Critics of the historical value of the writings of the new Testament often refer to the paucity of so-called “extra-Biblical” evidence to verify it’s accuracy. While not denying for a minute that there are serious historical issues involved with the NT it strikes me that there are some curious assumptions being made here by these critics that need examining.
The distinction being made between Biblical evidence and extra-Biblical evidence is largely an artificial construct. The classification “Biblical” in reference to the NT post-dates Jesus and Paul the origin of Christianity. The writers of the documents that were codified into the NT didn’t know they were writing the Bible, much less scripture. Some of the writers knew each others work; some did not. The relationship of some is the subject of dispute. Each document came out of a specific historical situation and each document has to be taken on its own merits as a historical source.
What critics of historicity who make these distinctions are really getting at it seems to me is better described as the difference between sources produced by partisans and those produced by disinterested observers. The more sources you have from the latter group the better of course and this is why the writings of people like Josephus and Tacitus are so important. But even here there is an assumption being made that historical sources from partisans can be readily dismissed simply because they are partisans. But we hardly have anything else from the ancient world. The impartial objective disinterested historian did not exist in the ancient world; it hardly exists today!
In the end we’re left to deal with the sources, traditions and documents we have on their own terms.
I hope we can spend a lot of energy on this splendid topic! Unfortunately I completely agree, but would like to add that although the early Christian documents are in many ways independent, they have collectively a much higher bias caused by uncritical belief and the occurrence of obvious spin doctor tales. So we have to deal with these writings with a much more critical attitude than towards Josephus , Tacitus and the other great ancient historians.
Stephen said
Critics of the historical value of the writings of the new Testament often refer to the paucity of so-called “extra-Biblical” evidence to verify it’s accuracy. While not denying for a minute that there are serious historical issues involved with the NT it strikes me that there are some curious assumptions being made here by these critics that need examining.The distinction being made between Biblical evidence and extra-Biblical evidence is largely an artificial construct. The classification “Biblical” in reference to the NT post-dates Jesus and Paul the origin of Christianity. The writers of the documents that were codified into the NT didn’t know they were writing the Bible, much less scripture. Some of the writers knew each others work; some did not. The relationship of some is the subject of dispute. Each document came out of a specific historical situation and each document has to be taken on its own merits as a historical source.
What critics of historicity who make these distinctions are really getting at it seems to me is better described as the difference between sources produced by partisans and those produced by disinterested observers. The more sources you have from the latter group the better of course and this is why the writings of people like Josephus and Tacitus are so important. But even here there is an assumption being made that historical sources from partisans can be readily dismissed simply because they are partisans. But we hardly have anything else from the ancient world. The impartial objective disinterested historian did not exist in the ancient world; it hardly exists today!
In the end we’re left to deal with the sources, traditions and documents we have on their own terms.
Yes, “extra-Biblical” sources are important for the understanding of who, or what, Jesus represented for the early Christians. All sources seem to agree on a few important key points regarding Jesus; That Jesus was born of a virgin (woman), that Jesus had a heavenly Father, and that Jesus had a brother named Jacob. Jesus was “The Son Of Man” from his earthly mother, and “The Son Of God” from his heavenly Father. Jesus was born in the flesh, but there were disagreement on what this really meant.
It seems to me that some mythicists would disagree, and argue that Jesus was only thought of as a celestial figure who never put on human flesh. Yes, even some of the early Church fathers had this docetic view.
But others – like Tertullian – argued strongly against docetism and even wrote a pamphlet on this issue, called; On the Flesh of Christ. In Chapter 17 in this pamphlet of Tertullian, he compares Mary’s virginity with that of Eve. But at the end he says something worth noticing:
Tertullian – On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 17:
I also agree that biblical sources should be considered as evidence, but with a critical appreciation of the circumstances under which they were written. Since there is almost no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, it is assumed that he was either mythical or else virtually unknown during his lifetime. Crossan says “Jesus was a Mediterranean peasant” and Ehrman picks the reference to him as a carpenter in Mark 6:3 to conclude that if so “he would have lived a lower-class existence, with little promise for future advancement”. In contrast, the gospels portray Jesus at the time of his arrest as a popular and controversial figure, who had both supporters and enemies among the ruling classes and whose trial involved members of the Temple Council and the Roman Governor.
A trial of any sort is not the way that autocratic regimes deal with troublesome peasants. Disappearance followed by summary execution is the norm. Ehrman says of the trial “The only ones present were the Jewish leaders and Jesus; none of his followers and no one taking notes” but, according to gospel accounts, there were many people present including possible supporters who could have recorded events.
