A Verdict on Josh McDowell

An investigation into the accuracy and veracity of Josh McDowells Evidence

Gordon B. Hazen

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5

A note on format ........................................................................................................................................... 7

Luke's account of the birth of Jesus (6/23/99) .............................................................................................. 8

1. WAS THERE A ROMAN CENSUS AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH? ........................................ 9

2. WAS QUIRINIUS GOVERNOR OF SYRIA AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH? ........................ 10

3. WAS EVERYONE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME? ....................... 11

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 12

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 12

NT Error rates; disputed passages affecting articles of faith (7/30/99)....................................................... 14

1. ERROR RATE FOR NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS ........................................................... 15

2. DO ARTICLES OF FAITH DEPEND ON DISPUTED PASSAGES? ............................................. 15

2.1 The Doctrine of Atonement in Luke ............................................................................................. 16

2.2 The Endings of Mark's Gospel ...................................................................................................... 17

3. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 18

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 18

Historians' criteria for reliability (8/6/99) ................................................................................................... 18

1. HISTORIANS' CRITERIA FOR RELIABILITY .............................................................................. 19

2. TWO MINOR POINTS ...................................................................................................................... 21

3. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 22

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 22

Eyewitness testimony (8/11/99) .................................................................................................................. 24

1. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY ........................................................................................................... 25

1.1 Luke's claims of eyewitness testimony ......................................................................................... 25

1.2 Eyewitness claims in II Peter ........................................................................................................ 25

1.3 Eyewitness claims in 1 John ......................................................................................................... 26

1.4 Eyewitness claims in Acts............................................................................................................. 26

1.5 Eyewitness claim in John .............................................................................................................. 27

1.6 Another eyewitness claim from Acts ............................................................................................ 28

1.8 Conclusion on eyewitness testimony ............................................................................................ 29

2. IF GOSPEL STORIES ARE NOT TRUE, WHY DID NO ONE BLOW THE WHISTLE? ............. 30

2.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 30

2.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 32

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 33

Paul's silence on the life of Christ (11/1/99) ............................................................................................... 34

A. Why Paul mentions so little of the life and works of Christ .............................................................. 34

B. A current parallel ................................................................................................................................ 35

Motives of McDowell and motives of Paul (11/18/99) .............................................................................. 38

A. History being written by the winners ................................................................................................. 38

B. More critique of McDowell ................................................................................................................ 39

C. McDowell's motives ........................................................................................................................... 41

D. Pauls motives .................................................................................................................................... 43

E. Legend ................................................................................................................................................ 44

Reference ................................................................................................................................................ 44

Rebuttal on Paul's silence (12/6/99) ............................................................................................................ 46

A. A Better Description of What I Think Happened .............................................................................. 46

C. Were Paul and the Gospels Contemporaneous? ................................................................................. 48

D. Paul's Silence ..................................................................................................................................... 49

E. Tom Power's Silence .......................................................................................................................... 50

F. References........................................................................................................................................... 53

G. Appendix: The Tom Powers Article .................................................................................................. 53

Rebuttals on Luke's nativity account (12/28/99)......................................................................................... 57

B. WAS QUIRINIUS GOVERNOR OF SYRIA AT JESUS' BIRTH? ................................................. 57

C. WAS EVERYONE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME? ...................... 58

D. CONCLUDING REMARKS ............................................................................................................. 62

Luke's nativity account: Commentaries of Clark and of Archer (1/2/00) ................................................... 65

A. Clarke's Commentary on Luke ........................................................................................................... 65

B. Gleason Archer's Commentary ........................................................................................................... 71

C. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 73

D. References .......................................................................................................................................... 74

Atonement in Luke (1/4/00) ........................................................................................................................ 75

A. Luke 22:18-20 and the Nazirite Vow ................................................................................................. 75

B. Atonement in the Gospel of Luke ...................................................................................................... 78

C. What Does "Widely Regarded" Mean? .............................................................................................. 82

D. Verses Otherwise Foreign to Luke ..................................................................................................... 84

E. Jesus' Death as a Reversed Miscarriage of Justice ............................................................................. 86

F. Luke's Omission of Mark 10:45 ......................................................................................................... 87

G. Endings of Mark ................................................................................................................................. 89

H. References .......................................................................................................................................... 90

Correction on Luke's omission of Mark 10:45 (1/5/00) .............................................................................. 91

Luke's nativity account: Joseph Free's discussion (1/20/00) ....................................................................... 94

A. McDowell and Free ............................................................................................................................ 94

A.0. Something new in Free................................................................................................................ 95

A.1. Was there a census in Judea during Herod's reign? .................................................................... 95

A.2. Was Quirinius governor of Syria in 7 BC? ................................................................................. 97

A.3. Was everyone required to return to their ancestral home? .......................................................... 98

A.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 98

B. Did Luke Quote Gamaliel?................................................................................................................. 99

APPENDIX 1: Joseph Free's section on Luke and the birth of Christ .................................................... 99

APPENDIX 2: John Elder's section on Luke and the birth of Christ .................................................... 101

Introduction

Josh McDowell's book Evidence That Demands a Verdict has been variously

described as an authoritative defense of Christianity and a masterpiece of Christian

apologetics, which provides scholarly, intelligent, well-grounded answers to questions

about the Christian faith. In the summer of 1999, my brother, a fundamentalist

Christian, invited me to engage in an email discussion of the historical reliability of

the New Testament, specifically focusing on McDowell's defense of NT historicity.

As a result, I began a six-month investigation of McDowell's Chapter 4, entitled "The

reliability of the Bible".

By checking McDowell's sources and consulting works of NT scholars, I was

eventually able to discover that much of what McDowell presents is untrustworthy,

misleading or simply incorrect. In the ensuing six months, my brother and I engaged

in detailed email discussions in which we debated the McDowell's evidence. I give

below a transcript of our discussions. My hope is that the detailed evidence presented

here will give both Christians and non-Christians ammunition to help expose and

rebut the distortions and falsehoods being promulgated by McDowell and other like-

minded fundamentalists.

McDowell's book can be highly misleading to an unwary reader. He is a "compiler":

He scans the literature and picks out quotes which support or seem to support the case

he is trying to make, ignoring all contrary material. He is not above lifting quotes out

of context and alleging they pertain to subjects they do not. He cites from individual

sources selectively, omitting what doesn't support his position. He exaggerates the

degree to which his sources support his claims. Presenting only supporting material to

the reader prevents any nuanced discussion of controversial issues and gives the

reader the misleading impression of scholarly unanimity in support of McDowell's

assertions. It is only by following up on McDowell's citations and seeking out

opposing scholarly literature that an unwary reader can discover McDowell's

deceptiveness. Most readers have neither the time nor the inclination for such

research, and many conservative Christians are glad to see apparent scholarly support

for what they already "know" is true. Unfortunately for them and the unwary they

seek to influence, that support is a mirage and a deception. [More details.]

There are other rebuttals of McDowell's work available on the Internet, foremost of

which is Jeffery Jay Lowder's The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence". Lowder

presents a chapter-by-chapter reply to McDowell. However, Lowder's material on

McDowell's chapter 4 does not contain detailed rebuttals to McDowell's specific

claims, which is what a reader will find here. The Secular Web references

other rebuttals to McDowell as well. The Ontario Consultants for Religious

Tolerance present a discussion of Biblical inerrancy that is relevant to many of

McDowell's claims. One may also find critical reviews of McDowell at Amazon.com,

interspersed among fundamentalist accolades.

Once again, the material I present here covers only parts I think the most significant

parts of McDowell's chapter 4.

[TOC]

A note on format

This document is not meant to be read in serial order. You should hyperlink to the

topics that interest you.

In the following material, my brother and I refer to each other by first name, of

course. My brother's name is Bob, and my name is Gordy. Blocks of text preceded by

the heading "Bob:" indicate that Bob is speaking, and blocks of text preceded by the

heading "Gordy:" indicate that Gordy is speaking. Since these are letters, salutations

also appear, e.g., "Bob,".

