Loading...QUESTION:
Re. multiple attestation: would you elaborate on how these sources are truly independent. I’ve read comments by mythicists and others that state that all the sources actually go back to one source and that any differences in the gospel accounts can be accounted for by the theological views or the ‘agenda’ of the particular author, e.g. Matt 5:17 or Mark 3:21 (and, of course, accounted for by simple miscommunications thru’ generations).
Also, please forgive me for asking a stupid question….are there any accounts found in the gospels that pass all three criteria but which you don’t think actually happened?
RESPONSE:
Yes, once you dig deeper into the question of “independent attestation,” the trickier it gets. Technically, the term refers to sources that have not used one another for their accounts. And so, for example, whoever wrote Mark did not have access to Q, and Q did not have access to Mark; M did not have access to John’s Signs Source, and vice versa; Paul did not know Matthew and vice versa; etc. The matter gets tricky for various reasons. For one thing, we are dealing with a matter of probability, not certainty. There are scholars who would argue that Mark did indeed know Q (highly unlikely, in my vew), or that John knew the Synoptics (possible, but still unlikely, in my view); etc.
FOR MORE OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN TODAY and gain access to months of exclusive content!!
How do we know that Paul did not know Matthew and vice versa? The former advocated a “lawless” gospel while the latter was stringent on law observance. On this point, they are diametrically opposed. But surely this doesn’t mean they are unaware of each other’s writings – after all, there were various competing Christian groups in the 1st century, and there is no reason why one group would take the effort to refute everybody else they disagreed with.
Well, it’s a probability judgment. Paul wouldn’t have known Matthew, because it wasn’t written yet. And so the question is whether Matthew knew Paul. The only way to argue that he did is to look to see if there is any hint of Paul in Matthew — or better yet, verbatim agreements that would show that he did. Not much there to suggest that. There’s nothing weird about them being independent, in a world where there was no mass communication.
Are the criteria of authenticity commonly applied in historical Jesus studies used in other fields of ancient history?
On one hand, it makes perfect sense that multiple attestation is no guarantee of authenticity as the early church could have come up with a certain belief about Jesus’ words or deeds fairly early on. On the other, raising doubts about this and many other criteria could lead one to being unnecessarily skeptical about too many details of the gospel accounts. Are there well defined systematic criteria historians of ancient history apply to say writings of Josephus and of the 1st century Roman historians, to evaluate historicity of their accounts? It seems most readers of Josephus presuppose most of his accounts are historical (allowing for embellishment & biases) unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise. Why is this type of presupposition unsatisfactory for historical Jesus studies?
Yes, they may not call the criteria the same things, but these are basically what historians do. Yes, it’s fair to say that a source can be seen as reliable unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise. And with the Gospels, there are very good reasons indeed for believing otherwise! (So too, to some extent, Josephus, as there are tensions between what he says in Antiquities and in Jewish War about the same topic.)
I’ve heard you say that the doctrine of independent attestation is like a court proceeding: if you’re trying to establish fact “X”, it helps to have as many independent witnesses to “X” as possible. So if Mark and Matthew both independently testify to “X”, that strengthens the case for “X”. But if Matthew’s testimony is based on having learned “X” from Mark, then you’ve only got one witness.
But doesn’t it mean something that Matthew followed Mark? Going back to our court proceeding analogy, can we put Matthew in the position of a judge, and derive something from the fact that Matthew evidently believed Mark’s testimony concerning “X”? I’m not a trial lawyer, but in some cases multiple witnesses outside of court are not as valuable as a single witness who has been cross-examined and found truthful by a finder of fact.
Yes, I think if Matthew took over Mark, he certainly had reasons for doing so. But those reasons may not have been (actually, I would argue they certainly were not) because after critical evaluation he decided that Mark was historically accurate. Mark’s story dovetailed with the story Matthew wanted to tell, in lots of places, so he kept Mark’s account. I wish we *could* cross-examine him!
