Greek Myth vs. Christian belief

[Oberon]

It was Cicero who, in De Legibus, first called Herodotus pater historiae but in the same breath he declared that in Herodotus “sunt innumerabiles fabulae” (1.5) Others have been less generous still, referring to him as the “father of lies.” …
Herodotus’ liberties with the truth were well known even in ancient times. Cicero’s comment on Herodotus’ fabulae has already been mentioned. The Latin fabulae corresponds quite well with the Greek mythos (Bettini 200), and thus Cicero’s remark may be accurately taken as derogatory…Cicero’s passing slight is nothing when compared to Plutarch’s malicious essay De Herodoti Malignitate. Plutarch maligns Herodotus and his work on multiple grounds, from his treatment of Thebes, Corinth, and the Boethians, to his deliberate malice: “ou gar monon… tes eschates adikias me onta dokein einai kiaion; alla kai kakoetheias akras ergon eukollian mimoumenon kai haploteat dusphoraton einai” (1). He ends with a warning to potential readers: “all’ osper en rodios dei kanthardia phylatesthai ten blasphemian autou kai kakologian, leiois kai hapalois schemasin hupodedikuian, hina me lathomen atopous kai pseudeis peri ton ariston kai megiston es Ellados poleon kai andron doxas labontes” (43). However, it was Herodotus’ method against which Plutarch had the greatest problem: “But what roused Plutarch's animus against Herodotus was his view of what history was all about. For Plutarch, history had a serious educational purpose” (Evans 14). Apparently, Herodotus’ love of deeds and stories did not conform to Plutarch’s understanding of what history ought to be. Other ancient authors wrote similar polemics of which we have fragments, including Against Herodotus by Manetho, On Herodotus' thefts, by Valerius Pollio, On Herodotus' lies, by Aelius Harpocration, and Against Herodotus by Libanius (Evans 14).
Thucydides too appears to have issues with the “historical” method employed by Herodotus. Although he does not actually name Herodotus, he does contrast his style with that employed by Herodotus: kai es men akroasin isos to me mythodes auton aterpesteron phaneitai; hosoi de boulesontai ton te genomenon to saphes skopein kai ton mellonton pote authis kata to anthropeion toiouton kai paraplesion esesthai, ophelima krinein auta arkountos hexei, ktema tee s aei mallon e agonisma es to paraxrema akouein xugkeitai (1.22.4). It appears that he is comparing himself to Herodotus, whose work is centered around “to mythodes”. Modern historians, particularly those of the 19th century when the idea of Herodotus as a “father of lies” was in scholarly vogue (Flory 64), have also rightly pointed out numerous liberties Herodotus took with the truth. Possible examples are numerous. Geography is of particular embarrassment for scholars wishing to defend the reputation of Herodotus, as it is the least of what a well-traveled historian could factually report: “One reason for the embarrassment is that Herodotus' figures are badly wrong in the case of the Black Sea, where Herodotus' error on the length and breadth is one hundred percent and forty percent respectively, while his error on the more familiar Hellespont drops to one in six for both length and breadth, and that on the width of the Propontis to only one in seven” (Armayor 47). Again:
“Much more embarrassing is the great Scythian bronze of king Ariantas that Herodotus claims to have seen for himself. In view of his claim, we can only try to decipher what he saw in the light of metrology. According to standard metrology, that of Hultsch for example, Herodotus' amphoreus is a liquid measure equal to the Attic metretes and I.5 Roman amphorae or about 39.4 liters, or some 10.4 gallons. According to standard metrology, therefore, king Ariantas' 6oo-amphoreis bronze must have held upwards of 6,244 gallons, like Croesus' 6oo-amphoreis silver bowl at Delphi (i.5i). Herodotus does not mention Croesus' dedication in this passage. Jacoby argues that Herodotus must have gone to Scythia before he went to Delphi or else he would have, but in that case we are merely left to wonder why he did not mention the Scythian vessel when he came to tell about that of Delphi. But it seems difficult to believe a 6,244-gallon vessel in either place.” (Armayor 51).
Herodotus’ various inaccurate or even mythic descriptions of geography present problems to any who would paint him as a dispassionate recorder of facts:

“In the majority of these cases Herodotus casts a skeptical eye on the archaic legacy, leading some scholars to label him a 'Father of Empiricism,' but this formulation fails to account for other passages in which mythic and speculative thinking still predominate; indeed, the contradictions between the two approaches have led Lionel Pearson and others to question whether any coherent scheme of thought underlies Herodotean geography at all” (Romm 98-99)
Geography is not the only place where Herodotus displays an affinity for the mythic over the factual and a certain carelessness with the truth. Of Herodotus’ account of Perdiccas, Kleinknecht writes, “Der historische Wert der herodoteischen Überlieferung war damit erschöpft. Die Gründungssage selbst ist geschichtlich wertlos” (136). Flory, in his chapter on “Truth and Fiction” in Herodotus points out that the first account given in the Histories of the strife between the Greeks and Persians is “rationalism, pushed to its absurd extreme. Herodotus here parodies not just myth but rationalism itself. He makes the very plausibility of the demythologized tales suspect, particularly through unspoken or barely hinted comparison with the poetic originals… He joins together totally different and timeless myths in a logical and orderly chronological sequence of cause and effect never suggested by the originals (25). Whether Flory’s designation of Herodotus’ style as containing “playfully exaggerated seriousness” (28) can be accepted is certainly debatable. What is not is Herodotus’ manipulation of myth into something designed to appear rational. It is no wonder Grant puzzles over the contrast between “Herodotus the keen, shrewd, painstaking researcher and critic, and Herodotus careless and casual to the point of blamable negligence” (283).
If Herodotus is thought of as the first historian, then certainly there are numerous issues to be found not only with his work but with his “historical method.” …“Herodotus does not ever state at the beginning of his book or anywhere else that he will tell only the truth about the past, for the father of history does not always accept the superiority of truth to fiction. Herodotus often tells lengthy stories he admits are false, disproves plausible stories, or accepts preposterous ones without proof” (Flory 50).


Herodotus was certainly not the greatest of ancient historians, but he wasn’t the worst either, and he certainly wasn’t alone in reporting rumor, myth, magic, etc. Even better example may be found by examining not simply ancient history, but the genre of “lives” in which the gospels (more or less) fall. For example, Diogenes Laertius writes the “lives” of philosophers who lived centuries earlier, and his lives also contain wonder workings and miracles (for example, his descriptions of Pythagoras). Philostratus, in his “Life of Apollonius” not only discusses the various magic and wonders which Apollonius works, he is also removed from the events by over a century. Compared to biographies such as these, the gospels are far more likely to contain historical information mixed in with the mythical.

What is most important to note is that as a type of ancient biography, the gospels are concerned with history. This is not to say they view history in the same way that we do, or that they are unbiased observer of the events they describe, but that they were attempting to record accurately what they believed was the life of Jesus. This is important because scholars early in this century (particularly Bultmann) and prior (and even some today) argued that the gospels' authors, and the early Christians in general, showed no concern for the actual life of Jesus. Bultmann, for example, argued that early Christian communities freely attributed sayings to Jesus left and right, and so that very little in the gospels could be considered to trace back to Jesus. As we will see, not only did Bultmann’s work predate several important and dominating studies on comparisons between the gospels and Greco-roman biography, he was also using a model of oral tradition that was woefully inaccurate (more on this later).

Of course, to say that the gospel authors were concerned with accurately recording a “history/biography” of Jesus and his teachings doesn’t mean that the gospels themselves are accurate at all. I have already pointed out that several other biographers of the ancient world wrote biographies of people in which little to nothing may be accepted as true. All we can achieve by placing the gospels into a particular genre of ancient history is that 1) They aren’t myth, 2) The authors were recording “history” as they believed it.

 

[Oberon]

What is important now is to determine whether or not the gospel authors, and early Christians in general, had access to reliable traditions of Jesus. This has been studied in a number of ways.