Luke's account of the birth of Jesus (6/23/99)

Bob,

As I mentioned last time, I'd already been comparing McDowell (1972, 14th printing

1977) with my book Wells (1999). One of the comparisons I was interested in was the

nativity story in the new testament, on which McDowell's and Well's conclusions are

pretty much opposite. McDowell's treatment of Luke's nativity story is on p. 73 of my

edition, but in case you've got a different edition, here are McDowell's section/

subsections where I found the material, from broadest to narrowest. (I presume you

understand McDowell's section labeling scheme.)

Chapter 4: The Reliability of the Bible

4A. The Reliability and Trustworthiness of Scripture

5B. External Evidence Test for Reliability of Scripture

3C. Evidence from Archaeology

2D. New Testament Examples

1E. Luke's reliability as a historian is unquestionable.

Anyway, since McDowell's exposition was considerably more abridged than Wells', I

thought I would check out McDowell's citations on this topic. I was able to find the

primary one of the two references he uses, Elder (1962). While I was in the Biblical

Archaeology section of the library, I also saw Thompson (1962) and Yamauchi

(1972), which I also checked out. (Complete references below).

My detailed check of references did not go well for McDowell, who appears (as of

1972) to be unaware of some evidence and exaggerating other evidence for his case.

Details below.

McDowell discusses three issues with regard to Luke's nativity story:

1. WAS THERE A ROMAN CENSUS AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH?

2. WAS QUIRINIUS GOVERNOR OF SYRIA AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH?

3. WAS EVERYONE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME?

I'll split up my message into sections accordingly.

As I'm sure you're aware, all commentators agree that the time of Jesus' birth was near

the end of the reign of King Herod of Judea and that Herod died in 4 BC.

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

[TOC]

1. WAS THERE A ROMAN CENSUS AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH?

McDowell states that "archaeological discoveries prove beyond a shadow of a doubt

that the Romans ... held censuses every 14 years. This procedure was indeed begun

under Augustus and the first took place in either 23-22 BC or 9-8 BC. The latter

would be the one to which Luke refers." (p.73) He cites Elder (pp. 159-160).

Elder cites a "large Egyptian papyrus" telling of enrollments in AD 174-175, 160-161,

and 146-47, intervals of 14 years. He cites earlier papyri telling of enrollments in AD

62-63 and 20-21. He cites another telling of exemptions from the poll tax in AD 14.

So the earliest census Elder cites is AD 20-21, although it is reasonable to infer a

census 14 years earlier than AD 20-21, that is in AD 6-7, due to the existence of the

poll tax in AD 14. However, Elder notes that Augustus began his reign in 27 BC and

says:

"Since Augustus records that he set about early in his reign to organize the empire, the

first census may have been either in 23-22 BC or in 9-8 BC; the latter would be the

census to which the Gospel of Luke refers." (p. 160).

That is the totality of Elder's evidence that there was a census in 9-8 BC. The big

question is whether setting out "early in his reign to organize the empire" means (1)

having a census, and (2) having one early in his reign. Not at all clear, it seems to me.

Thompson (1962) mentions documentary Egyptian evidence of regular 14-year

censuses from AD 90 to 230, and Thompson indicates that Ramsay (uncited) speaks

of censuses in AD 62, 48, 34 and 20. None of my sources indicate any record of a

census earlier than AD 20, although several infer such a census in AD 6 based on

evidence such as the poll tax I mentioned and the timing of Quirinius' governorship if

Syria, which I discuss below.

Thompson mentions that the "first enrollment when Quirinius was Governor" should

be "distinguished from the later census referred to in Acts 5:37," which would have

been in AD 6, and that "the one before this would be 8 BC." However, Acts 5:37

mentions only that "Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census..." and even

this is not asserted by Luke but only put by Luke into the mouth of a Pharisee named

Gamaliel. Luke does not mention a time for the census or whether it was the first,

second or whatever. Thompson can quote no other evidence for a census in 8 BC.

[Further discussion below.] McDowell does not cite Thompson anyway, and I'm just

mentioning Thompson because what he says is relevant.

My conclusion: McDowell is definitely exaggerating the available evidence when he

claims unequivocally that there was a census in 9-8 BC.

[For further information, see below.]

[back]

2. WAS QUIRINIUS GOVERNOR OF SYRIA AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH?

McDowell states:

"Secondly, we find evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 BC. This

assumption is based on an inscription found in Antioch ascribing to Quirinius this

post. As a result of this finding, it is now supposed that he was governor twice. Once

in 7 BC and the other time in 6 AD (the date ascribed by Josephus)." (p. 73)

He cites Elder. But Elder is considerably less confident of this conclusion. He states

that "the exact history of the movements of Quirinius is still uncertain." According to

Elder, the Antioch evidence identifies Quirinius as "prefect", and records his election

as "magistrate, in recognition of his victory over the Hamonades, and proves that

Quirinius was in the area as a commander at this date [10-7 BC]" Elder concludes that

"Quirinius was at Antioch early enough to have been governor at the time of a census

when Jesus was born." That is the strongest statement Elder can make.

And anyway, as Elder notes, Antioch is in Galatia. Wells (1999, p. 276) cites Feldman

(1984, p. 712) to the effect that it has been convincingly shown that Quirinius was

governor of Galatia, not Syria, at the time.

There are more problems, of which McDowell was apparently unaware. As Yamauchi

notes (1972, p. 99), "The difficulty of placing Quirinius as legate in Syria before 4 BC

is that from other texts we have a fairly complete list of legates." According to Wells

(1999, p. 276), Syria was governed from 10/9 to 7/6 BC by Sentius Saturninus, and

from 7/6 to 4 BC by Quintilius Varus. Yamauchi also mentions Saturninus as Syrian

governor at that time. This leaves no room for Quirinius as governor when Luke

claims. Wells, Yamauchi and Thompson quote apologists who assert that Quirinius

was "extraordinary imperial legate" to Syria at that time in connection with his

command against the Hamonades, but as I've said, that would have been to Galatia,

not Syria.

There are yet more problems. According to Wells (pp 117-118), Judea under Herod

was a client state, not a part of the Roman empire, so was not subject to a census,

although Herod may well have had to pay a tribute to Rome. Upon Herod's death, his

kingdom was divided between his sons: Archelaus was given Judea, and Antipas

given Galilee. Archelaus was deposed in AD 6 and Judea (but not Galilee) was made

part of the Roman empire and subject to census. (Antipas continued as ruler of Galilee

until AD 39.) Wells states "It is quite obvious that Luke had this census of AD 6 in

mind, but antedated it and supposed it to have occurred in Herod's lifetime."

My conclusion: McDowell was uninformed, and even stretched the information he

had to try to make his case.

[For further information, see below and below and below]

[back]

3. WAS EVERYONE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME?

Elder, Thompson, Yamauchi, Wells, and McDowell all mention the Egyptian

document which McDowell presents as follows:

"Because of the approaching census it is necessary that all those residing for any

cause away from their homes should at once prepare to return to their own

governments in order that they may complete the family registration of the enrollment

and that the tilled lands may retain those belonging to them" (p. 73)

Only Wells responds critically (p. 117). He notes that "homes" is a translation of

"idia" and "idia" can mean either one's "private property" or one's "peculiar district".

He quotes papyrologists to the effect that the intended meaning is probably "private

property." But Joseph had no private property in Bethlehem, for otherwise why did

Joseph and Mary seek refuge at an inn, as Luke claims? Even if the meaning is

"peculiar district", Joseph in Judea under Herod in 7 BC or in Galilee under Antipas in

6 AD would not have been subject to the Roman decree since as Wells has noted,

Judea in 7 BC and Galilee in 6 AD were client states and not part of the empire.

