Evans and Wright - Jesus , the Final Days
This is the name of a new book where Christian scholars Craig Evans and NT Wright try to prove the Bible accounts of the resurrection are all true, all four of them.
Matthew 28 says 'The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.'
Notice that there was more than one of them, according to the anonymous author of Matthew's Gospel.
On page 70 of the book, Craig Evans writes 'We probably should assume that the evangelist has referred to the custodian, whose placement in the vicinity of tombs set aside for executed criminals was to see that burial laws were not violated'
So even Christian scholars cannot produce evidence that more than one guard would be posted, or that this guard was something not normally done, and was done only because the Pharisees wanted a guard.
Even Christian scholars implicitly admit the bogosity of Matthew's story....
Matthew 28 says 'The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.'
Notice that there was more than one of them, according to the anonymous author of Matthew's Gospel.
On page 70 of the book, Craig Evans writes 'We probably should assume that the evangelist has referred to the custodian, whose placement in the vicinity of tombs set aside for executed criminals was to see that burial laws were not violated'
So even Christian scholars cannot produce evidence that more than one guard would be posted, or that this guard was something not normally done, and was done only because the Pharisees wanted a guard.
Even Christian scholars implicitly admit the bogosity of Matthew's story....
posted by Steven Carr at 1:17 AM
14 Comments:
Hi Steven,
I have a question for you that's not specifically related to this post - I hope you don't mind me raising it here!
I'm just very interested to know what you consider to be your main motivation to continue to engage with contemporary Christian apologetics to the level which you currently do.
If I've read and understood your backlog of web material correctly, you've pretty much held to a consistent set of views for a decade or more. In summary, you have concluded that it's extremely unlikely that God exists, and that the evidence for Christianity is appalling at best. So, what I'm driving at is this - the obvious implication of your worldview is that the life that we have, here and now, is all that there is. That makes it precious, finite, and how we choose to spend our limited time here on Earth becomes critically important.
To continue to engage with what you believe to be delusions must occupy a fairly large portion of your time. If you decided instead to spend this time, say, down the pub, or on the golf course, I can't think of a single person who could fault you for it. You would be living in a manner that would be completely consistent with your value set.
And yet, I see eight blog posts in the last seven days!
Please understand, I don't mean to be facetious in any way - I am honestly, genuinely curious about your overall strategic objective.
I think it's praiseworthy that you do continue to engage with the big questions in the way that you do - I wish more atheists were as willing to pick up a copy of Wright or Polkinghorne's latest work - it's all that one can ask from an apologetic standpoint. Of course, many have read their works and come to completely different conclusions. Naturally, you would already be aware that Antony Flew praised N.T.Wright as crafting 'by far the best case for accepting Christian belief that I have ever seen.'
I still hope that this prodigious reading may in fact lead you to God one day. It must certainly remain a possibility for anyone who considers themselves a genuine free-thinker.
But what is your driving motivation?
cheers,
James
I don't like people peddling myths as true.
Fair enough.
Well then, let's consider your point at hand. You submit that because the story of the posting of a guard at Jesus' tomb does not satisfy the criteria of multiple attestation, you are inclined to write it off as a case of myth being peddled as truth.
But surely other plausible explanations exist. One such explanation might be that the Markan, Q and L sources do not recount this story because those who contributed to these sources were simply not aware of it!
Would you be convinced by a neat list of three footnote references attached as an appendix to this sentence in Matthew's gospel, for the benefit of modern, 21st century readers? If so, you place the bar for historical authenticity at an extraordinarily high level! I can only hope, for consistency's sake at least, that you apply the same degree of incredulity and skepticism to each and every historical tidbit contained in the documents produced by Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and so on.
So, does your own theory fare any better? Can your thesis that the gospel records were changed at the whim of unknown persons at unknown times to suit their particular theological opinions, (plagiarizing Old Testament miracles where necessary) stand up to a similar degree of skeptical scrutiny?
If we adopt your skeptical stance, we would be well entitled to ask whether you can produce any manuscript evidence to buttress your case? Perhaps an early copy of Matthew's gospel which does not contain the guard at the tomb story? Or a genuine first-century document which contains a detailed biography of a non-miracle working Jesus? Or a body of literature, ie. articles written by professional scholars in major peer-reviewed journals, that supports the thesis that the early gospel sources explicitly stole from the OT?
cheers,
James
Is this a joke, or somebody pretending to be you?