For one thing, any sketch of Jesus which doesn’t place him somehow within 1st century Judaism is almost guaranteed to be off (a problem with some recent attempts to paint him as a Cynic). Archaeology, as well as analysis of ancient texts, has revealed that the Galilee of Jesus’ day was thoroughly Jewish. Just how Jews were supposed to behave was hotly debated (for example, the Pharisees relied a great deal not only on the written but also on an oral torah, the Sadducees appear to have rejected all the new Jewish texts and beliefs, the Essenes isolated themselves from the rest of the Jewish world, etc). Jesus had his own views on how Jews ought to behave, and how God’s commandments ought to be interpreted, but he was Jewish, and sketches of his life which remove this Jewishness are to be viewed with great suspicion (they are also rather reminiscent of early 20th century German anti-Semitic scholarship of Jesus). That the gospels, despite the fact that they were written from a sect that was increasingly dividing itself from Judaism nonetheless show Jesus’ Jewish concerns is some evidence of reliability. Also important is that the gospels take care to distinguish between pre-Easter conceptions of Jesus and post-Easter (for example, Jesus is virtually never referred to as the “son of man” in early Christian texts apart from the pre-resurrection parts of the gospel).

I could go on and on about various macro-methodologies applied to determine historicity in the gospels (I have already mentioned archaeology) but as this is intended to be a general sketch I will only go on to what I consider the most important: the reliability of oral tradition.


It has long been known among scholars that oral tradition lies behind the gospels. It is true that the some or all of the gospels may have also used written tradition (e.g. Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q, although whether or not Q was a written or oral source is not debated). However, these written traditions were recordings of oral traditions.


Before I get into why scholars believe that an oral tradition lies behind the gospels, or how accurately it was transmitted among early Christian societies, it is probably a good thing to understand what “oral tradition” means.

Oral tradition, in its broadest sense, refers to any material passed along orally (it may be written as well). In our culture, for examples, jokes are an excellent example of oral tradition. Other examples from the past and/or illiterate cultures include folktales, myths, poetry, songs, stories, laws (for example, the ancient Norse “lawyers” memorized oral laws to use in trials), morals, religious teachings, etc. The tradition behind the gospels contains a few different “genres” of oral traditions, which we will get into later.

Not only do oral traditions fall into a number of different genres, the reliability of transmission of oral material varies widely. When I talk about reliability, I mean how much the oral “text” changes during retellings. For example, folktales in older oral German culture varied widely with each retelling (this is true also for ancient myth in Greece and Rome, in bardic tradition, etc). The basic outline of the story usually remained the same (although even vital elements could change) but the mark of a good storyteller was to tell the story in a new way, with dramatic innovations, different emphases, etc.

On the other hand, certain orally transmitted material was passed on verbatim. For example, some anthropologists have recorded oral poems of hundreds of lines, and then recorded the exact same poem (word for word) either years later and/or from a different but nearby community (keep in mind that these poems did not exist in written form). In illiterate peasant Arabia, children are taught to memorize the entire Koran.

How accurately oral traditions are transmitted generally depends in part on the culture but also largely on the genre of the material. For example, rumor in all cultures changes widely through retellings, and few if any controls are present to ensure accuracy. Other types of material show a fair degree of variability, but certain elements remain the same. Jokes are a good example of this type. In short jokes, many of the same words, the overall story, and certainly the punch line, generally remain the same from retelling to retelling.

Cross culturally (at least in oral cultures) there are a few genres of oral tradition that are generally transmitted reliably. One is what J. Vasina calls “oral history” (to be distinguished from fable or myth), which oral cultures take care to transmit reliably (not usually verbatim, but the details remain the same). Another is religious material. A third (and perhaps most important for our purposes) are teachings from master/disciple (e.g. in early rabbinic teachers who made their students memorize teachings, and Greek philosophers did the same to their disciples).

So why do scholars think that an oral tradition lies behind the gospels. For simplicities sake, I will summarize in list form many of the central reasons, and go into one small part of the argument in great detail (just to give an example of the detail in the arguments which may be presented).

1) Jesus lived a primarily oral culture. The vast majority of people in the Roman Empire (and all the ancient world) could not read, and even fewer could write. All texts that dealt with history in some way made use of oral tradition (from eyewitness accounts, to rumor, to myth, etc).