Wells (pp. 116-117) also quotes Sanders (1993, p. 86): "According to Luke's own

genealogy (3:23-38), David had lived 42 generations before Joseph. Why should

Joseph have had to register in the town of one of his ancestors forty-two generations

earlier? ... David doubtless had tens of thousands of descendants who were alive at the

time. Could they all identify themselves? If so, how would they all register in a little

village?"

It might be replied that it was Joseph's father or grandfather who might have lived in

Bethlehem. But then why would Joseph not seek shelter with them or other relatives,

instead of the inn? And why then would Luke mention only David as the ancestor

from Bethlehem? Luke's claim that Joseph went Bethlehem to register because he was

"of the house and family of David" doesn't seem to hold together.

My conclusion: The fault here is more Luke's than McDowell's. But the evidence has

much less impact than McDowell seems to think. [Further discussion below.]

[back]

CONCLUSION

I think my unwillingness to trust McDowell is more than justified by the evidence I've

presented above. Note that I didn't spend days looking through the library for

evidence to discredit McDowell. This topic was the first and only attempt I made to

check his sources. On that basis, it is not unreasonable to expect that a lot more of

what McDowell puts out is suspect. I am not saying I'm not unwilling to examine

what he says further. But don't claim I am closed-minded if I don't accept McDowell's

conclusions without checking them out.

By the way, the evidence I've summarized above also undermines McDowell's claim

that "Luke's reliability as an historian is unquestionable" (p. 72). I think there is

considerable doubt as to Luke's reliability based on what I've mentioned above.

[back]

REFERENCES

J. Elder (1960), Prophets, Idols and Diggers: Scientific Proof of Bible History.

Indianapolis and New York: Bobs-Merrill.

L.H. Feldman (1984), Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980. Berlin and New

York: De Gruyter.

E.P. Sanders (1993), The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Lane

J.A. Thompson (1962), The Bible and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans

Publishing.

G.A. Wells (1999), The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court.

E.M. Yamauchi (1972), The Stones and the Scriptures. Philadelphia and New York:

J.B. Lippincott.

[back]

NT Error rates; disputed passages affecting articles of faith (7/30/99)

Bob,

I've been reading more of McDowell's Chapter 4 on the reliability of the Bible and

comparing it to other reading I've also been doing. I'm at this point in McDowell's

hierarchy:

4A. THE RELIABILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS OF SCRIPTURE

2B. THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC TEST FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT

1C. SCHOLARS TESTIFY OF THE MANUSCRIPT AUTHORITY (pp. 43-46, 1977

edition).

Below are my thoughts on what McDowell says. I confine myself to this section (1C)

for now. Since we haven't talked about stuff like this before, I'm unsure of what you

know and don't know, and what background information you accept or don't accept.

So fill me in if necessary.

Gordy

Here is an outline of what is to come:

1. ERROR RATE FOR NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS

2. DO ARTICLES OF FAITH DEPEND ON DISPUTED PASSAGES?

2.1 The Doctrine of Atonement in Luke

2.2 The Endings of Mark's Gospel

3. CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

[TOC]

1. ERROR RATE FOR NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS

I agree with the authors McDowell quotes that the alleged "150,000 textual

variations" is sort of a red herring, especially if counted in the way Geisler and Nix

point out (one spelling error in 3000 manuscripts = 3000 variations). What we're

talking about here are changes in manuscripts produced when they were copied by

hand, so I would expect the error rate to be pretty small.

Although a large error rate would disqualify the manuscripts as reliable texts, a small

error rate does not by itself validate the historical accuracy of a manuscript. For one

thing, the "original" text might not be accurate, even if it is accurately copied. Second,

it doesn't take much corruption (percentage-wise) of a text to alter its meaning on the

historicity of key theological issues (examples below).

Third, based on McDowell's choice of quotations, one might get the impression that

the errors he speaks of consist of a word here, a line there. In fact, one can point out

discrepancies involving the addition of one or more entire "paragraphs" (see below), a

situation which would cast considerably more doubt on historicity. Finally, historicity

depends as much or more on comparing different writers than on examining the

accuracy with which one writer was preserved.

So overall, McDowell's debunking of the "150,000 variations" and his support of a

low percentage error rate don't impress me much.

[back]

2. DO ARTICLES OF FAITH DEPEND ON DISPUTED PASSAGES?

The second point made by the authors McDowell quotes is that no major article of

faith is put into doubt due to disputed passages in the New Testament. For example,

"...nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost ... choose as

awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of

readings." (Warfield 55/163).

I think this claim is simply false, and I can give two examples from Parker (1997)

which illustrate why.

2.1 The Doctrine of Atonement in Luke

Let's look at Luke 22.19-20. In verses 17-20 are Jesus' words about the bread and the

cup at the last supper. Here is the accepted text of verses 17-20, as it appears in Codex

Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus:

(17) And taking the cup giving thanks he said

Take this and

divide it amongst yourselves

(18) For I say to you

I shall not henceforth drink of the fruit of the vine,

until the kingdom of God comes.

(19) And taking bread, giving thanks he broke it, and gave it to them, saying

This is my body, that is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.

(20) And the cup likewise after supper, saying

This cup is the new covenant in my blood,

that is shed for you.

Here is the text as it appears in Codex Bezae:

(17) And taking the cup giving thanks he said

Take this

divide it amongst yourselves

(18) For I say to you

henceforth I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine,

until the kingdom of God comes.

(19) And taking bread, giving thanks he broke it, and gave it to them, saying

This is my body.

So Codex Bezae does not have the material of part of verse 19 and of verse 20 which

appear in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The extra material in Sinaiticus and

Vaticanus introduces the notion of atonement ("my body that is given for you ... my

blood that is shed for you.") Without this material, there is no doctrine of atonement in

Luke! (or for that matter, in Luke's other gospel, Acts.) Here is what Wells (1999)

says on this issue:

"[This material] is widely regarded as added by a later hand so as to bring Luke's

version of the eucharistic words into line with that of Mark and Matthew. The key

elements of the vocabulary of these verses are otherwise foreign to Luke, who

elsewhere consistently portrays the death of Jesus not as an atoning sacrifice, but as a

miscarriage of justice that God reversed by vindicating him at the resurrection. Luke

has even eliminated the notion of atonement from the one source we are virtually

certain he had before him, namely the gospel of Mark; for he omits Mk. 10:45 ("the

Son of man came ... to give his life a ransom for many") and so presumably did not

find its theology acceptable." (Wells 1999, p. 255).

If 19b-20 are not added verses, then it is harder to explain the awkwardness of Luke's

writing of the cup, which is mentioned as being taken first before the bread (verse 17)

and then taken yet again after the bread (verse 20).

That Luke does not include the doctrine of atonement in his scriptures is evidence that

it may not have been an original teaching of Jesus, and instead may have been

introduced by Paul. Indeed, Luke 22:19b-20 is strikingly similar to 1 Corinthians

11:23-25, as Parker points out.

So not only are McDowell and his quoted authors wrong that no doubt can be cast on

an article of faith by disputed passages - they are wrong on one of the most central

articles of faith in Christianity! [For further discussion see below.]

2.2 The Endings of Mark's Gospel

The accepted text of Mark 16 tells of the discovery of the empty tomb (verses 1-8)

and the resurrection appearances of Jesus (verses 9-20). But verses 9-20 are

completely missing from Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These manuscripts

simply end with verse 8.

That verses 9-20 were added as opposed to subtracted seems most likely: There is no

obvious motivation for the deletion of these passages. Moreover, verse 9 seems to

introduce Mary Magdalene as if for the first time, when she has already appeared in

verse 1 at the tomb, a much more likely error if verses 9-20 were added than if verses

1-20 were composed as a whole and then 9-20 deleted. Also, from Codex Bobbiensis,

there is a second, different ending after verse 8 which mentions no resurrection

appearances at all.