An anonymous author, clearly copying Mark's work, adds details of a clearly secret meeting and adds a Roman guard , a detail which makes a mockery of the other stories, where people assume they can visit the tomb?
'Can your thesis that the gospel records were changed at the whim of unknown persons at unknown times to suit their particular theological opinions, (plagiarizing Old Testament miracles where necessary) stand up to a similar degree of skeptical scrutiny?'
Of course.
We can see manuscript changes. I have pictures of manuscripts where words were added.
By 'similar skeptical scrutiny', I assume you mean the same standards Christians use when reading the Book of Mormon and the Koran.
In which case, I made certain that I used only Christian-style arguments when I wrote my Miracles and the Book of Mormon article.
In my experience, most Christians reject the Qu'ran simply because it contradicts the Bible. Those looking for more sophisticated arguments than 'We are right and they are wrong' point out how Muhammad used his sources.
The Christian legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus appears in the Qu'ran in Sura 18:8-26. The Christian legend of Jesus breathing life into clay birds appears in Sura 5:121. The story about Gideon (Judges 7:5-7) appears as a story about Saul in Sura 2:249-250.
Why does the Islamic use of Christian legend disqualify the Qu'ran, but the Christian use of the Jewish legend of Jannes and Jambres does not disqualify the New Testament?
If it is obvious that the Islamic story about Saul is based on Gideon, why is it not equally obvious that the Christian story of Jesus feeding the 5,000 is based on Elisha feeding a large crowd with bread left over (2 Kings 4)?
If the Koran is wrong to use apocryphal works such as an infancy Gospel, why is it acceptable for Jude to quote from the Book of Enoch?
What results come out of a comparison of Josephus with the Gospels?
Josephus mentions his sources frequently, among them: Berosus, Jerome, Mnaseas, Nicolaus, Manetho, Moschus, Hesiod, Menander, Dios, Herodotus, Megasthenes, Philostratus, 1 Maccabees, Polybius, Strabo, Livy, etc. Not all these sources are good but at least we can see where Josephus is coming from. Some of these sources are still extant and we can see how Josephus used them. We can see where Josephus changed from one source to the next, as his knowledge gets more or less detailed.
The Gospels never name the sources they used. Although some copying went on, none of the Synoptics tell us about it. But from what we can tell of how Matthew and Luke used Mark, the evangelists used their sources quite freely. The evangelists are always omniscient, even when it comes to knowing what is in Pilate's heart.
But you know all of this, at least as well as I do...
Hence my puzzlement at your post.
As for 'footnotes', surely you of all people must know that real historians of the age did say who they were copying from , when they quoted other works.
GARTH
I can only hope, for consistency's sake at least, that you apply the same degree of incredulity and skepticism to each and every historical tidbit contained in the documents produced by Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and so on.
CARR
As I wrote in my debate
The renowned historian Michael Grant writes in 'The Twelve Caesars' about the Roman historian Suetonius '...he is extremely superstitious. As Pliny confirms, he believed determinedly in prophetic dreams. Omens, too, attracted his credulous fascination...'
He quotes Hunter on Tacitus 'He is void of candour wants judgement, exceeds nature and violates truth.' Grant continues about Tacitus '...biased interpretations and unjustified innuendoes which distort its veracity.'
Ancient writers were credulous, gullible, unreliable, biased and superstitious. Is it double-standards not to reject the idea that Christian writers may share some of these faults? Are there any stories in the Gospels which, in your opinion, betray some of the credulity, gullibility and bias that we find in secular writers of the period, and in every single Christian writer who wrote non-canonical works?
Excellent, I am glad that we've confirmed the fact that you treat the other period historians with similar disdain. It means your position is a consistent one. I have no further quarrel on this matter.
You've assumed that I reject the Qur'an because of its alleged plagiarizing of Christian sources. Some Christians may do this, but personally I have not found these conflicting stories to make a conclusive case either way. Ultimately, I remain agnostic as to much of the content of the Qu'ran.
Where I do find it unsatisfactory is on a crucial point; its treatment of the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. It doesn't seem particularly plausible to me that he could have been 'not crucified, though it appeared so unto them' (4:157). I am open to hearing evidence that might persuade me to the contrary.
