Loading...QUESTION:
THIS QUESTION FROM A MEMBER OF THE BLOG QUOTES SOMETHING I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST AND THEN ASKS A QUESTION ABOUT IT:
“As I’ve intimated, my own view is that these patriarchal narratives are not historical accounts of people who actually lived and did the things ascribed to them. I see them as highly legendary, narratives told by the people of Israel – after they became the people of Israel (say in the 11th or 10th centuries) — about their “early days.” Stories circulated for years and years in different parts of the land, among different tribes of people who were later said to have all been part of Israel. These stories were then combined and put into the sources, which later were composed into one big narrative (say in the 6th c BCE). I do not see them as historical records, but more as something like “founding legends” that help explain to the people who they are in light of their (imagined) past.”
If that’s the case then why can’t the same be said about Jesus of Nazareth?
RESPONSE:
That’s a great question! But I think the case is strikingly different when it comes to Jesus . And that’s because of the nature of the evidence in the two cases. The evidence, in my opinion, is incommensurate.
Here’s the deal. For Abraham (to pick the oldest patriarch), we are dealing with someone who would have lived, if he lived, in the 18th century BCE – so say, 1750 CE. We actually don’t know when the J and E sources that later became the book of Genesis were produced (assuming, for the moment, the standard explanation that Genesis is made of these two sources; J stands for Jahwist – since this author prefers the name Yahweh [or in German: Jahweh] for the deity [translated into English as LORD – all caps]; E stands for Elohist – since this other author prefers the name Elohim for the deity [translated into English as God]). The traditional dates indicate that J was produced in the 10th century BCE – say 950 BCE – and E in the 9th century – say 850 BCE. But it’s hotly debated. My former colleague at UNC, Hebrew Bible specialist John van Seters, insisted that J was not written until after the Babylonian Exile, so no earlier than 500 BCE.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, YOU STILL HAVE A CHANCE BEFORE THE END!!!
In my own experience as the family historian and genealogist I have a lot of contact with both oral tradition and documentary evidence. Now I am only talking about some 125 years, but I suspect the conclusions hold true over longer periods of time as well. Conclusion #1: Oral tradition is often embellished and corrupted over time. Conclusion #2: Some truth exists un-embellished and uncorrupted over time. Conclusion #3: It is very difficult to distinguish truth from embellishment and corruption in the absence of documentary evidence. It is what makes the study of my great-grandparents or the historical Jesus or the Patriarchs a challenging puzzle.
Isn’t it great what historical perspective does to time scale? I think this is the first time I’ve ever read anything you’ve written where you expressed:
“Our earliest Gospel is Mark, written around 70 CE. That’s only 40 years away from Jesus’ life.”
Usually, that 40 years is emphasized to point out how unreliable it makes the account, while here it’s stressed to show how much more reliable it is than another account! This is a great example of the rational approach as opposed to the absolutist.
“… there are reasons for thinking that Q is even earlier than Mark, say in the 50’s.”
If you assume Mark and Q were independent and remote, 20 years is a reasonable guess at how much earlier Q might have been written before Mark. But I don’t think that is a common or consensus dating of Q. Fledderman, who admittedly follows the minority opinion that ‘Mark’ was dependent on Q, even dates Q post 70 CE. What are your reasons for assigning such an early date to Q?
You know, it’s been so many years since I bothered to look at the evidence, that offhand I don’t recall why it is usually placed so early. Apart from the fact that it was known to Matthew and Luke — so that it must predate 80 CE by a good bit — I’m not *sure* offhand. I’ll see if I can find out.
Great question! Great Answer! This is what makes this blog so worthwhile and helpful.
Amen! 😉
One of my problems is: if Abraham was the patriarch of the nation, why were they not called Abrahamites (or Abramites), instead of naming themselves after their patriarch’s grandson?
Ah, good question. It’s because Abraham had two sons, and the Israelites descend from only one of them (Isaac), and not from Isaac’s only son but from one of two (Jacob instead of Esau). So it all goes back to Jacob/Israel; but ultimately Abraham is said to be the one first called and promised a progeny and the Land.
Why do you think the author added in the Hagar and Ishmael story?
sorry, I”m not sure which author you mean? You’ll need to remind me of your initial question as well.
Sorry. In reference to the Abraham story, why do you think the author of Genesis added Abraham getting Hagar pregnant with Ishmael? It seems like it adds nothing to the Patriarch’s story and only inserts a complication of Abraham having two sons when the story seems to indicate that Isaac is Abraham’s only son.