In my view this throws considerable doubt on the historicity of verses 9-20. Of course,

one could argue that verses 9-20 were added based on the testimony of reliable

witnesses. But then one is forced to conclude that Mark was unaware of the

resurrection appearances when he wrote his gospel, which seems unbelievable to me

if in fact they occurred. Or one could I suppose argue that Mark composed his gospel

in stages and only added 9-20 later. But again, why if he knew of the resurrection

appearances and was already relating the story of the empty tomb would he not

immediately include the subsequent resurrection appearances?

I can think of no other likely alternative than that Mark did not know of the

resurrection appearances when he wrote his Gospel. And if Mark, the earliest gospel

writer and closest to the events he described, was unaware of the appearances, then

their historicity is doubtful. Once again, McDowell and his quoted authors are wrong

that no disputed passages cast doubt upon articles of faith - and the resurrection

appearances are not minor articles of faith! [For further discussion see below.]

[back]

3. CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion that Luke 22:19b-20 and Mark 16:9-20 were added to the gospels

calls into question the commitment of the early church to the accurate transmission of

its original documents. As you may know, these are only two examples of New

Testament text which scholars have solid ground for believing to be later

interpolations. As Parker says in his analysis of the last three chapters of Luke,

"...the sum total provides incontrovertible evidence that the text of these chapters was

not fixed, and indeed continued to grow for centuries after its composition." (Parker

1997, p. 172)

"...behind the various texts and groups of witnesses there may be observed a tradition

that permitted and encouraged the expansion of the Lukan passion narrative" (Parker

1997, p. 173)

Indeed, this is Parker's perspective on all the gospels, as evidenced by the title of his

book, "The Living Text of the Gospels". [Further discussion below.]

McDowell is aware of and summarizes the different codexes I have cited above, but

apparently is not aware of the discrepancies between them, or chooses not to mention

them. Once again, I think McDowell gives us far from a complete picture here.

[back]

REFERENCES

D.C. Parker (1997), The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge University Press.

G.A. Wells (1999), The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court.

[back]

Historians' criteria for reliability (8/6/99)

Hi Bob,

I continue with my response to McDowell's chapter 4. I intend here to discuss

Subsections 2C through 8C in Subsection 2B of Section 4A. Here are the Section

headings:

4A. THE RELIABILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS OF SCRIPTURE

2B. THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC TEST FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT

(Sections 2C through 8C)

I divide what I write below into three sections:

1. HISTORIANS' CRITERIA FOR RELIABILITY

2. TWO MINOR POINTS

3. CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

[TOC]

1. HISTORIANS' CRITERIA FOR RELIABILITY

In Sections 2C though 5C McDowell seeks to establish NT reliability based on two

criteria:

(1) The sheer number of available NT manuscripts;

(2) The comparatively short transmission interval for many NT manuscripts;

where by transmission interval, I mean the time interval between the dates of

composition of the original NT manuscripts and the dates for the earliest copies

available to us today.

The Greenlee quote in Section 5C is representative:

"...the number of available MSS of the New Testament is overwhelmingly greater

than those of any other work of ancient literature. In the third place, the earliest extant

MSS of the NT were written much closer to the date of the original writing than is the

case in almost any other piece of ancient literature."

For example, McDowell points out that we have thousands of ancient manuscripts

containing portions of the NT. Codex Sinaiticus (350 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (325-

50 AD) are the earliest manuscripts McDowell mentions which contain substantially

all of the NT, although there exist earlier fragments dating to the second century. This

gives a transmission interval of roughly 250 years for complete NT copies, and 50-

100 years for fragments. Contrast this with Caesar's writings of 50 BC or so, the 10

copies which are available to us dating to 900 AD, having therefore a transmission

interval of nearly 1000 years.

The conclusion McDowell wants us to draw is set forth by, for example, a second

Greenlee quote in Section 5C:

"Since scholars accept as generally trustworthy the writings of the ancient classics

even though the earliest MSS were written so long after the original writings and the

number of extant MSS is in many instances so small, it is clear that the reliability of

the text of the NT is likewise assured."

In short, as McDowell claims in his conclusion to Chapter 4, "If one discards the

Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity."

This conclusion is extremely naive, so much so that in my view either McDowell has

been taken in by the Christian apologists he quotes or he is trying to do the same to us.

McDowell's conclusion rests on the assumption that the only criteria for historical

reliability are manuscript count and transmission interval. While these criteria have

value, they are not the primary ones by which historians evaluate reliability. As Wells

points out (1999, p.10), historians look for independent and corroborating testimonies

from proximal witnesses, that is, witnesses situated as close as possible in time and

place to the events in question. For example, ten corroborating manuscripts testifying

to events in the life of Jesus which are all copies of an earlier manuscript are no more

convincing than the earlier manuscript by itself. On the other hand, if there were 10

corroborating manuscripts authored independently by 10 different writers, that would

constitute much more compelling evidence.

It is independent corroborating testimony that is important. A large count of

corroborating manuscripts is evidence for reliable transmission of manuscripts from

the fourth century to us, but it is not evidence of independent corroborating testimony

on the life of Jesus, because most manuscripts are copies of earlier ones or records of

preceding oral tradition. In fact one can argue that there is very little independent

evidence of events in Jesus' lifetime, that the evidence that does exist is only weakly

corroborating, and that the witnesses are not all that proximal. But I leave this

discussion for the future.

Returning to McDowell's criteria, much more important than transmission interval is

the proximity in time between the writing of the original manuscript and the dates of

the events described in the manuscript. Caesar was an eyewitness to many of the

events he describes in his Commentaries. The elapsed time between the wars and

Caesar's writing is a matter of months or a few years. The fact that the transmission

interval is nearly 1000 years is not highly relevant to historians' assessment of

reliability. In contrast, the elapsed time for Gospel reports is probably 40 years for

Mark and 60 - 70 years for the other three Gospels. Moreover, the Gospel accounts

were not written by eyewitnesses. So based on spatial and temporal proximity alone, it

is reasonable to give more credence to Caesar's Commentaries than to the Gospels.

Of course the issue of the historical reliability of the Gospels is much more involved

than this. I only want to point out how misleading are McDowell's use of manuscript

count and transmission interval as criteria for historical reliability, and to point out the

criteria that historians actually use.

McDowell's Section 7C (MANUSCRIPT RELIABILITY SUPPORTED BY EARLY

CHURCH SCHOLARS) makes the point that there are more than 36,000 NT citations

in the extent writings of church scholars of the second and third centuries, enough to

reconstruct most of the NT. This evidence is in the same vein as McDowell's earlier

evidence on manuscript count, and I respond in the same way: It is not corroborating

evidence which is important but independent corroborating evidence. Since the church

fathers merely quote the earlier NT writings, they do not

provide independent corroborating evidence of NT reliability. The most one can say is

that here is evidence that manuscripts had not become very corrupted by the second or

third century. But McDowell undercuts even that conclusion when he passes on

Joseph Angus' warnings about the limitations of the early patristic writings, namely:

(1) quotes are sometimes used without verbal accuracy, and (2) some copyists were

prone to mistakes or to intentional alteration. So it is far from clear to me what if

anything McDowell's Section 7C accomplishes.

[back]

2. TWO MINOR POINTS

As an aside, let me point out that it is not very surprising that there are so many more

NT manuscripts than other classical manuscripts such as Caesar or Tacitus. As Wells

states (1999, p. 3), "...if there had been a Tacitus club in every European town for

1000 or more years with as much influence as the local Christian clergy, sections of

the Annals would not have been lost."

As another aside, let me contest the assertion McDowell quotes from Geisler and Nix

in Section 5C:

"Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt, whereas 764 lines

of the Iliad are questioned. This 5 percent textual corruption compares with one-half

of one percent of similar emendations in the New Testament."

This assertion really belongs back in McDowell's Section 1C on error rates in the NT.

In any case, it can be called into question. Parker finds 40 verses in the last three

chapters of Luke alone:

"In our investigations we have uncovered evidence in rather more than 40 verses out

of the last 167 of Luke's Gospel, about a quarter of them. Some of the readings might

be best described as quaint....In several others we can see, as in so many other places,

a difficulty or an unfortunate phrase being removed .... But the sum total provides

incontrovertible evidence that the text of these chapters was not fixed, and indeed

continued to grow for centuries after its composition" (Parker 1997, p. 172).