So, now, to the Bible. To make things very clear, I do not subscribe to the 'inerrancy' position frequently promulgated by apologetic scholarship. Instead, I submit that the New Testament contains a strong 'core' of truth which can be defended historically. From this 'core' we can deduce that (i) Jesus' tomb was very likely empty shortly after his crucifixion and (ii) from the very beginning, significant numbers of men and women claim to have seen Christ alive from the dead. A vast majority of mainstream scholars would agree with these two points. Whether you accept resurrection as being the best explanation - or even a plausible explanation - will depend largely on whether or not you believe the observable laws of nature are the only forces active in the universe, or whether a Law-giver exists in addition to these laws.
Now, to answer your question 'are there any stories in the gospels which... betray some of the credulity, gullibility and bias, etc.', I can indeed cite a few examples where I believe questions ought to be asked.
1) Jude. Personally, I don't think Jude should be a canonical text. I think it is essentially a reworking of 2 Peter with references to contested apocryphal works. So I agree with you, I don't think it should have made the cut.
2) The Didache. I think that the Didache could make a significantly stronger case for canonization than Jude, and I probably would have included it.
3) The conclusion of Mark. (16:9-20) This strikes me as decidedly suspect. I don't know a single reputable mainstream scholar who would argue that this was an original inclusion (and, of course, we find it absent from some early manuscripts, as any study bible will attest).
4) Hebrews. Whilst an extremely fascinating historical document in its own right, if we don't know conclusively whether it was written by Apollos, Barnabus or even Paul, then it seems to me that we ought not to include it as canonical.
5) Clement. Though this is not a canonical document, I feel that Clement acted in a credulous manner by accepting the story of the Phoenix at face value. This wasn't a surprising error - the myth held widespread credence at the time - but it was an error nonetheless.
So there we go! That's about as heterodox as I get. I have no particular further complaints about any other NT material that I can think of.
Now, returning to my original questions,
(i) Regarding the photographs of manuscripts which show where insertions have been made: do they, by any chance, pertain to the portion of Matthew's gospel that we are discussing?
(ii) Can you produce a genuine first-century document or fragment which chronicles the life of a non-miracle working Jesus?
(iii) Can you list some articles written by professional scholars in major peer-reviewed journals, that support the thesis that the early gospel sources explicitly stole from the OT? (and a link back to your own essay doesn't count! ;-)
cheers,
James
In order to persuade me that these portions of the Gospel of Matthew were the product of Matthew's fertile imagination or that of a later, anonymous Christian redactor, I'd need evidence of the following sort:
- An early letter, piece of correspondence or teaching written by any source (perhaps Jewish or Roman) which contested these specific claims.
- A writing from an early Christian questioning the document's acceptance or canonicity based on the presence of these elements.
In the absence of such evidence, I can't see how the hypothesis that Matthew simply weaved in material from a legitimate 'M' source (likely an oral tradition) known to him but not the other evangelists is any less legitimate than the hypothesis proposed above.
How can anyone take this nonsense seriously?
But of course millions do.
Wright is so mediocre and so full of fanciful speculative delusions as to be painful.
I have heard him interviewed my local radio a couple of times--nonsense from start to finish.
In Truth and Reality all of the stuff that Wright and others write about just didnt happen---nobody ever witnessed any of it.
And nobody, I repeat nobody, has a clue as to the dynamics of how, when, and why the Bible was created.
Or of the institutional and FACTIONAL POWER POLITICS that were played out in the making of the "official" version of Christianity that comes to us via the Bible.
Who were the church fathers that put it together?
Why did they select the texts that they did? Out of the then MANY existing and available Christian writings of the time.
Why did they heavily edit the texts that they did include?
Why did they make up stories that couldnt have been true? For instance NOBODY could have heard and then reported the alleged conversation between Pontius Pilate and Jesus.
Who could have possibly written it down?
Why were ALL of the then existing gnostic interpretations and understandings of the life and teaching (and significance) of Jesus OMITTED from the final "official" Bible?
Gnostic religionists are not particularly interested in building worldly power machines.
Plus nobody really knows anything at all about the dynamics of how the church grew altogether over time.
It is ALL speculation.
It was all created as propaganda by the then institutional church to consolidate its very worldly power and control seeking agendas.
I quite like this assessment of the origins (or rather lies at the origins) of churchianity.
www.jesusneverexisted.com
Garth won't believe the evidence of his own eyes.
Photographic evidence of forgery that Christians will never believe
Faith is belief despite the evidence.
Hi Sue,
Thanks for your contribution.