Much of the information in the gospels is historically unreliable and cannot be verified. The options are either to suppose that it is fictional or else that it represents a possibly distorted account of what actually happened. In the first case, valuable insights may be unnecessarily discarded so, unless there is compelling evidence for rejection, the second option should be preferred.
What we need to debate is if there are methods to extract possible historical elements in the NT body of writings, assuming that they were written by very biased believers. Secondly, I think you underestimate the writings of Paul, who makes quite a few of comments on rather prosaic matters, like travels, named communities, traveling companions, competitors, key persons and other matters of fact, information that is not likely to have been invented or distorted.
Some considerations relating to the reliability of passages in the gospels are:
1. The more important a person, the more well-known are their actions, so determination of truth or falsity of stories about them are more reliable than for others. For example, more people would know if a story about a visit by President Nixon to China or about a visit by President Carter to Iran is true or false than if the story was about some obscure businessman.
2. A story about an event witnessed by many people is more likely to be true than if there is a single witness, because more people could say “I know the story is false because I was there and this is not what happened”. This is a variation on the multiple attestation criteria.
3. A story which violates modern scientific principles is false or is a misunderstanding of what actually happened (turning water into wine, walking on water, bringing dead people back to life, etc.)
Paul, unfortunately, says almost nothing about the life of Jesus, so his writings are not much help in assessing gospel reliability.
Blackwell said
Some considerations relating to the reliability of passages in the gospels are:1. The more important a person, the more well-known are their actions, so determination of truth or falsity of stories about them are more reliable than for others. For example, more people would know if a story about a visit by President Nixon to China or about a visit by President Carter to Iran is true or false than if the story was about some obscure businessman.
2. A story about an event witnessed by many people is more likely to be true than if there is a single witness, because more people could say “I know the story is false because I was there and this is not what happened”. This is a variation on the multiple attestation criteria.
3. A story which violates modern scientific principles is false or is a misunderstanding of what actually happened (turning water into wine, walking on water, bringing dead people back to life, etc.)
Paul, unfortunately, says almost nothing about the life of Jesus, so his writings are not much help in assessing gospel reliability.
As to 1), an important person is not necessarily well-known. Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to be a very important person, but his historical existence is to be doubted. If he were also well-known, we would face an example of multiple attestation.
Also I disagree with the concluding remark on Paul. It is true that Paul has few details of the teachings of Jesus, but we can infer some important main feautures, for instance that Jesus’ mission went exclusively to Jews, and that Jesus believed in some sort of a fast approaching end-of-this-world, a kind of resurrection to a new way of life, and that he had a non-strict attitude to the Law. This is not said explicitly by Paul, but can be found by implication, between the lines, and they are all very important aspects of Jesus’ teachings.
gavriel said
As to 1), an important person is not necessarily well-known. Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to be a very important person, but his historical existence is to be doubted. If he were also well-known, we would face an example of multiple attestation.
Why is his historical existence to be doubted?
Paul and his followers had opposition not just from Jews and Romans but also from competing proto-Christian groups. If anyone had said “The story about Joseph of Arimathaea is false; he never existed” then there ought to be records of defense of the story, but there are none.
Is this not a case of ignoring Biblical evidence simply because it does not fit a preconceived hypothesis?
Blackwell said
gavriel said
As to 1), an important person is not necessarily well-known. Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to be a very important person, but his historical existence is to be doubted. If he were also well-known, we would face an example of multiple attestation.
Why is his historical existence to be doubted?
Paul and his followers had opposition not just from Jews and Romans but also from competing proto-Christian groups. If anyone had said “The story about Joseph of Arimathaea is false; he never existed” then there ought to be records of defense of the story, but there are none.
Is this not a case of ignoring Biblical evidence simply because it does not fit a preconceived hypothesis?
Mainly because the the stories in Mark and John are incoherent. The purpose of the tradition underlying the gospel stories is to provide an empty tomb. While doing so, there is a gap between the actions of the female followers and Joseph with no signs of cooperation. The authors have clearly combined different stories about the women and Joseph without securing a logical, coherent whole.
Also, many of the details are impossible. Mark 16:1 contradicts John 19:40. Further, a Sanhedrin VIP would not have a family burial site close to an execution place (Mark 19:41), unless the Romans selected a temporary execution place close to the graveyards of upper-class Jerusalem, an upper class who provided them with their victim. Not very likely. Was Joseph from some city outside Jerusalem? Would his family burial site be in Jerusalem? The questions line up.
