Josh McDowell’s book is the
first book I read that introduced me to Biblical scholarship – I have since
been told that his book belongs to the tomes of apologetics, not biblical
scholarship. I would like to thank Prof. Lazarus Seruyange who provided me with
a free copy of NETDAV. When I started to research on Jesus’ resurrection, I set
off with an open but skeptical mind: I thought that Jesus was perhaps simply
misquoted in the gospels or was just mistaken. But what I discovered was
shocking even for me: there is not even a shred of hard evidence that there
existed a historical Jesus. Even events related to the resurrection like the
eclipse have no documents indicating they happened for example Pliny the Elder and Philo of
Alexandria, who should have spotted and noted things like a 3 - hour eclipse at
the crucifixion did not do that. Dozens of writers who lived in Jesus region
were not even aware that such a man existed. Only Mark, who writes his gospel
three or four decades after Christ’s death writes about a historical Jesus. It
also became clear to me that it was still possible for the Bible to provide a
basis for the Christian faith with the gospels excluded.
Dr.
Parker, In Early Christianity (a website) says “Christianity
began as a movement in Judaism by Jews. Those who joined did so through the
temple as Jews first. When the temple was destroyed in 70 C.E., the formal tie
between Christians and Jews was broken. Christianity emerged as a separate
religion only when the majority of Jews rejected it, yet the essentials of
Jewish theology remained fundamental to the new faith. The Hebrew canon records
the covenant between God and Abraham. To this, Christians added a new covenant
through Christ.”
There were many competing
sectarian cults in the first century Matthew Black in The
Patristic Account of Jewish Sectarians tells us that these included Pharisees,
Sadducees and Herodians, the Dead Sea and other Essenic groups, Hellenists,
Apocalyptic, Samaritans, Zealots and Sicarii, Galileans, Therapeutae,
Hemerobaptist, Masbotheans, and many more, in addition to the Am-ha-Eretz, the
Common People of the Land says Matthew Black in. With the destruction of the
Temple and the dislocation of significant segments of the population, a
continuation of temple-centered worship was impossible, there was even more confusion and
as the different groups fought over power, one came up (I would think the
Apocalyptic one) which claimed that Jesus had actually been born and was killed
at the behest of the Roman authorities. This cult, to counter competition, from
the mystical ones, wrote the Gospels that supported its views and was the one
that eheumerized Jesus (but they broke from tradition by actually constructing
an earthly personage as opposed to a sublunar, heavenly one like Mithras
or Inanna) after physicalizing the hitherto spiritual Christ, a virgin
birth was created, Nazareth, Joseph of Arimathea and other shadowy characters
emerged from the woodwork. Extreme similarities with extant mythologies and
cults are an indication of the borrowing that took place in the process of
constructing a historical Jesus (like the birth at a stable, Herod’s
baby-killing spree, walking on water, calming storms, 12 disciples and the
death and resurrection) with midrashic practices involving borrowing and
enlarging scripture from the Old Testament, the first Gospel was written.
In
Crises and Reaction: Roots of Diversity in Intertestamental Judaism, Julius Scott, Jr.
says about the Apocalyptic movement: “The Greek word
apokalupsis itself means "to reveal that which is hidden," thus, as
we have already learned from 2 Esdras, this movement assumed a "secret
tradition" which the writer makes known. The apocalyptic framework makes
clear that divine origin is claimed for its tradition; its content frequently
deals with the very questions and conditions brought on by the historical
crises of the Second Temple period.
Two further observations about the reactions of the
apocalypses are in order. First, the apocalyptic is a means of interpreting and
applying the Hebrew Scriptures just as surely as are the Pharisaic oral law,
the words of the Teacher of Righteousness, and other extra-Biblical traditions.
The apocalypist is consciously working with the Biblical text and from it
derives literary and historical structures, personal names, events, allusions,
and concepts, which he transports from their original context into his own. As
a hermeneutic the apocalyptic represents attempts both to maintain the
relevance of the written Scriptures and to break through the prophetic silence.
Furthermore, we must remember, the apocalyptic does not represent a united
tradition. It both mirrors and contributes to the diversity of Christian views.
For example, in the apocalyptic we meet a plurality of eschatological schemes
with many divergent details. These must have contributed to the confusion and
controversy of those who, like the first Jewish Christians, viewed themselves
as living in the eschatological age.”
Other competing Gospels were written too. When this cult
caught the attention of the Roman leadership, the other Gospels got branded
heretical and were burnt but some retained copies and other different
traditions existed alongside the Orthodox Church. It was
not until the pronouncement of Bishop Irenæus (185 C.E.) that Christians began
to accept only the four familiar gospels as authoritative, and to refer to them
by their modern titles. A
few centuries later at the Council of Nicea, all writings concerning Jesus and
the scriptures were collected, and some were canonized. The Holy Bible was
born. The rest, as they say, is history.
The biggest problem in biblical
scholarship is that there is no clear methodology that has been set that can be
applied to tell what is fact from fiction when studying relevant records from
antiquity.
But it’s also a good thing
because it affords laymen like me to stick out our heads and debate with
scholars on fairly equal footing. Arguments are addressed on their merit, not
on the basis of how many scholars support it, or how many PhD’s one has below
his belt.