You are entitled to your beliefs, of course, but as you must be aware, the opinion that the entire Christian story is a fabrication (i.e.. 'Jesus never existed') occupies a very extreme niche on the spectrum of scholarly historical opinion.
I find Humphrey's claims made on your website link to be very problematic. They provide very unsatisfactory answers to the following questions:
* If Jesus did not exist, then why does the Jewish Talmud contain a passage, dated AD 100-200 justifying Jesus' execution on the grounds that he 'led Israel astray and 'practiced sorcery'?
* If the entire resurrection narrative is a concoction, then why did its concoctors decide to make the women the first to see the empty tomb? Why did they do that if their intended audiences, in an overtly patriarchal society, were not positively inclined to accept the testimony of women?
* Why would Prof Ed Sanders, one of the leading secular Jesus scholars in the world (and not a Christian, nor a believer in God) conclude: 'That Jesus' followers and later Paul had resurrection experiences is in my judgment a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences, I do not know.'?
* Why would Geza Vermes, an equally acclaimed and highly respected scholar (and Jew, who rejects the resurrection) conclude that 'Pilate, notorious for his cruelty, did not hesitate to put to death the 'king of the Jews', whom he believed to be an insurgent ... Jesus expired on a Roman cross and was buried. But his disciples saw him in repeated visions, which persuaded them that he had been raised from the dead before ascending to heaven."
* How is it that the following facts concerning Jesus' life can be gleaned solely from non-Christian sources, entirely apart from the gospel material (as historian John Dickson notes):
- The name 'Jesus'
- The place and time-frame of his public ministry (Palestine during Pontius Pilate's governorship, AD 26-36)
- The name of his mother (Mary)
- The ambiguous nature of his birth
- The name of one of his brothers (James)
- His fame as a teacher
- His fame as a miracle worker/sorcerer
- The attribution to him of the title 'Messiah/Christ'
- His 'kingly' status in the eyes of some
- The time and manner of his execution (crucifixion around the Passover festival)
- The involvement of both the Roman and Jewish leadership in his death
- The coincidence of an eclipse at the time of his crucifixion
- The report of Jesus' appearances to his followers after his death
- The flourishing of a movement that worshipped Jesus after his death
* Why does even the controversial Jesus Seminar accept the historical facts that Jesus was born, lived, taught and was crucified under the Romans!
* Why do none of these acclaimed and respected non-Christian historians support the contention that Jesus never existed? On the contrary, they affirm that that very first generation of Christians, right from the start, claimed to see Jesus and worshipped him as God!
To accept Humphrey's thesis as true relies on assuming the existence of a systematic conspiracy theory at every conceivable level. Why would such conspiracy manifest itself at a time where Christianity was periodically under persecution, specifically because of its adherents' denial of the Emperor cult?
I really don't find that reconstruction to be in any way compelling.
cheers,
James
It is only Christians writing to other Christians who defend against the other Christians belief that these stories were myth.
2 Peter 1
We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
Clearly some Christians were claiming these stories were myths.
Even as far back as Paul, Paul was complaining in 2 Corinthians 11 that Christians very happily accepted false Jesus's.
For all we know, the Jesus of the Gospels may well be one of the false Jesus's that Paul knew Christians were beginning to accept as truth.
As for the other sources, they are as reliable as the stories about Ned Ludd.
Ned Ludd founded a political movement known as the Luddites, and they are stories about Ned Ludd.
There is even a picture of him from 1812.
But historians cannot find any traces of Ned Ludd in the time that he was supposed to have existed.
So there is prima facie evidence that Jesus existed (much less evidence that Jesus *of Nazareth* existed), but that evidence turns out to be as solid as the evidence for Nedd Ludd.
So the evidence is less than stellar, but clearly does exist.
But similar evidence exists for Ned Ludd (Luddites were also persecuted, of course)
GARTH
If the entire resurrection narrative is a concoction, then why did its concoctors decide to make the women the first to see the empty tomb
CARR
The first people to announce the resurrection to the reader in each Gospel are a young man, an angel, two angels, and Jesus Himself.
The woman come to the 'foolish' conclusion that somebody has taken the body (What fools women are!)
Happily, men are there to check the tomb and correct the foolishness of the women.
Or they get confused about the identity. A man would never get confused about the identity and would demand and get proofs that it really was Jesus.
Really, if you were writing fake reports, you would get 'women' to leap to the conclusion that the body had been taken, or show how only foolish women would suffer a case of mistaken identity (Happily, Jesus Himself corrected Mary M.)