2) One of the only lasting contributions of form criticism (formgeschicte) was their discovery that the gospels (particularly Mark) weaves a number of independent scenes (consisting of parables, sayings, some narratives, short events, etc) into an over all narrative. The somewhat haphazard juxtaposition of this material is indicative of numerous oral traditions from a variety of oral genres being woven into a “life” of Jesus.

3) Although the gospels were almost certainly all written in Greek, many of the sayings of Jesus are clearly translated from Aramaic. This is because the Jesus tradition (all the independent teachings and accounts of Jesus) was initially completely (or almost completely) in Aramaic, and had to be translated (probably still prior to most, if not all written accounts) into Greek.

4) Internal references to oral tradition in the NT suggest that the Jesus tradition circulated orally prior to composition. For example, Paul specifically describes (using “technical” terminology) not only receiving the tradition but also handing it on.

5) Internal analysis of the gospels (apart from number 2) suggest that they all made use of various oral traditions (and at least some of them also used written)

6) We have independent attestation from early surviving Christian literature which attests to the Jesus tradition being passed on orally (e.g. Papias, which I will get into in greater detail later).

7) Many of Jesus’ teaching are clearly formulated as typical oral teachings (parables, pithy sayings, etc) which were common ways for teachers to transmit their teachings orally to students. These teachings survive in this form in the gospels.

These are some of the central reasons scholars are unanimous that some form of oral tradition based on the life of Jesus lies behind the gospels. Now to give an example of the type of more in-depth arguments for orality behind the gospels. Like the discussion of Herodotus above, the following is something I wrote previously (this time a post), so again it is a little more complex and formal than the rest of this post.


I have decided to go into ONE aspect of orality behind the gospels in detail (in part because I already wrote it elsewhere), in order to demonstrate mainly why I have kept things more general. This (hopefully) will give readers a better understating of the complexity of arguments on oral transmission and tradition in the NT.

 

[Oberon]

This excursus will focus on the parallel passages of Matt. 8.5-13 and Luke 7.1-10.

Before I begin, I need to say a few things about Q. I am sure many here are already familiar with most of the story, but just to make sure I will go over a few things.

It was German biblical scholars who noticed over a century ago that numerous sayings of Jesus in Matthew and Luke (independent of Mark) contained extremely close verbal similarities. For this reasons, scholars purposed that a literary source of Jesus’ sayings (which was then named Q) must be behind them. The discovery of the gospel of Thomas, a sayings gospel itself, obliterated any previous objections of the a priori unlikelihood for a “gospel” containing only sayings and no story/narrative.

However, prior to the past 50 or so years, and certainly when the Q hypothesis was formed, little was known or had been analyzed on the forms of oral transmission of gospel material. Even today, literary modes of thinking dominate scholars who know very well that an oral tradition lies behind the gospels.

In any case, it is no longer universally assumed (by those who accept the Q hypothesis) that Q is a literary document (see particularly Jeremias, “Zur Hypothese einer schriflichen Logienquelle Q’ in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29, 1980). Further, which sayings in Matthew and Luke actually constitute Q are debated. It is possible that Matthew used some material Luke did not, and vice versa. It is possible that some of the sayings common to both are not from Q at all, but from independent oral traditions. And so on.

In any case, for the purposes of this discussion (particularly as the mythicists have argued that the dominate sources for the gospels are literary) we will assume that Q is a written document which Matthew and Luke used.

Now to the specifics: Matt. 8.5-13 and Lk 7.1-10.

