says, Jesus’ baptism by John is midrashic all the way down: The heavenly voice (bath qol) speaks a conflation of three scriptural passages. “You are my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11) combines bits and pieces of Psalm 2:7, the divine coronation decree, “You are my son. Today I have begotten you;” Isaiah 42:1, the blessing on the returning Exiles, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;” and Genesis 22:12 (LXX), where the heavenly voices bids Abraham to sacrifice his “beloved son.” And as William R. Stegner points out, Mark may have in mind a Targumic tradition whereby Isaac, bound on the altar, looks up into heaven and sees the heavens opened with angels and the Shekinah of God, a voice proclaiming, “Behold, two chosen ones, etc.” There is even the note that the willingness of Isaac to be slain may serve to atone for Israel’s sins. Here is abundant symbolism making Jesus king, servant, and atoning sacrifice. In view of parallels elsewhere between John and Jesus on the one hand and Elijah and Elisha on the other, some (Miller) also see in the Jordan baptism and the endowment with the spirit a repetition of 2 Kings 2, where, near the Jordan, Elijah bequeaths a double portion of his own miracle-working spirit to Elisha, who henceforth functions as his successor and superior.
And, as Price further points out about the intertextuality of John the Baptist, Usually scholars allow some core of historical reporting to underlie the story of the Baptizer’s death (though any reading of Mark must be harmonized with some difficulty with Josephus), recognizing just a bit of biblical embellishment to the narrative. For instance, it is apparent to all that Herod Antipas’ words to his step-daughter, “Whatever you ask of me I will give it to you, up to half my kingdom,” comes from Esther 5:3. Herod’s painting himself into the corner of having to order the execution of his favorite prophet may come from Darius’ bamboozlement in the case of Daniel (Daniel 6:6-15) (Miller). But it is possible that the whole tale comes from literary sources. Price points out that MacDonald shows how the story of John’s martyrdom matches in all essentials the Odyssey’s story of the murder of Agamemnon (3:254-308: 4:512-547; 11:404-434), even to the point that both are told in the form of an analepsis or flashback. Herodias, like Queen Clytemnestra, left her husband, preferring his cousin: Antipas in the one case, Aegisthus in the other. This tryst was threatened, in Clytemnestra’s case, by the return of her husband from the Trojan War, in Herodias’, by the denunciations of John. In both cases, the wicked adulteress plots the death of the nuisance. Aegisthus hosted a banquet to celebrate Agamemnon’s return, just as Herod hosted a feast. During the festivities Agamemnon is slain, sprawling amid the dinner plates, and the Baptizer is beheaded, his head displayed on a serving platter. Homer foreshadows danger awaiting the returning Odysseus with the story of Agamemnon’s murder, while Mark anticipates Jesus’ own martyrdom with that of John. The only outstanding difference, of course, is that in Mark’s version, the role of Agamemnon has been split between Herodias’ rightful husband (Philip according to Mark; another Herod according to Josephus) and John the Baptizer.
John the Baptist was not the forerunner of and earthly king or leader, but rather the forerunner of the Lord Himself (see Luke 1:16-17). Thus, John the Baptist prepared Jesus’ way while The Old Testament describes John’s “type” as preparing the way FOR GOD (Malachi 4: 5-6). So, as we see, there is no reason to think there is any historical information about John The Baptist in the gospels, because he is serving a completely literary, theological purpose.
It’s incredible the way Ehrman is able to pull “sources” out of thin air. Matthew is a Judaizing of the gentile gospel of Mark, but Ehrman somehow finds an independent “M” source behind Matthew.
Interestingly, if the author of the gospel Mark knew the Pauline epistles, and the author of the gospel of John knew at least one of the synoptics, then we may have only one independent source for the crucifixion and resurrection, not the multiple attestations Ehrman seems to think are out there. And this one source serves a literary, theological purpose: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,… (1 Cor 15:3-4).” Since the crucifixion and resurrection in Paul served a theological purpose, there is no way to ascribe them to the historical Jesus, since Paul would have had reason to invent them. Standard biblical hermeneutic protocol is to exclude any story from the historical Jesus that serves a theological purpose, since they are presented in a prejudiced way and the first Christians would have had reason to make those stories up.
I also disagree with William Lane Craig’s idea that we can be sure of “Multiple Attestation” on the issues of the “Crucifixion,” “Empty Tomb,” and “Resurrection Appearances.” Paul said “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures… and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Cor 15:3-8).” If Mark read Paul, and John read at least one of the synoptics, then there may only be one source (Paul) for all of these.
Yes. In fact, it all goes back to a single author: the author of the Corinthian creed. Probably Peter. One source. Who cites only scripture and visions as evidence.