I have said already, one cannot rule out the idea that the Jewish authorities wanted to close the case to avoid further popular unrest (during the festival) caused by unforeseen popular disgust for the actions of the High Priest, or some other undocumented reason. After all, the whole process against Jesus aimed at precisely stifling possible popular rioting during the festival, to avoid clashes with Roman troops. If so, an official carried out the task of dumping the body some place. Later oral traditions may have triggered the well-known legendary principle , called “naming the nameless”.
One thing I hope we can get from extra-Biblical sources is more context. Was there really any such thing as a “High Priest” or even any formal rules establishing a ruling counsel? I certainly have never heard of a “High Priest” of the Jewish religion in the modern day. I am guessing that things were a bit more informal, that “High Priest” was not some type of elected or inherited position. It was more likely a title given to a member of the Sanhedrin with the most clout, connections, and general bossiness so that others generally differed to him. Joseph of Arimathea (if such a person actually existed) could have been another member of the Sanhedrin with much less clout with or without any formal standing as a council member, and not necessarily a “VIP” in view of other people. I would not think of the rich guy up the street who runs a car dealership, is a member of the Elks Lodge, and can afford a burial tomb as a “VIP”. I think people tend to assign hierarchical ranks to groups of people where they do not actually exist, at least not formally. I really don’t know how things worked back then. More historical context would be nice.
I don’t get the whole “tomb hewn out of rock” thing either. Was that a common practice, cutting artificial caves out of rock to bury people? One dead body per cave? A whole bunch of people? Only for rich people and their families? Historic context here would be nice.
One other thought gavriel. I don’t think the gospel stories had a specific “purpose of the tradition” to provide an empty tomb. Sure the gospels each have a theme they push pretty hard, and Jesus’s resurrection is a big part of the theme of each, but it does not seem that an empty tomb is a necessary part of the theme. The stories could have said that the Romans threw Jesus’s body into a pit, and later sightings of Jesus walking around alive would have had the same impact, at least in my opinion. The “empty tomb” part of the story seems likely true to me since it seems unnecessary to have been made up.
mreichert said
One thing I hope we can get from extra-Biblical sources is more context. Was there really any such thing as a “High Priest” or even any formal rules establishing a ruling counsel? I certainly have never heard of a “High Priest” of the Jewish religion in the modern day. I am guessing that things were a bit more informal, that “High Priest” was not some type of elected or inherited position. It was more likely a title given to a member of the Sanhedrin with the most clout, connections, and general bossiness so that others generally differed to him. Joseph of Arimathea (if such a person actually existed) could have been another member of the Sanhedrin with much less clout with or without any formal standing as a council member, and not necessarily a “VIP” in view of other people. I would not think of the rich guy up the street who runs a car dealership, is a member of the Elks Lodge, and can afford a burial tomb as a “VIP”. I think people tend to assign hierarchical ranks to groups of people where they do not actually exist, at least not formally. I really don’t know how things worked back then. More historical context would be nice.I don’t get the whole “tomb hewn out of rock” thing either. Was that a common practice, cutting artificial caves out of rock to bury people? One dead body per cave? A whole bunch of people? Only for rich people and their families? Historic context here would be nice.
One other thought gavriel. I don’t think the gospel stories had a specific “purpose of the tradition” to provide an empty tomb. Sure the gospels each have a theme they push pretty hard, and Jesus’s resurrection is a big part of the theme of each, but it does not seem that an empty tomb is a necessary part of the theme. The stories could have said that the Romans threw Jesus’s body into a pit, and later sightings of Jesus walking around alive would have had the same impact, at least in my opinion. The “empty tomb” part of the story seems likely true to me since it seems unnecessary to have been made up.
The existence of High Priests and a priesthood running the temple functions and a great sanhedrin who used to hold meeting close to the temple is referred to in the gosples and well supported by external evidence. These institutions would have been staffed with people recruited from a local upper class.
Upper class tombs would typically be hewn out of rock, with a capasity for serving whole families. There’s plenty of archeological evidence here.
I think the empty tomb legends are late responses to the developing Christian theology of mid first century. According to Paul’s ideas of resurrection, old and diseased bodies were expected to be transformed into unperishable spiritual bodies, not simply replaced , nor being released from the perishable body. Paul is very explicit on this. Now, since Jesus was the first person to experience resurrection, this theology demands that the visions of the resurrected Jesus includes a body that has disappeared from the tomb. Thus the legends of the empty tomb are responses to this theology. In reality the best guess is that the body was left on the cross to decompose or that it was disposed of by some authorized Jewish official for some reason. A burial in an upper class style tomb is highly unlikely.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)