Since the author was creating this story, it seems odd to me to add this complication.
He appears to be trying to show where the Ishmaelites, a neighboring and unfriendly people (to the Israelites) came from. More of the sibling rivalry thing you get throughout the Bible…
In terms of a percentage, how certain are you that Q existed? In written form? In oral form?
Has Mark Goodacre’s work on this subject caused you to rethink Q?
I’m pretty sure it must have existed, in Greek, in written form. Mark Goodacre makes the best case that can be made against the existence of Q, but I don’t find the case compelling.
I would love to hear your thoughts on Goodacre’s case against Q. Why do you think Q existed in some form (written, oral or a mixture of the two?) and why does Goodacre’s hypothesis not convince?
That would take a number of posts! I find the traditional arguments for Q (Streeter etc.) more convincing than the arguments for the Farrer hypothesis. The argument for order, and the difficulty of explaining Luke’s use of Matthew are key. I do think Goodacre’s argument is as good as one can make for the alternative. But he bases way too much in small pieces of data (minor agreements, e.g.) in my opinion, overlooking the BIG indications traditionally cited.
I agree! 🙂
Bart,
Since we’re talking Old Testament, are there any ancient Christian writers who took Genesis creation accounts *only* metaphorically/mystically, and not as a literal account of history that actually took place? It seems modern apologists are anxious to say people like Origen didn’t take it literally. (and if we know Origen and pals took it literally… how do we know? Inferring? or do they explicitly say so?)
Thanks!
Ben
I don’t know of any!
Bart,
My friend whom I’m discussing this with gave me his Origen quote. I was hoping you might comment on these passages of Origen, which seem to indicate he *didn’t* take it literally/historically…
Origen says, //”For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in APPEARANCE, and NOT LITERALLY. (“De Principiis IV, 16″)//
//…we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world.” (Contra Celsus 6.60)//
Since you maintain they did take it literally, are we misreading the above passage?
Hopefully you can shed some light on this!
Ben
Ah, sorry. I was wrong. Answering these things too quickly. Origen is a very interesting figure when it comes to biblical interpretatoin. He actually preferred a literal reading when possible. But when not possible — because of discrepancies, histoircal implausibilities, pure errors — he maintained that the Holy Spirit had *created* the problem to compel readers to take the passage figurateively. And yes, you’re right, that’s the case with Genesis 1-3.
Paul and Peter, at least, seemed to take OT events literally. The scriptures say that everything Jesus said was a parable…so when he references OT events I wonder if he is speaking about them both as literal and parables.
I think you’re referring to Mark 4. It doesn’t say that everything Jesus ever said was parabolic; it says that he taught the outsiders only by telling parables.
Or… if you don’t off hand know. Do you know of an expert in Early Church Fathers/Origen who I might be able to ask?
For Origen’s approach to interpretation, see his On First Principles, Book 4.
I’ve often read it suggested that the Genesis creation accounts were not necessarily MEANT to be taken as a literal historical account by people who originally told the stories and that their hearers also didn’t necessarily take them as such.
I’m sympathetic to that idea but I wonder; how do we know? How COULD we even know?
I think that’s usually an explanation meant to get an ancient author off the hook….
I don’t want to speak for Dr. Ehrman, but here’s my thoughts:
First, we have to acknowledge that history (like all sciences; indeed, ALL knowledge and beliefs) is a matter of degrees of probability. So, we admit up from we won’t have ABSOLUTE 100% certainty, about anything. In ancient history specifically, we’re going to be less certain about many things, because our access to information is so limited, and hence, our beliefs and convictions have to be scaled to the evidence (in everything, including history). So we ask ourselves, how do we know that, say, Paul’s letter to the Romans, was meant to be taken literally (and not as some secret Gnostic code or something)? Well, there’s various indicators. The style, the words he uses, etc.. We can’t be *as* sure for Paul as we are about whether Bart Ehrman’s books are meant to be taken literally– because, we can *ask* Bart. But, for Paul, we can be pretty darn sure. In the case of Genesis, I think we have to be less sure than we are for Paul, but in my opinion, the indicators are obvious– Genesis is meant to be taken literally/historically, given its context in the entire Torah, etc.. (P, one of the authors of Genesis, includes Genealogies for Pete’s sake haha).