[back]

3. CONCLUSION

McDowell's uses of manuscript count and transmission interval to establish historical

reliability of the NT are genuinely misleading and not generally indicative of what

historians do. McDowell states in his conclusion to Chapter 4:

"One problem I face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to

secular literature and another to the Bible. One needs to apply the same test, whether

the literature under investigation is secular or religious."

McDowell alleges the intellectual dishonesty of others, but at the same time is blind to

similar shortcomings in either himself or the authors he quotes.

[back]

REFERENCES

D.C. Parker (1997), The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge University Press.

G.A. Wells (1999), The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court.

[back]

Eyewitness testimony (8/11/99)

Hi Bob,

Here's another installment on McDowell. I look at the next section of Chapter 4,

which is subsection 2C of subsection 4B of section 4A:

4A THE RELIABILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS OF SCRIPTURE

4B THE INTERNAL TEST FOR RELIABILITY OF THE SCRIPTURES

2C PRIMARY SOURCE VALUE

This is very interesting material. Here is an outline of what I write below:

1. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

1.1 Luke's claims of eyewitness testimony

1.2 Eyewitness claims in II Peter

1.3 Eyewitness claims in 1 John

1.4 Eyewitness claims in Acts

1.5 Eyewitness claim in John

1.6 Another eyewitness claim from Acts

1.7 Early Christians' knowledge of the sayings of Jesus

1.8 Conclusion on eyewitness testimony

2. IF GOSPEL STORIES ARE NOT TRUE, WHY DID NO ONE BLOW THE

WHISTLE?

2.1 Discussion

2.2 Conclusion

REFERENCES

[TOC]

1. EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

1.1 Luke's claims of eyewitness testimony

Luke 1:1-3

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished

among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the

Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having

investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in

consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus.

This is weak evidence of eyewitness testimony. Notice that Luke does not claim to be

an eyewitness. He does not claim to have spoken to eyewitnesses. He only claims

eyewitnesses have handed things down to "us". What is the basis for his claim? He

does not tell us. We know, for example, that Luke used Mark as source material. Does

Luke know that Mark's sources were eyewitnesses, or is he merely assuming so?

There is no way for us to tell. Are all of Luke's sources as remote as Mark? If so, then

this is very weak evidence for eyewitness testimony indeed.

1.2 Eyewitness claims in II Peter

II Peter 1:16

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power

and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

It is unclear for exactly what events eyewitnesses claims are being made here. The

context may help. Here is II Peter 1:17-18:

(17) For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to

him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am

well pleased." (18) We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we

were with him on the sacred mountain.

No other specific events are mentioned in II Peter. Is the author of II Peter referring

only to the events of verses 17-18 or to other unspecified events in the life of Jesus? It

is hard to tell.

The confidence we can place in this claim of first-hand witness is diminished by the

fact that most scholars do not believe that the apostle Peter was the author of II Peter.

For example, Wells writes:

Thompson adds that this letter is arguably the very latest NT epistle: scholars are now

nearly unanimous that it is pseudepigraphical, and many of them date it in the second

century. France allows that today, even among evangelical Christians, few would try

to defend its Petrine authorship with any enthusiasm. (Wells 1999, p. 68)

And again:

Bauckham notes, in his survey of relevant research, that "since the beginning of the

century... the pseudepigraphical character of the work has come to be almost

universally recognized." He thinks it may have been written about AD 80-100,

although he allows that many date it later, as the very latest of all the NT books ...

Donald Guthrie, a scrupulously fair though conservative commentator, allows that it

was "neglected" until the third century, and that this "indicates a certain lack of

confidence in the book." J.N.D. Kelly remarks, more trenchantly, that if it "really is

the product of Peter's pen, the slowness and reluctance of the Church, especially at

Rome, to accord it recognition present a serious problem." He places it among "the

luxuriant crop of pseudo-Petrine literature which sprang up around the memory of the

Prince of the apostles" and which included the very popular Apocalypse of

Peter (approximately AD 135), the Preaching of Peter (early second century),

the Gospel of Peter and the Acts of Peter. He adds that still more writings with Peter's

name attached have come to light among those found near Nag Hammadi in Upper

Egypt in 1945. (Wells 1996, p. 89)

1.3 Eyewitness claims in 1 John

1 John 1:3-

"...what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have

fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son

Jesus Christ.

Again, here is an eyewitness claim without any specific mention of exactly what was

witnessed. It is difficult to know what to make of this. What specifically was seen and

heard? And who is making the claim? Is the author the apostle John? Wells states:

The author is not to be uncritically equated with the author of the fourth gospel, for

this epistle differs markedly from that gospel in doctrine; and its text, as opposed to

the title it has been given, is anonymous. (Wells 1996, p. 89)

1.4 Eyewitness claims in Acts

Acts 2:22

"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by

God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your

midst, just as you yourselves know..."

Luke is conveying a speech of Peter. So Luke claims that Peter claims that Jerusalem

residents have seen miracles and wonders and signs of an unspecified nature and

number. Unfortunately, Luke does not tell us how he comes to know or reconstruct

this speech. Wells writes:

[T]here are good reasons for not accepting this and other speeches as early material

assimilated into Acts: the proofs from scripture they offer depend on the Greek OT

(often where it deviates from the Hebrew) and so were concocted in a Hellenistic

community, not spoken persuasively to the Jews in Jerusalem, as Acts would have us

believe. (Wells 1999, p. 143)

1.5 Eyewitness claim in John

John 19:35

And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he

is telling the truth, so that you also my believe.

Again, witness to what? Here the context provides the answer. The witness is to the

piercing of Jesus side by a spear, nothing else. Here are John 19:34 and 36:

(34) Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden

flow of blood and water....(36) These things happened so that the scripture would be

fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," and, as another scripture says, "They

will look on the one they have pierced."

So by not specifying the context, McDowell lets the reader jump to the conclusion

that this eyewitness claim is much broader than it really is.

It is surprising that McDowell does not also quote from the twenty-first chapter of

John:

(20) Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them ...

(24) This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We

know that his testimony is true.

Here "these things" apparently does refer to the entire gospel of John, and verse 24

seems to claim that the beloved disciple is the writer of this gospel. This is a much

stronger eyewitness claim. Unfortunately, this entire last chapter of John seems to be a

later addition. Wells writes:

That the final chapter 21 of the fourth gospel, where the eyewitness claim occurs, was

written by the author of chapters 1-20 is maintained only by the most conservative

commentators. The whole of this final chapter comes after a direct address to the

reader clearly meant as a solemn conclusion to the gospel [i.e., 20:30-31]. (Wells 1996

pp 87-88)

And again:

Only the most conservative scholars regard chapter 21 as part of the gospel, and not as

a clumsy appendix where the disciples, returning to their old profession (long since

abandoned) as fishermen in Galilee, have apparently forgotten that the risen one

instructed them in chapter 20 to go out as missionaries and gave them the Holy Ghost

to that they can forgive sins or withhold such forgiveness. (Wells 1999 p. 140)

It must be admitted there is no existing manuscript evidence that chapter 21 is an

addition. However, there is strong manuscript evidence that at least one other passage

in John is a later addition, namely the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53

- 8:11). So additions to John are not without precedent.

1.6 Another eyewitness claim from Acts

Acts 26:24-26

And while Paul was saying this in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice, "Paul, you

are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad" But Paul said, "I am not

out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. For the king

knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am

persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a

corner.