And I’m wary of the way New Testament scholars liberally posit multiple sources to explain innovations from authors. For instance, Ehrman explains the material unique to Matthew by imagining there was an “M” source that Matthew had access to. In this case, I would say Matthew’s gospel shows itself to be a Judaizing of the gentile gospel of Mark, so there is no reason to think Matthew has an independent source here, let alone that it can be traced back to the historical Jesus. Something similar might be applicable to “Q.” Burton Mack argues for a stratified Q, Q 1 being the earliest. But Q 1 simply reflects sayings that have a common cynical tang, and hence do not need to come from one sage, let alone Jesus.
One last point:
Luke and Matthew borrowed from Mark. Most scholars posit a “Q” source that was shared by Matthew and Luke (for the material common to them that we don’t find in Mark), although some maintain that Luke borrowed from Matthew (Goodacre and Carrier argue this latter position). Where I raise my eyebrow is when scholars like Ehrman go one step further and posit a myriad of sources every time a gospel author has material unique to them. Ehrman might be right about this, but I don’t think there is any reason to think so. The gospel writers may just have been inventing the material that was unique to them: We have ample evidence with the apocryphal gospels about Jesus and the forged pseudo-Pauline epistles that the writers of that period were more than willing to invent material to suit their purposes, so it is perfectly reasonable to think that this was going on in the canonical Gospels as well.
Richard,
As I think you are aware, I have been convinced by the mythicist arguments regarding the applicable evidence that there was likely never a real person who inspired the Christ character as described in the gospels. I still have a couple of gaps that I think need filling. First, I take for granted that the Jesus/Messiah cult was originally part of second temple Judaism, as were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Ebionites, and whomever the Qumran community called themselves. However, there are writings about them by others that describe them, their beliefs and practices fairly completely – yet no such writings exist about the Jesus cult from the time. Other than destruction by later Christian authorities, why are there no other real writings from or detailed external descriptions of this cult? In other words, if you combine the non-controversial existence and historical references to these other sects, why is there nothing from the first century BCE that was produced by or emanated from the Jesus sect? This leads me to…
Second, what do you make of all of the claims regarding the references in the Jewish Tosefta and the Baraitas regarding the alleged real person, Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri? I have read your brief discussion of him in pp. 282-284 of OHJ, but would like to hear a more in depth analysis. The Mythicist Milwaukee folks have posted this link: http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html , and I’m wondering what parts of it you find valuable and what is discreditable?
I haven’t researched the “Jannaean Jesus”, largely because the evidence is so scarce and dodgy. Just about all we can know is that there was such a story, and it appears to have been the reigning story outside the Roman Empire, for a sect that was still Torah observant. Beyond that is only speculation.
On the vanishing act of early Christian sects, I document we know “of” at least thirty Jewish sects from the time, and we are barely lucky even to know the names of most of them; we rarely know anything more about them. There is no reason to expect that to be a complete list. As I point out in the section on this point in The Empty Tomb (Spiritual Body chapter), Judaism was vastly more diverse than surviving records imply. So it’s not at all unusual that a minor sect and its schisms escaped notice, the same as dozens of others did (e.g. Josephus falsely implies there were only four sects; we know therewere dozens; so he is skipping almost all of Jewish sectarianism in his history).
Good article. Interesting parallel between what Thompson went through 45 years ago and the current debate regarding Jesus. It will be interesting to see how things shift over the next generation – Thompson didn’t have the benefit of the internet during his day, so that may make a difference in hastening acceptance as a legitimate position. Regarding Ehrman, as presented in the article – on the one hand criticizing myth theory as baseless and without credibility while on the other hand relying upon theoretical/imaginary (mythological?) sources to make the statement that historicity is without question — he comes off very bad.
This also I think enrages the established academics, because of an elitism that is offended by internet amateurs doing their jobs for them. Yes, often they do that very poorly. But not always. And the academics can’t control what happens there. So they are losing the public audience. They are being bypassed. And I think that pisses them off.
Fwiw I also wrote about this article late last year: http://vridar.org/2015/12/13/tom-dykstra-on-mythicism-erhman-brodie-and-scholarly-conduct/
Awesome. Thanks!
Only a tiny minority of atheists have a profession or personal life situation which would be significantly more harmed by mythicism than atheism in general. There are unemployed/retired atheists who assert historicity.
Hence the other reasons.
“As for the question of whether Jesus existed, the best answer is that any attempt to find a historical Jesus is a waste of time. It can’t be done, it explains nothing, and it proves nothing.”