Mt. 8:5 Eiselthonti de auto eis Kapernaoum proselthen auto hekatontarchos parakalon auton
8:6 kai legon “Kuri, ho pais mou bebletai en te okia paralytikos deinos basanizomenos.
8:7 kai legei auto ho Iesous “Ego elthon therapeuso auton”
8:8 kai apokritheis ho hekatontarchos ephe “Kurie, ouk eimi hikanos hina mou hypo ten stegen eiselthes, alla monon eipe logo, kai iathesetai ho pais mou.
8:9 kai gar ego anthropos eimi hypo exousian, echon hyp’ emauton stratiotas, kai lego touto: poreutheti, kai allo: erchou, kai erchetai, kai to doulo mou: poison touto, kai poiei.
8:10 akousas de ho Iesous ethaumase kai eipe tois akolouthousin, “amen lego hymin, par oudeni tosauten pistin en to Israel euron.
8:11 lego de hymin hoti polloi apo anatolon kai dysmon exousi kai anaklithesontai meta Amraam kai Isaak kai Iakob en te basileia ton ouranon.
8:12 hoi de huioi tes basileias ekblethesontai eis to skotos to exoteron; ekeistai ho klauthmos kai ho brygmos ton odonton.
8:13 kai eipen ho Iesous to hekatontarcho, “hypage kai hos episteusas genetheto soi.” Kai iathe ho pais autou en te ora ekeine.

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.” The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not fit to have you come under my roof, but only say the word and my servant shall be healed. For I am also a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, “Go,” and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Amen I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour.

Lk. 7:1 Epei de eplerose panta ta remata autou eis tas akoas tou laou, eiselthen eis Kapernaoum.
7:2 Hekatontarchou de tinos doulos kakos echon emelle teleutan, hos en autoentimos
7:3 akousas de peri tou Iesou apesteile pros auton presbyterous ton Ioudaion eroton auton hopos elthon diasose ton doulon autou.
7:4 hoi de paragenomenoi pros ton Iesoun parkaloun auton spodaios, legontes hoti axios estin ho parexei touto
7:5 apapa gar to enthos hemon, kai ten synayogen autos okodomesen hemin.
7:6 ho de Iesous eporeueto syn autois. Ede de outou ou makran apechontos apo tes okias epempse pros auton ho hekatontarchos philous legon auto “Kurie, me skullou, ou gar eimi hikanos hina hypo ten stegen mou eiselthes;
7:7 dio oude emauton exiosa pros se elthein, alla eipe logo, kai iathesetai ho pais mou.
7:8 kai gar ego anthropos eimi hypo exousian tassomenos, echon hyp’ emauton stratiotas, kai lego touto: poreutheti, kai poreuetai, kai allo: erchou, kai erchetai, kai to doulo mou: poison, touto, kai poiei.
7:9 akousas de tauta ho Iesous ethaumasen auton, kai strapheis to akolouthounti auto ochlo, eipe, “lego hymin, oude en to Israel tosauten pistin heuron.
7:10 kai hypostrepsantes hoi pemphthentes eis ton oikon heuron ton asthenounta doulon hygiainonta.
When Jesus had completed all his saying in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. A centurion there had a slave whom he valued highly, and who was ill and close to death. When he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. When they came to Jesus, they appealed to him earnestly, saying, “He is worthy of having you do this for him, for he loves our people, and it is he who built our synagogue for us.” And Jesus went with them, but when he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not fit to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me, and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard this he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, he said, “I tell you, not in Israel have I found such faith. When those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave in good health.

The bolded words are either identical either in both form and word used, or in the word used. As can be seen, there is substantial parallel between these two passages. Now, no doubt some would say, “well, they are both dependent on Q.” In this he would not be alone, as many scholars have placed these two narratives into Q because of their similarity.

However, there are numerous issues to consider here. First, in the earlier reconstructions of Q (e.g. Weisse and Holtzmann) these passages were not included. Second, these passages are obviously narratives, not sayings. The whole point behind Q is that it is a record of Jesus’ sayings, making these passages an odd addition. Even after the obvious redactions by Matthew and Luke, it is clear that the shared material is part of a narrative account, not a parable, apothegm, etc. In other words, it does not fit into the Q material very well.

 

[Oberon]

Furthermore, there are notable differences in the story. Obviously some of these are redactions by the two different gospel authors, who emphasized different parts of the story. Nonetheless, the whole reason to suppose a Q document exists in the first place is SUBSTANTIAL agreement between Matthew and Luke, that makes a literary dependence very likely. Yet although the core of the story is the same, and there are many shared parts between the two, the two accounts contain obviously different material.