I find the historical evidence for existence of Jesus pretty compelling as far as ancient history of antiquity goes.
Just to play devil’s advocate, how confident can we be that Paul’s letters have not been significantly doctored over a period of decades, inserting references to a historical Jesus when no such references exist in the originals? What are the oldest fragments and whole letters of the Pauline epistles?
Ah, good question. I think I’ll devote today’s post to it.
Yes, you make a totally convincing case! And another thought: Abraham and the other “patriarchs” may well have been different tribes’ *gods*, who were crammed together in a tale that portrayed them as mortals. By the time Jesus lived, the Jews had been monotheistic for a long time.
Hi Bart,
I just got through reading your comment on Feb 8, about Jesus and Abraham and I have a comment, I’d like to throw into the mix.
I too, do believe that Jesus probably actually lived. Furthermore, based upon what was written by Paul, I also believe that he, Paul, actually met James, the brother of Jesus, and Peter. However, this is about as far as I would go.
I’m not sure I believe any of the stories in the New Testament about Jesus. As you’ve pointed out in several of your books, there are very many inconsistencies in this document. It seems to me that nobody really can determine what stories about Jesus, written in this document really are true?
Thus, because of these inconsistencies, to me, it is these stories about Jesus and his life that are really questionable and are perhaps not really accurate historical accounts.
John
Thanks for answering the question about Jesus and Abraham! I think James the Brother of the Lord would have a real big problem if he found out that Jesus didn’t exist. Of course now Mythicists are arguing that the greek can be translated as “Brother in the Lord”, or that it’s an interpolation. Have you heard that Maurice Casey is writing book on the existence of Jesus?
Yes, I deal with the mythicists in my book. Yes, I did know that about Casey.
Do we know Paul knew that Jesus held a “Last Supper” as recounted in the gospels? I am aware he refers on occasion to a “Lord’s Supper”, and that this is apparently in some sense sacramental (although sometimes it sounds more like “fellowship” than ritual, but does Paul refer to this Lord’s supper as sacrificial or salvific? “do this in remembrance of me?” “this is my body” that stuff?
My sense is that hte eucharistic language was not something that happened at the meal but was “remembered” as having happened by later story tellers.
Another attribute of Jesus known to Paul: He was “born of a woman”. Very important, that. Apparently.
I used to never understand this either. But now I think I do. The point is that Paul believed Christ was an angel before he became human (I give the evidence in my new book); so he had to stress that he was actually born as a human, that he didn’t just show up one day as angels sometimes do.
Bart,
First off, you might as well be comparing apples to oranges. Or Abraham and Isaac to King Arthur. Even if it were more probable that Jesus existed (on that point I agree with you), it doesn’t necessarily follow that what others said and wrote about him is historically dependable. As I see it, the Jesus stories are suspect for equally laudable, though different reasons.
Also, if the patriarchal narratives should be dismissed as legitimate history, mostly because of the lapse of time in between supposed events and the writing about them, does that not make the Gospel of Mark more reliable than the others? In fact, your own writings are quite late in coming. Does that mean they are therefore less historical?
No, I think you’re misrepresenting my argument. I have research methods and tools. J did not. And yes, Mark is probably more accurate than, say, the Gospel of Nicodemus.
Perhaps, though I doubt it. I think you are misunderstanding mine. But I don’t hold that against you. 😉
My only doubt that concerns me about the existence of Jesus is that Philo recognized that the LOGOS was a high preist name Jesus. Bart what do you think?
“Nor was the idea of a preexistent spiritual son of God a novel idea among the Jews anyway. Paul’s contemporary, Philo, interprets the messianic prophecy of Zechariah 6:11-12 in just such a way. In the Septuagint this says to place the crown of kingship upon “Jesus,” for “So says Jehovah the Ruler of All, ‘Behold the man named ‘Rises’, and he shall rise up from his place below and he shall build the House of the Lord’.” This pretty much is the Christian Gospel. Philo was a Platonic thinker, so he could not imagine this as referring to “a man who is compounded of body and soul,” but thought it meant an “incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image” whom “the Father of the Universe has caused to spring up as the eldest son.” Then Philo says, “In another passage, he calls this son the firstborn,” and says “he who is thus born” imitates “the ways of his father.” (Not the Impossible Faith, pp. 250-251)
“In the same book, Philo says even if no one is “worth to be called a Son of God,” we should still “labor earnestly to be adorned according to his firstborn Logos, the eldest of his angels, the ruling archangel of many names,” and notably Jesus is also called the firstborn Logos, and Christians were also called upon to try and emulate him and adorn themselves like him. Elsewhere Philo adds “there are two Temples of God, and one is this cosmos, wherein the High Priest is the Firstborn Son, the Divine Logos.” Compare these remarks with Colossians 1:12-19 and Hebrews 1:1-14 and the connections are obvious. Likewise with Zechariah 6:11-13, which not only says Jesus will “build the temple of the Lord,” but “he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne, and he shall be a priest upon his throne.”