I believe McDowell could have
used better historical evidence like Josephus’s Antiquities 20 passage
which has also been mentioned by Origen in Contra Celsus and also by
Eusebius which mentions that James was the brother of Jesus. Although it’s also
controversial, its stronger and its authenticity is less easier to argue
against. I also think it would have served McDowell better if he used the
Apocryphal Gospels to argue for the historicity of Jesus (like the Gospel of
Thomas) or even the crucifixion since skeptics arguing for interpolation
wouldn’t be able to sustain their arguments given that such writings were
largely ignored by the church fathers and hence are more likely to be
authentic. I say this because the wording of the title indicates it’s primarily
directed at a skeptic readership.
When I started searching about
McDowell’s book and biblical scolarship and archaeology, I met some Christians
who have been exposed to serious bible scholarship. When I asked them about what
they thought of Josh McDowell, one said, “McDowell mostly writes for
teenagers and young Christians. He is not a NT scholar, nor does he write for a
scholarly (or skeptical) audience. I find him genuine, but simplistic,
overeager, and under informed”. The other said, “Since I have never in
my life referred to McDowell as an authority on anything, I really have no
interest in defending him. He's more of a whipping boy of the skeptic than a
serious participant in New Testament studies.” I was taken aback because I
thought Christian readers would automatically “vouch” for McDowell. But in
retrospect, they were right. I’ts my hope however that in future, McDowell will
write for a serious, intellectual audience, not some gullible teenagers who can
fall for the Nazareth Inscription as evidence.
I also noted that McDowell
heavily used quotes from “scholars” but in numerous cases, he committed the
logical fallacy of appeal to authority by even quoting engineers and medical
doctors on matters of history or archaeology. In many cases, one catches him
touting opinion as evidence, which is really unfortunate. In numerous cases, he
provides unexplained quotes and the reader has to figure out their relevance.
Another flaw in McDowell’s approach is to admit dubious or questionable
evidence without admitting so. For example using the Testimonium Flavianum
without acknowledging that there are Christian scholars today who admit it has
been interpolated was disingenuous on his part and can give his readers false
confidence about the evidence he uses to make his arguments.
Otherwise his arguments are in
general persuasive but a sympathetic audience is critical for them to have any
weight because on close scrutiny, they collapse to fine ash.
My counterarguments indicate that
the resurrection concept is one that is unclear even to the evangelists
themselves. This is manifested by the head-on collisions their writings go
through. For example concerning whether the body would rise or whether only the
spirit would, who took Jesus from the cross, who and how many people or angels
the women found at the tomb etc. The New Testament is awash with contradictions
and one can only conclude that whenever an evangelist felt necessary, they made
linguistic compromises to cover embarrassing scenes. Others simply avoided
scenes they found embarrassing. The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist and
the negative portrait that Mark has created of Jesus are sometimes used to
argue for the possibility of the existence of a historical Jesus. The problem
with the embarrassment criterion is that one has to assume that the writers of
the gospels lacked the capacity to notice scenes that demeaned their hero. It
has also been argued that Mark was too poor in grammar and linguistic
composition to have come up with a story so complex like that of Jesus, but
this argument fails because imaginative abilities are not always pegged to
one’s linguistic skills.
The main reason there are so
many inconsistencies between the Gospel narratives is because each evangelist
felt free to twist the story to suit some particular agenda or whim they had,
that’s why the women encounter different scenes when they go to the tomb,
that’s why Jesus carries his cross alone in some narratives while in others, he
is aided, and that’s why his last words differ in the four accounts.
My opinion regarding whether or
not there existed a historical Jesus is that we may never know. But because of
philosophical reasons, preponderant lack of any evidence for his existence, the
mythical nature of both the concept of redemption, and the unreliable manner in
which the Gospels were written (midrash) and finally the huge mountain of
untestable and unfalsifiable theories one has to accept for the story to have a
meaning, I believe it’s more likely than not that Jesus never existed.
I must point out however that
many people lived in the first century Palestine who were called Jesus (this is
evident in Josephus’ writings), but if Mark based his Gospel on one of those
characters (i.e. a historical Jesus), it would only prove that Christianity is
based on a false concept of resurrection (unless one is ready to face the
uphill task of proving a normal man could resurrect).
I end this write-up with
McDowell’s quotation of church historian Philip Schaff:
“The
resurrection of Christ is … emphatically a test question upon which depends the
truth or falsehood of the Christian religion”
And Paul, many years after Jesus
alleged death, says in Romans1:3:
”Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed
of David according to the flesh”
This tells us Paul embraced the
Davidic descent of Jesus, according to the Old Testament/ scripture, not the
virgin-born Jesus who did not come from the seed of David, but was conceived
through the Holy Spirit. Thus, an allegorical Jesus: not a historical one. Its
clear even in Galatians 4:4, where he says, “born of woman”, he does not
mention Mary or the location where the birth took place. He is merely
paraphrasing Isaiah 7:14. Paul was clearly unaware of the existence of a
historical Jesus, the Nazarene. The main confusion, as Earl Doherty
demonstrates has been our interpretation of the Greek Kata Sarka
(meaning “according to the flesh”). “The flesh” represented a sublunary and
allegorical realm that was not earthly, but this is a topic that I can cover in
my next write-up.
Send
your comments to jaliet_2000@yahoo.com