What is especially interesting are the syntactical differences between the shared material. One of the primary reasons for supposing literary dependence in shared material is the appearance that one source has actually copied the other. Yet often the similarities in the above story appear more like they were orally transmitted. For example, take the opening of both narratives. Both the narratives begin by stating that Jesus entered Capernaum. They even use the same word (eiserchomai). However, Matthew uses the aorist participle, while Luke uses a simple aorist indicative. Likewise, while Matthew has Kurie, ouk eimi hikanos hina mou hypo ten stegen eiselthes, Luke writes Kurie, me skullou, ou gar eimi hikanos hina hypo ten stegen mou eiselthes. The words are basically the same, but Luke has added me skullou, and the word order has changed. Minor changes like this run through all the similarities. Any one of them alone would mean nothing, but taken together, they are more similar to orally transmitted material, where such variations are common, then literary.

Finally, although some of the larger variations between the two stories are likely the result of redaction (such as Matthew’s additions to the faithlessness of Israel, where he goes beyond the simple tosauten pistin en to Israel euron, and proceeds to discuss Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the kingdom, apocalyptic prophecy, etc), other variations are better explained by oral retellings (which keep the core the same, even maintaining verbatim transmission for short and important statements). For example, Luke’s addition of dio oude emauton exiosa pros se elthein into the centurion’s statement serves no theological purpose, does not emphasis any part of Luke’s account, and doesn’t appear redactional. It appears more as if the tradition Luke is depending on included this statement, and Matthew’s did not. The substantial variation in terminology and syntax (and the lack of virtually any exact verbal parallels) in Matthew and Luke’s description of the servants illness and the presentation of the problem to Jesus also tell against literary dependence.

I will now put all of these points in a simple list for the sake of clarity:

1) The two accounts are narratives, which are supposed to be absent from the “sayings gospel” Q.
2) The two accounts contain substantial parallels, making it obvious that in some way they draw upon the same tradition.
3) A number of syntactical and verbal variations even within the parallels make an oral basis for the accounts more likely.
4) Variation in the narratives that is unlikely to be redactional is likewise a mark of oral retellings, where the core and particular parts are identical or virtually identical, but variation in other aspects is common.

In short, it would appear that even if Q is a literary document, this is one of many examples where it is more likely Matthew and Luke are drawing on oral traditions than on literary.


I will repeat that the above is hardly the only evidence either for the nature of the oral tradition behind the gospels or its existence. It is simply an example of the type of analysis used to determine literary vs. oral dependence, which I have provided to illustrate not only the complexity in the issues but also the methods used in analysis. I will also point out that even the detail I have engaged in above is not very thorough, and were I attempting to publish this argument (which has been discussed in publications more than once in some form or another) in an article the depth and detail would be greater.

 

[Oberon]

However, just because the gospels are based on oral tradition does not mean that the tradition was transmitted reliably. In other words, how do we know that people didn’t just go around saying Jesus said this or that because they wanted to put words in his mouth, or that people got his sayings confused, or that (like rumor) they were constantly changing and being altered through retellings.

This is a very involved topic. However, there is a fair amount of evidence that the Jesus tradition was controlled to a fair degree. In other words, it is likely that a good deal of the gospels goes back to the historical Jesus. As with the evidence for orality behind the gospels, I will summarize some of the main argument for the reliability of the transmission of the Jesus tradition:

1) Cross-culturally, oral genres that are considered by their communities to be a type of oral history show a high degree of reliability in transmission. The gospels certainly fit into this category

2) Jesus all of our sources, including the Josephus (a non-Christian sources) describe Jesus as a teacher who had followers. As I said before, throughout the ancient Mediterranean (again, from the Greek philosophers to the early rabbis), the primary method of teaching disciples/students involved having the MEMORIZE their teachings. These students would also be responsible for making sure other (less senior) students were accurately recalling the teachings

3) Excellent studies in oral tradition in cultures similar to those of Jesus (such as the early Rabbis and modern day peasant Arabia) have provided models of oral transmission which indicate that a fair degree of controlled was exercised in transmission. Specifically, there were certain members of the community who were considered “authoritative” on the tradition in question, and responsible for ensuring its accuracy in transmission. In the Jesus tradition, this would have begun with those who followed Jesus during his mission (particularly the twelve) but later would have been the elders and the disciples of the first disciples.