This statement by Carrier is typically confusing and confused. Philo never says that the Logos was a high priest named Jesus.
http://vridar.org/2012/08/01/a-pre-christian-heavenly-jesus/
I think that you could be right, but even if they are right does it follow that Jesus didn’t exist? Or does it just say that the Gospel writers thought of Jesus as God’s highest Archangel the Logos. Carrier is saying that people could have interpreted that verse from Philo and invented Jesus it seems.
The “Gospel writers” did not understand Jesus as God’s highest Archangel the Logos. If Carrier says they did, he’s making it up.
Well, John certainly thought of Jesus as the LOGOS. . Could you explain what the passage means then? It seems that it could mean that the title “Rises” doesn’t make much sense if applied to a man, but if applied to the LOGOS it would make sense. Then again Philo could be saying that Jesus the high priest wouldn’t have been called the “Rising” if he wasn’t a metaphor for the LOGOS.
Also, how powerful of evidence do you think Papias is for Jesus? To be honest, I think Papias is deal sealer for mythicists. If tradition has it correctly then there was disciples of Jesus still teaching that he was a man who crucified.
Yes, John thought of Jesus as the incarnation of the LOGOS. But when you’re talking about Philo and “Jesus” — do you mean “Joshua the high priest in the fifth century BCE??? What does that have to do with Jesus of Nazareth (about whom Philo knew nothing)?
And yes, Papias knew people who were companions of the apostles of Jesus.
“Behold, a man whose name is the East!” A very novel appellation indeed, if you consider it as spoken of a man who is compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with great felicity. (63) For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls the firstborn; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father . . . . (On the Confusion of Tongues, Book 14:62, 63)”
Philo is interpreting this passage from Zechariah 6:11-12
“Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. ”
“Behold, a man whose name is the East!” just so happens to be applied to a high priest named Jesus. Not to mention that this passage reeks of early Christian thought.
It seems that Philo is saying that Joshua the High Preist is a symbol for the LOGOS. Instead of interpreting that passage for a man who is flesh in blood, it would make sense if Joshua/Yeshua/Jesus was the LOGOS.
Zechariah says earlier ” Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch. 9 For behold, on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven eyes, I will engrave its inscription, declares the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of this land in a single day. 10 In that day, declares the LORD of hosts, every one of you will invite his neighbor to come under his vine and under his fig tree.”
That Joshua/Jesus is a symbol for the things to come. The link gave earlier has a fuller argument.
The argument from absence seems to be strong when it comes to the characters of Genesis. For example, Eve and the story of the fall completely vanishes after the early chapters of Genesis and is never mentioned or alluded to in the entire OT. Adam himself is barely mentioned in geneologies and one passage in Job which some commentors think was referring to man in general, not Adam specifically. So I would think that much of Genesis was late; post-exilix as van Seters suggests. The Babylonian Creation and Deluge stories found on the tablets in Nippur (he place of Jewish exile) also lend strength to it.
Btw love the blog and the fact that the money goes to charity. Keep up the good work!
I think Gary A. Rendsburg places Abraham as late as 1400-1350 BCE. I think it makes more sense considering the following:
1) People didn’t live for hundreds of years
2) Only a few generations between Abraham and Moses.
3) More likeliness of stories surviving through oral transmission until 1000 BCE.
Since I think he’s a legend, I guess I don’t place him anywhere. But in the chronology of the Bible, I don’t see how he could be in 1400 or 1350 if at the Exodus his descendants number 650,000 adult males….
I guess it’s a matter of what one finds probable. I don’t find it improbable that there was a patriarch named Abraham (or similar), but I do realize there is no other evidence to support his existence. I do, however, think it’s improbable that 650.000 adult male descendants of Jacob’s existed in Egypt AND stuck together thinking they were all descendants of the same man. But I’m no scholar. I just found the idea interesting – placing him later than what is commonly thought.