When it comes to history, the farther back we go, the less clear things get. This is especially true of religious icons like Jesus. (We call him “Jesus,” but that was not his real name and Christ is more like an after-the-fact title than a legitimate appellation.) Just talking about him as we do reinforces ongoing misperceptions of someone who never existed quite like other historical/mythical celebrities once did. If he lived at all, his reality comes to us from the reservoir of our own creativity shaped by today’s cultural conditioning and the primitive notions of former generations.
Facts are come hard to come by, no matter what criterion we prefer to use. Of course, it’s fun to speculate, but the remote past is not subject certainty or to probabilities. That’s for scientists, bookmakers and accountants. Using multiple criteria sounds better than having just one, but it’s still a lot like handicapping horses without ever finding out who won.
I think we should only talk about Jesus as the main character of the Gospels (canonized or not), in the context of religious literature, not history.
DCS
Bart, I was wondering if you have talked about authorship anywhere on your blog? I’ve read what you wrote about the traditionally attributed authors in forged but was wondering if you’ve addressed the claim of Apologists that Papias was in a position to know what the disciples did or didn’t write since he was, supposedly, a “hearer” of John. I’ve heard a lot of argumentation based on the character of Papias, who seems to be a HUGE focal point for the apostolic authorship tradition. Anything you have said on this matter, especially Papias, could interest me greatly! Thanks!
I haven’t talked about this on the blog, but I deal with it in several of my books, including Forged, and Jesus Interrupted. The short story is that when Papias describes Matthew’s Gospel, he is almost certainly not referring to our Matthew (from what he says about it). And if he wasn’t talking about our Matthew, there is little reason to think he is talking about our Mark. He doesn’t mention Luke and John. There’s a lot more to be said — maybe I *will* post on it!
That’s great! Thanks! What do you think about Papias being a “hearer” of John. I’ve done a little research into it but I’m wondering what the nature and extent of their relationship was.
Papias does not claim to have heard John the disciple; I deal with all of this a bit in my book Forged.
Whoa! I had heard that claim that Papias was a “hearer” of John so much I was sure there had to be some truth to it! Thanks!
Hi Bart, are there any books you would recommend that talk specifically about the criteria of independent attestation (as it relates to the historical Jesus) or the sources for the gospels?
I explain it at greater length in my book Jesus: Apocalpytic Prophet of the New Millennium. But if you want a really full treatment (including all the sources, etc.), see John Meier, vol. 1 of A marginal Jew
Dr. Ehrman,
I’ve heard many Christian apologists make the argument that since the burial of Jesus and the empty tomb is highly attested to, then it should be accepted as historical. My response is that just because a tradition is highly attested to doesn’t make the tradition historical, it just means the tradition was widespread.
However, I was wondering if you know of any good analogies that could be brought into the conversation to show where other ancient events or stories (either religiously or not) have multiple attestations but are understood to NOT be historical?
It is certainly attested in two sources, Mark and John (Matthew and Luke both used Mark). Paul says nothing about it. Either do the other writings of the NT. So it is indeed attested twice. I’m not sure that’s “highly” attested, but it certainly has to be considered. On the other hand, double or multiple attestation isn’t solid “proof” given everything else that has to be taken into consideration (e.g., the accounts appearing in writings from 40-65 years later produced by people who were not there based, living in other lands, based on stories that had been in circulation for decades, affirming the views that the storie tellers stronlgy held, etc.). If these apologists say that independent attestation does indeed make a tradition historical, what do they say about the vastly better attested appearances of, say, Elvis? Or, say, the massively attested appearances of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Historians don’t simply count up attestations then make a judgment.
Dr. Ehrman,
How do you know that Matthew and Luke both used Mark? Is it not possible that they had independent sources from which they received the burial and empty tomb traditions?
Long story, with complicated arguments that in the end convince just about everyone. If you look up Markan Priority on the Blog (do a word search) you’ll see a post or two about it.