McDowell has again taken a quote out of context, no doubt intending the reader to

infer that "these things" that have not escaped notice and have "not been done in a

corner" are in fact events from the life of Jesus. In fact, the events Paul refers to are

from his own life, not Jesus' life. In Acts 26:1-23, Paul is speaking to King Agrippa,

the Roman ruler Portius Festus, and other high ranking officers and leading men of

Caesarea. Paul relates how in the past he had persecuted Christians, how Jesus had

appeared and spoken to him on the road to Damascus, and how he had subsequently

preached repentance to the people of Damascus, Jerusalem and Judea. He does not

speak directly about any happenings in the life of Jesus. So when he says "the king

knows about these matters" and "none of these things escape his notice; for this has

not been done in a corner", he is speaking about his own actions, not any of the

actions or events in the life of Jesus.

1.7 Early Christians' knowledge of the sayings of Jesus

McDowell quotes F.F. Bruce as follows:

Indeed, the evidence is that the early Christians were careful to distinguish between

the sayings of Jesus and their own inferences of judgments. Paul, for example, when

discussing the vexed questions of marriage and divorce in I Corinthians vii, is careful

to make this distinction between his own advice on the subject and the Lord's decisive

ruling: "I, not the Lord," and again, "Not I, but the Lord." (Bruce 7/33,44-46)

It can in fact be argued that Paul knew very little of the sayings of Jesus. I will say

more about this in the next section. Here are three comments from Wells:

A very relevant point is Paul's own insistence that the gospel he preached did not

reach him "from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of

Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:11-12). He reiterates this independence from what his fellow

apostles had been teaching: "I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to

Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me" (verses 16-17) ... (Wells 1999 p.

54)

All that one can extract from Paul by way of knowledge of Jesus's teachings is some

half-dozen mentions of "words" or "commands" of "the Lord", mostly on relatively

peripheral matters. Some of these were certainly not spoken by the pre-crucifixion

Jesus. 2 Cor. 12:9, for instance, is expressly said to be what the Lord said personally

to Paul, in answer to a prayer, and so the speaker must have been the risen Lord, as

Paul did not know Jesus before his resurrection and, as a persecutor of Christians,

certainly did not then pray to him. (Wells 1999 p. 60)

Some of Paul's words of the Lord are regarded even by numerous Christian

commentators as words of the risen Jesus, given to early Christian prophets speaking

in his name. It is perhaps significant that we are here dealing with words of "the

Lord", not of 'Jesus'. This in itself suggests that the appeal is not to an earthly teacher,

but "to the risen, reigning Christ, the church's Lord" (Furnish 1968, p. 56; authors

italics). Although Paul uses the name 'Jesus' 142 times, "no saying is ever presented as

a saying of Jesus" (Boring 1991, p. 114). Such words of the Lord may be called

'prophetic' because they represent, not what a historical Jesus had once said, but what

he now says in his resurrected state. (Wells 1999 p. 61)

1.8 Conclusion on eyewitness testimony

Eyewitness claims in the New Testament are few and far between. There simply are

no New Testament writers who (1) claim to be eyewitnesses themselves, and (2) state

exactly what they were witnesses to, and (3) whose identity can be verified with any

confidence. To say that we know anything of the life of Jesus based on eyewitness

testimony is clearly an exaggeration.

[back]

2. IF GOSPEL STORIES ARE NOT TRUE, WHY DID NO ONE BLOW THE WHISTLE?

McDowell further quotes F.F. Bruce:

And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with;

there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of

the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not

to speak of willful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by

those who would be only to glad to do so. On the contrary, one of the strong points in

the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the

hearers; they not only said 'We are witnesses of these things,' but also, 'As you

yourselves also know' (Acts 2:22). Had there been any tendency to depart from the

facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience

would have served as a further corrective. 7/33,44-46

2.1 Discussion

There are many ways to respond to this line of reasoning. First, were there really no

attempts to correct early Christian preaching? For example, Talmud writings do

survive which deny the virgin birth (see McDowell's Chapter 5). The fact that there

are not many such attempts is not all that surprising: It is a truism that the victors get

to write history, and Christianity certainly was victorious. The views of Christian

"heretics" are in many cases available to us today only in a second-hand fashion

through the orthodox Christian writers who denounced them. The Ebionites, for

example, and other "adoptionists" did deny the virgin birth (e.g., Ehrman 1993).

Matthew 28 tries to discredit Jewish rumors that Jesus' body was stolen by disciples,

rumors which are available to us today only because Matthew denounces them. Who

knows what other attempts to disconfirm Christian "history" may have been

suppressed?

Even granting that there were few or no attempts by hostile witnesses to discredit

early Christian preaching, to conclude based on Bruce's argument that the Gospels are

historically accurate portrayals of the life of Jesus, one must believe that (1) the early

preaching mentioned actually occurred in the presence of unfriendly eyewitnesses,

and (2) the content of this preaching coincided substantially with the Gospel stories.

Let's look at each these points separately.

(1) Did the early preaching mentioned actually occur in the presence of unfriendly eyewitnesses?

To vouch for Peter's preaching in Jerusalem we have Luke's report in Acts, written at

least 60 years later. As I've already mentioned, there are good reasons for doubting the

authenticity of this and other speeches presented in Acts. In addition, Wells makes the

following points:

Davis, taking what is said here in Acts at face value, speaks of "Jerusalem apparently

seething with reports of Jesus's resurrection a few weeks after the crucifixion" (p. 80).

In fact, however, the Christian community there will have been unobtrusive and as

good as unnoticed. Dibelius has made the point, calling these people "a band gathered

together in a common belief in Jesus Christ and in the expectation of his coming

again..., leading a quiet and in the Jewish sense 'pious' existence", a "modest

existence", sustained only by "the victorious conviction of the believers" (1956, p.

124). (Wells 1999 pp. 129-130)

Note also that much early preaching occurred in Greek communities at some distance

from Jerusalem. The likelihood of unfriendly eyewitnesses at these locations is

considerably less.

Moving to the latter third of the first century, the impact of the destruction of

Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 cannot be overlooked. Mack describes the effect

of the turmoil in Palestine in AD 66-73:

Reading the history of the war written by Josephus, one gets the impression that the

internecine conflicts within Judea and Jerusalem were as devastating to the social

order as the armies of the Romans were to the city walls and defenses. When it was

over, the temple was in ruins, Jerusalem was a burned wasteland, and many of the

people of Judea had been uprooted and scattered throughout Palestine, Transjordan,

and the cities along the coast. (Mack 1993 p. 171)

Would there have been any unfriendly eyewitnesses at all available to take Christian

preachers to task after AD 70? Such individuals may have been few and far between.

(2) Did the content of early preaching coincide substantially with the Gospel stories?

As just mentioned, the reports of preaching in Acts were written some 60 years later.

Do we have any more contemporary reports of what Christian evangelists were saying

about Jesus before AD 70? We do have the indirect evidence of what the epistles of

Paul and others say about the life of Jesus. The astonishing fact is that these epistles

convey virtually no information about the life or even the teachings of Jesus.

Paul's genuine writings (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galations), his probable

genuine writings (Phillipians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon, Colossians) and the early

non-Pauline epistles prior to AD 90 (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter,

James, 1 2 and 3 John) do not mention Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, the virgin birth,

Nazareth, any of the miracles performed by Jesus, the fact that Jesus taught in

parables, the ethical teachings of Jesus, the transfiguration, the betrayal by Judas,

Peter's denying Jesus three times, the trial before Pilate, the place of his crucifixion,

women going to the tomb to anoint Jesus, the empty tomb, or the resurrection

appearances immediately following the discovery of the empty tomb.

What these letters do mention are the last supper, the eucharist, the crucifixion, the

resurrection on the third day, and some later post-resurrection appearances, but no

other details of Jesus' life. Paul mentions miracles, signs and wonders associated with

gifts of the spirit, without any acknowledgement that Jesus was credited with such

deeds. Moreover, Paul does not make use of Jesus' teachings as stated in the

gospels even when it would have been to his advantage to do so, and sometimes even

goes against those teachings. (Martin 1991 and Wells 1996, 1999 give details.)

Significantly, this silence about the details of Jesus' life is not maintained in epistles

written in the early second century, sufficiently late for their authors to have been

aware of at least some of the synoptic tradition.