Superficially this sounds reasonable. Nonetheless finding historical Jesus is done, repeatedly. There is no explanation for why no one can prove which one is real but this matters not…except in the real world where historicity is most decidedly relevant. The most glaring example may be Christian support for the historical claims of Jews to Palestine but expectations as to the role of Israel in the End Times are also important. So, no, I must still disagree that Dykstra is at all reasonable.
Perhaps reframing can illustrate the point? “As for the question of whether the golden plates and the angel Moroni existed, the best answer is that any attempt to demonstrate they did not is a waste of time. It can’t be done. It explains nothing, and it proves nothing.” All literally true, yet wholly unreasonable.
I found your blog. It is very interesting. And I am interested reading your books too. I also watched couple of your youtube videos. In one of them (I can’t find it now) i think you said that Matthew and Luke changed lots of stuff from Mark’s narrative. What is evidence for that?
Liza G.
They are the evidence.
Compare how Matthew and Luke rewrite the empty tomb story. For example.
In chapter 10 of OHJ I similarly show how they change the depictions of Peter, the trial of Jesus, the sayings of Jesus, and so on.
I am actually curious of your views of the book “Mark, Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark’s Gospel”. I am currently in the middle of it and find it very thought provoking. It has already made me reconsider a few of my positions.
Overall it’s like MacDonald on the Homeric emulations in the NT: his thesis is correct, and he has enough examples strong enough to verify it, but not every example he is confident of is actually strong.
A very reserved, but interesting article. I wonder if Ehrman’s read or responded.
Off-topic, but I’d be interested in your take on some of Tim O’Neil’s arguments on the textual reliability of the gospels/Acts. This video is an example, though there are more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ3TxgYyFRM
There’s also an exchange between him and Ehrman on the Unbelievable Podcast where, in my unstudied opinion, Ehrman comes off rather badly.
I’m aware you work on commission, so I’m willing to throw in $50 bucks to read a blog post from you on the topic.
Tim O’Neil is a crank and a liar with no relevant qualifications and who cannot be trusted to present evidence honestly. The textual reliability issue is largely irrelevant to historicity anyway, but I already dispatch in it my debate with J.P. Holding (video, slides).
I meant Tim McGrew.
Ah. Then that is probably his undesigned coincidences nonsense. Matthew Ferguson is working on a tear down of that silliness. McGrew is a philosopher with a mathematics specialization. He has no relevant qualifications in ancient history or new testament studies. And he’s a weirdo fundamentalist. As Ferguson says, “the McGrews are not biblical scholars and I am not aware of them presenting their case for undesigned coincidences at any professional organization like the SBL. It’s a very old idea that scholars studying the Synoptic problem have been familiar with for a while, and have largely rejected.” Ferguson has taken on other silly things claimed by the McGrews on Gospel authorship. His site is worth searching on each. So if you are referring to some other argument, that’s a good place to look. (I don’t have time to watch videos. So you would need to ask specific questions.)
That’s not Tim O’Neill; that’s Tim McGrew
>The quest for the historical Jesus installs the flicker of a
matchstick in place of the aurora borealis.
lol Superb example of Backhand compliment by Brodie and that Criterion of Embarrassment has to be one the
most nonsensical analytical method ever developed really if go by that logic then 90 out of 100 God figures
around different cultures will be real historical figures For example in Hindu Epics there’s a story of Lord Rama
who is too literally a God Incarnated and as per the storyline of the Epic Ramayana he was Exiled by his own Family members
and even his mother conspired against him, now its too quite an embarrassing account nobody will invent for their God.
Hi Richard,
there is a scholar arguing that Paul met Jesus (no comment!). He claims that it is a plausible reading that kata sarka in 2 Cor 5:16 is about Christ and not about the act of knowing him.
Do you know who was the first Christian in II CE to claim clearly that Paul saw [i]only[/i] the risen Jesus and not a human Jesus?
Thanks in advance,
Giuseppe
No one in antiquity said Paul met Jesus in person before his death. They all agree he only met him after.
So this is just bullshit guised as history. The 2 Cor. passage can’t mean that anyway, as Paul is referring to Christians in Corinth (“we”), not just himself. So he cannot be talking about meeting Jesus in person (indeed he isn’t talking about meeting anyone; he is talking about our fleshly vs. spiritual existence and understanding: see my discussion in OHJ, scripture index).
In fact Paul explicitly denies ever meeting Jesus in the flesh in Gal. 1. Or having ever been in Judea for that matter. 1 Cor. 9:1 refers to that, not anything else. And Acts 9:1-9 has Paul meeting a voice from heaven after the death of Jesus. That is obviously not a historical person he is meeting.