Meanwhile, not one person in history ever named himself as seeing Mary M. , the BVM,. the other Mary, Joanna, Salome, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Joseph of Arimathea (or even Arimathea), Judas, Thomas etc.
Meanwhile, not one person in history ever named himself as meeting a named person he claimed sasw Mary M. , the BVM,. the other Mary, Joanna, Salome, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Joseph of Arimathea (or even Arimathea), Judas, Thomas etc.
These people vanish even from church history as though they had never been, disappearing as completely as Nedd Ludd.
The Gospel of Mark is anonymous and has such absurdities as the Romans allowing a convicted criminal to be set free each year at Passover.
And this convicted criminal, being set free, is called 'Son of the Father' while the real 'Son of the Father' is on his way to being killed, although innocent.
Meanwhile, Simon Peter protests then Jesus says people have to carry their cross, and then Simon of Cyrene literally picks up the cross and carries it. (unlike the other Simon who deserts Jesus...)..
Just how much does the author have to signal that this is myth?
It is just a myth as John Bunyan's 'Pilgrims Progress' with its people called Mr. Worldly Wiseman , Mr. Legality and his son Civility in the village of Morality....
Not even Christians like Paul, or the authors of Hebrews, James, Jude, 1,2,3 John show any knowledge of these Gospel characters.
They just don't exist in church history until anonymous authors start writing about them in works laced with Frauds and Lies
GARTH
The coincidence of an eclipse at the time of his crucifixion
CARR
This is nonsense.
It is impossible to have an eclipse at Passover.
No existing source says there was an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus, other than Christian Bishops claiming that somebody said there was.
But nobody can find the original of this made-up claim that there was an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion.
Not even the Christian Bishop Africanus actually quotes anybody saying that. His writing does not even rise to the level of quote-mining, as he does not even quote his alleged source.
So many myths in the Christian case. Vast numbers..... As many myths as you find in Holocaust-denial, although the underlying motivation is obviously very different.
GARTH
If Jesus did not exist, then why does the Jewish Talmud contain a passage, dated AD 100-200 justifying Jesus' execution on the grounds that he 'led Israel astray and 'practiced sorcery'?
CARR
Jews say ' The Yeshu mentioned here lived at the time that Joshua Ben Perachyah led the Sanhedrin (circa 150 BCE) and, therefore, predated Jesus according to Christian chronology by at least 150 years. Moreover, the name of Jesus in Hebrew is Yehoshuah, which is as different in spelling from Yeshu as Cheryl is from Sharon in English.'
As for Josephus, Christian scribes simply stuck a bit of Matthew 1:16 in to the text , which was about Jesus, son of Damnaeus.
Certainly, Luke/Acts never claims this James had ever seen Jesus.
The Epistle of James has no mention of Jesus as a brother.
The Epistle of Jude says he was a brother of James, but has no mention of Jesus as a brother of either of them.
And Paul claims most of the 'Brothers of the Lord' spoke up more fearlessly after seeing the example of Paul.How many is 'most'? I guess 4 or 5 brothers of Jesus were more inspired by Paul than by their own brother Jesus, while the other 3 or 4 brothers of Jesus were not so courageous.
He quotes Hunter on Tacitus 'He is void of candour wants judgement, exceeds nature and violates truth.' Grant continues about Tacitus '...biased interpretations and unjustified innuendoes which distort its veracity."'
Ancient writers were credulous, gullible, unreliable, biased and superstitious. Is it double-standards not to reject the idea that Christian writers may share some of these faults? Are there any stories in the Gospels which, in your opinion, betray some of the credulity, gullibility and bias that we find in secular writers of the period, and in every single Christian writer who wrote non-canonical works?
Important point. The historical record, whether 1792 AD, or 92 AD is generally unverifiable. Those who have read a bit of Tacitus realize that much of what he says is doubtful, exaggerated, skewed, piecemeal, etc.: it's not truth, but sort of a collections of purported facts, and only by weighing Tacitus against other writers, say Suetonius can we form estimations of what happened (if we even care). An ancient religious text then even more problematic than ancient history.
Really an easier solution is offered via Hume: when you read some ancient text which has writing suggesting the dead come back to life, it is not to be accepted as reliable testimony, but either held to be myth or madness. I am willing to grant the Resurrection myth (probably related to Dionysus, other Med. myths); not willing to grant the literal, tales from the crypt reading.
Post a Comment
<< Home