A reasonable although not uncontroversial conclusion is that much of the Gospel

tradition is merely legendary accretion, stories that evolved after the destruction of

Jerusalem in AD 70 or at some distance from Jerusalem, and that the early preaching

about Jesus prior to AD 70 and nearer to Jerusalem mentioned only Jesus' crucifixion,

resurrection and post-resurrection appearances. The latter are difficult to refute, as

they involve personal eyewitness experiences. Who is to say reports that so-and-so

saw the risen Christ did not occur if one was not there and does not know so-and-so?

Wells' thesis that Paul and other early epistle writers knew very little of Jesus' life and

teachings as it appears in the Gospels is defended at length in his several books and

also discussed by Martin (1991). It is not easily dismissed, and in my view is the

strongest argument available that the Gospel stories are largely a matter of legend.

[For further discussion see below and below.]

[A note added later (6/13/01): Some of the Gospel stories would also have been

difficult for Jesus followers to refute if they were not true. For example, the story of the empty tomb, not mentioned by Paul, has its earliest telling in Mark 16:1-8. (These

are the final verses of Mark in the most reliable manuscripts.) These verses describe

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as being the sole witnesses

of the empty tomb and the angel proclaiming Jesus resurrection. The last verse in Mark (16:8) reads Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (NIV) A follower protesting the story could be reassured that he had not heard about it because the

women had said nothing to anyone. If the alleged eyewitness women were not around to object 25 to 35 years later when Mark was written, who could say the story

was not true?]

2.2 Conclusion

Why did no one blow the whistle on Christian preachers? Quite possibly early

Christian preaching contained so little detail about the life of Jesus that critical

witnesses had nothing to refute. It was only after hostile witnesses were dead and

gone that legendary stories had the freedom to develop unfettered.

[back]

REFERENCES

Bart D. Ehrman (1993), The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early

Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Oxford University

Press.

Burton L. Mack (1993), The Lost Gospel of Q: The Book of Q and Christian Origins.

San Francisco: Harper.

Michael Martin (1991), The Case Against Christianity. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

G.A. Wells (1996), The Jesus Legend. Chicago: Open Court.

G.A. Wells (1999), The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court.

[back]

Paul's silence on the life of Christ (11/1/99)

Dear Gordy,

Here are a couple thoughts Ive been considering, and I want to get them off to you while the memory of the New York Yankees Word Series victory is still fresh in our

minds.

A. Why Paul mentions so little of the life and works of Christ

B. A current parallel

C. The role of believing [not included here]

[TOC]

A. Why Paul mentions so little of the life and works of Christ

There are several possibilities to consider.

Case 1. The gospels were indeed not written yet, because this Jesus was a legend who

never existed as the gospels describe him, because the gospels were retrospective

fakes produced to support this fictitious legend that Paul was in the midst of creating.

The next three cases each are based on Jesus being a real, historical figure who did the

things that were later recorded in the Gospels. Keep in mind that "oral tradition"

mentioned below is not meant to carry the connotations that we often associate with

that phrase today - just word-of-mouth reports with variable reliabilities, second hand

stories, and rumors. Oral tradition in the intertestamental period is known to have

highly reliable and very structured. It apparently also included instances of rabbis

memorizing entire books of the OT - I recently read that one rabbi is reported to have

memorized the entire OT itself (I actually find that amazing at least, and possibly hard

to believe, but I read it, I think, in Blomberg). [For a response, see below.]

Case 2. The gospels were in fact already written and were in common circulation at

the time of Pauls writings. But Paul did not quote from or refer to them, for two primary reasons - one negative, one positive. For the negative reason, he did not quote

from or refer to the gospels because the gospels were so commonly known that he

simply didnt have to (see my remark below about the Yankees winning the World Series last night).

For the positive reason, he did not quote from or refer to the gospels because he saw

[i.e., God inspired and led him to see] that there was more of a need to interpret the

entire appearance of Christ and the significance of Gods incarnation rather than interpret specific actions and particular sayings of Christ. In other words, while the

specifics and particulars were already well known and in common circulation at the

time of Pauls writings, what was needed was not so much an interpretation of these specifics and particulars but a grand interpretation of this grand event - the audacious

claim of Gods incarnation - his humanity, his divinity, the reasons for and meaning of his crucifixion and resurrection and ascension - especially as they related to

prophecies. [For a response, see below.]

Case 3. The gospels were only just being written at the time of Pauls writings and/or were coming into prominent circulation at the time of Pauls writings, so Paul did not have access to the written accounts of the life of Christ, although he did have

knowledge from the oral accounts of the life of Christ. So while Case 2 above posits

the contemporaneous pre-existence of written accounts, Case 3 here posits the absence

of written accounts but the presence of the oral accounts. It may have been the case

here that Paul did not quote from or refer to the oral accounts because he saw the need

(i.e., was inspired by God) as in Case 2 to provide a grand interpretation of Gods incarnation, especially as it related to prophecies.

Case 4. The gospels were in fact not even written yet. The rest of Case 3 after its

opening sentence applies here.

FWIW, these 4 cases that Ive outlined are not quoted from any source, because I just composed them myself. I am not a scholar; I am an informed layman. From an

informed laymans point of view, Cases 2, 3, and 4 seem reasonable, although I think Case 2 is the most reasonable and most consistent with the evidence. [For a response,

see below.]

[back]

B. A current parallel

Here is one contemporary occurrence that may parallel why Paul did NOT quote from

the gospels or refer to them. It just so happens that I have at my desk todays sports page (Th, Oct.28, 1999). Pauls situation is almost like reading todays sports page commentary by a local sportswriter on the significance of the Yankees World Series victory last night. This newspaper commentator doesnt mention specific plays or actions of particular players, nor does he quote any players words, nor does he refer to what happened in any particular inning - in fact, I search in vain for a single

reference by this writer to any specific play of any of the four games of the entire

1999 World Series (St. Paul Pioneer Press, sportspage 1, Tom Powers). But he does

write an entire column about the significance of the New York Yankees having played

in and won so many World Series in the past 78 years. The fact that the writer does

not mention any specific action from the 1999 World Series does not mean that he

does not have the written factual accounts of the Series at his disposal; in fact a

thorough written account of the details and facts and flow of the game are contained

in the same section of the paper, with the beginning of this description just inches

away from his own column and the remainder of the description continued on the

same page on which his own commentary is continued. His lack of quotes from major

figures like Paul ONeill or Joe Torre - and his lack of specific game highlights - does NOT mean that he was therefore making up the Yankees 1999 World Series victory because it hadnt yet occurred.

It does mean a lot about his reasons for writing what he wrote, however. There are at

least two reasons that I can think of that could explain why this columnist-

commentator didnt mention the contemporaneous inning-by-inning or play-by-play documentation or any specific actions of any specific person. First, he assumed

(correctly) that virtually anyone reading his column will either already be familiar

with the facts of the Series or will have simultaneous access to the documentation

elsewhere on the sports page or elsewhere in their lives, like TV, radio, or sports

magazines. Second, he saw the purpose of his writing as not at all to document but to

explain, expand, and comment.

So he doesnt quote either the inning-by-inning account elsewhere in the same newspaper or the play-by-play announcer on local radio or TV last night - because he

doesnt have to; he doesnt want to; he doesnt need to. This is a fairly common type of occurrence that could be cited repeatedly on different topics, where a commentator

expands upon, explains, and comments on a contemporaneously documented account

to which the writer had access - i.e., a factual report on the front page of a newspaper

side-by-side with a commentary or analysis of that event that is virtually devoid of

references to specific actions or sayings of that same event. We could cite a lot of

modern and historical occurrences in which this is precisely the format the we

observed - analysis and commentary next to factual accounts - the bombing of that

Oklahoma City federal building; the U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1980;

any national or prominent election; the Kosovo war; etc., etc. etc. I would also guess

that if we went back in history we would find similar such dualities, like in the

assassination of Lincoln, to cite one example.

One of the reasons why Case 2 above is so believable is that we see the same things

occurring repeatedly in our own lives and throughout history - the kind of things just

described in the above paragraph.

[For a response, see below.]

[back]

Motives of McDowell and motives of Paul (11/18/99)

Hi Bob,

Here are some responses to the posts you sent 9/25/99. This is a little long, but it

breaks into four independent parts (A,E,F,G) plus three somewhat dependent parts

(B,C,D), so you can read it in pieces if you like.

Look forward to seeing you guys over Thanksgiving.

Gordy

A. History being written by the winners

B. More critique of McDowell

C. McDowell's motives

D. Pauls motives

E. Legend

F. What I meant about argument style [not included here]

G. Encouraging irrationality [not included here]

Reference

[TOC]

A. History being written by the winners

Concerning this topic, you wrote:

Ive heard this comment for at least the past 10-12 years, and the main thing that

comes to mind is simply that Christianity and Christians were not "winners" in this

sense for hundreds of years. Both the first and second century saw Christians

persecuted violently, beheaded, crucified, fed to lions, shivering to death naked on

frozen lakes overnight, cowering in catacombs in Rome, watching their children being

killed by lions while they watched, and so forth. The early history of Christianity is

not one of winners but of people being rejected, scorned, killed, downtrodden, and

defeated. The early Christians were not "winners" in the historical sense of that word

until sometime in the 5th century, when Constantine became a Christian. (Bob

9/25/99)

First, for whatever it's worth, Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century

(313 AD). But secondly, I'm not sure why you think your comments are relevant to

the context in which my original comment occurred. Here is what I said:

First, were there really no attempts to correct early Christian preaching? For example,

Talmud writings do survive which deny the virgin birth (see McDowell's Chapter 5).

The fact that there are not many such attempts is not all that surprising: It is a truism

that the victors get to write history, and Christianity certainly was victorious. The

views of Christian "heretics" are in many cases available to us today only in a second-

hand fashion through the orthodox Christian writers who denounced them. The

Ebionites, for example, and other "adoptionists" did deny the virgin birth (e.g.,

Ehrman 1993). Matthew 28 tries to discredit Jewish rumors that Jesus' body was

stolen by disciples, rumors which are available to us today only because Matthew

denounces them. Who knows what other attempts to disconfirm Christian "history"

may have been suppressed? (Gordy 8/11/99)

Christians definitely were the winners for over a millenium, at least in Western

civilization. And because of that, the neglect, suppression or rewriting of history by

Christian authorities is simply a fact. For example, I don't think any reputable

historian believes that portion of the Antiquities in which Josephus apparently calls

Jesus the Messiah and affirms the resurrection was not a corruption introduced by

later Christian copyists.

So fine - I admit your point that Christians were definitely not winners for the first

two or three hundred years, but so what? Other than sort of a feel-good "we were just

as down-trodden as you" response, I'm not sure where this argument gets you. Later

Christians were winners long enough and powerful enough to suppress history,

regardless of how victimized they were in the first two or three centuries.

[back]

B. More critique of McDowell

"I have had an inkling over the years that McDowell brings to his writings a certain

evangelical fervor and flavor that affects the scholarly emphasis that he himself is

trying to make...

"So here's my suggestion: why don't we turn away from McDowell per se and turn

toward the NT/Bible itself more. ... So thats my suggestion. Let me know what you

think." (Bob 9/25/99)

Turning to other sources or topics besides McDowell is fine with me. But I'd like to

first talk a little more about McDowell, for a couple of reasons. First, if I don't set

some of this stuff down now, I will simply forget it and won't be able to reconstruct it

easily after I return certain references to the library. Second, McDowell's behavior and

motives are relevant to another point I want to discuss later.

So first I want to discuss McDowell a little more. This is mostly for the record, and I

don't expect you to necessarily respond point-by-point.

McDowell's evangelical ferver takes a specific form that can be highly misleading to

an unwary reader. He is, as I think you said in a previous message, a "compiler" - he

scans the literature and picks out quotes which support or seem to support the case he

is trying to make.

Sometimes a quote he uses does not really support the case he advocates. For

example, as I've pointed out before, McDowell cites (1977 p. 8) the "none of this has

been done in a corner" passage (Acts 26:24-28) in support of his claim (p. 7) that

"[t]he writers of the New Testament appealed to the firsthand knowledge of their

readers or listeners concerning the facts and evidence about the person of Christ."

McDowell does not inform the reader but surely must know that Paul is referring in

this passage not to Jesus' deeds but events in Paul's own life.

McDowell also cites passages selectively. For example, McDowell in his Chapter 8

cites Rogers (1936) several times in support of his contention of early church belief in

the virgin birth. But Rogers disagrees with McDowell that Isaiah 7:14 ("Behold a

virgin will conceive ...") is a fullfilled prophecy. Does McDowell cite Rogers when in

his Chapter 9 McDowell puts forth Isaiah 7:14 as an example of fulfilled prophecy?

No! No citation even though a relevant passage from Rogers directly follows a

passage McDowell has already cited regarding early church belief in the virgin birth.

Take a look:

"In the very early days of the church, there was a group called the Ebionites. They

objected to the church's use of the passage in Isaiah concerning the virgin bearing a

son (Isaiah 7:14). They said that the verse should be translated 'a young woman.'

37/105 The important point is that the church believed in the Virgin Birth."

(McDowell 1977 p. 119)

The citation 37/105 is to Rogers (1936). Here we find:

"Then there were the Ebionites of whom Irenaeus also speaks.... They objected to the

Church's use of the passage in Isaiah vii.: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a

son.' They said the words simply meant 'a young woman,' and were so rendered in the

version they used. In this they were right, but their objection shows that the belief of

the Church was in the Virgin Birth." (Rogers 1936, p. 105)

In this they were right, says Rogers - the virgin reference in Isaiah really meant

"young woman". It's the very next sentence following what McDowell does cite -

McDowell couldn't have missed it. But does he cite Rogers in his discussion of Isaiah

7:14? Not at all.

Another topic McDowell discusses in an appendix to his book is the discrepancy

between Mathew and Luke regarding the geneology of Jesus. McDowell's position is

that the Luke geneology is really the lineage of Mary, so that the initial reference to

Joseph being "the son of Heli" must really mean Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.

Here is what Rogers says:

"This, of course, was noticed long ago, and various reasons have been suggested for

the difference. It has been supposed that one traces the descent of Joseph and the other

of St. Mary, and that 'the son of Heli' means 'the son-in-law of Heli,' a not very

probable explanation. ... A more plausible explanation is that 'son' means 'heir to,' and

that one document, or both, may be based on merely legal claims." (Rogers 1936

p.110)

A not very probable explanation, says Rogers. Of course, McDowell gives no mention

of this opposing view, even though he surely is aware of it. Selective citation again.

So in summary, McDowell

1. Cites from individual sources selectively, omitting what doesn't support his position (the Rogers citations above);

2. Exaggerates the degree to which his sources support his claims (the Elder citations I discussed 6/23/99 regarding a census and the governorship of

Quirinius near the time of Jesus' birth);

3. Takes quotations out of context to make them seem to support his claims when they do not (the Acts 26:24-28 quote and the John 19:35 quote I discuss in my

8/11/99 post);

4. Exaggerates historical reliability of NT by focusing on limited criteria for historical reliability (no. of manuscript copies and transmission interval) and

ignoring criteria historians use (early and independent testimony) (my 8/6/99

post).

I suspect what McDowell has done is to comb the literature for quotations and

arguments which support his position, ignoring all contrary material. Presenting only

supporting material to the reader prevents any nuanced discussion of controversial

issues and gives the reader the misleading impression of scholarly unanimity in

support of what McDowell claims.

[back]

C. McDowell's motives

In his conclusion to Chapter 4 on the historical reliability of the Bible, McDowell

makes the following claim:

"After try