4) Independent evidence from early Christian writings indicates the method of transmission was controlled. For example, Papias (a Christian active in roughly in the 70s or 80s CE to the early 2nd century) describes receiving Jesus traditions from SPECIFIC people (rather than writings or just anyone who had something to say), who were in a position to know (i.e. the disciples of Jesus’ disciples). This not only demonstrates that even after the gospels were written, a great deal of the Jesus tradition circulated orally, it also shows that again particular people who were in a position to know were considered authoritative, and it was these who were responsible for controlling and ensuring accuracy in transmission.

5) Paul, Luke, and John all describe the importance of receiving the Jesus tradition from eyewitnesses (Paul specifically visited the Jerusalem church for this reason).

Again, these are some of the central reasons (in summary form) for the argument that the Jesus tradition was fairly accurately recorded in the gospels. However, this is not to say that everything in them goes back to Jesus, that some innovation/alterations did not occur, etc.

For example, the passion narratives are likely to be complete fabrications, or at least almost complete. The earliest Christians probably cared little for Jesus’ birth (especially as the bulk of his family seem to have rejected him) and were far more concerned with preaching Jesus as the risen Christ/Messiah. However, as the bulk of the Jesus tradition was formulated by followers of Jesus, and his ministry was only a few years, later Christians probably began to be curious as to his origins (particularly given that the messiah shouldn’t come from Nazareth). We can see traditions being formulated and added to over time, the earliest being the passion narratives, and later more complete (and more spurious) accounts found in the proto-gospels describing Jesus’ childhood.

Also, certain types of material were more likely to have been transmitted accurately. Jesus’ parables and sayings, for example, are the most likely to be accurately transmitted (not necessarily verbatim by any means, but that the central elements were there). There are a number of reasons for this. First, as I said already, Jesus was a teacher, and he likely repeated his teachings and parables over and over, and his disciples probably committed most of them to memory (they may have even taken notes, a tradition that we know occurred in later rabbinic times). Second, Jesus’ teachings are formulated in a way to make them easy to remember.

Events that occurred during Jesus’ mission, however, are less likely to have been accurately transmitted. Although the same control was exercised over short narratives of events as in sayings, events occur only once, and as anyone who has studied criminal justice knows, people present in any given situation tend to miss details, garble memories, etc.

On the whole, however, there is good reason to believe that a large portion of the gospels may be traced back to Jesus. But which parts? This gets into part 2 of this work, which concerns micro level analysis.

It is analysis through the micro level where we can determine what Jesus most likely taught and said and did. I will get into this in more detail when I have time. In the meantime, I invite anyone to respond to what I have already written, with requests for further information, disagreements, questions, comments, etc.

Before I close however, I want to give a preview of “coming attractions” as well as some references to go for those interested in study.

Who was Jesus? As I said, I will get into this in the next installment, but I wish to again list some summary concepts/points/warnings/etc

1) Beware of any historical work on Jesus that removes him from Judaism (e.g. Christians who make him to representative of later Christian thought, or those who present him as some sort of Greek-Cynic type philosopher).

2) A good deal of previous scholarship, even some that would otherwise be excellent works, are too dominated by literary modes of thinking. In other words, although they know and state that an oral tradition lies behind the gospels, they use literary models to analyze them, and fail to formulate a model of the transmission behind the gospels

3) Any work on the historical Jesus that does not argue that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was a historical man, and that he was resurrected from the dead, should be viewed with great suspicion. The passion narrative behind the gospels is one of the earliest parts of the Jesus tradition, and the earliest documents from Christianity we have, by a man contemporary with Jesus, attests in a belief the Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead.

3) There are a variety of theories concerning Jesus’ purposes and teachings, and I will mention the plausible ones (some more than others) here:

a) Jesus as a teacher of wisdom
b) Jesus as a social reformer
c) Jesus as a reformer of Judaism
d) Jesus as a prophet
e) Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet
f) Jesus as messiah
g) Jesus as revolutionary

A couple of points are important to make about the above list. First, it is entirely possible (I would say very probable) that Jesus falls into a few of these categories at once, as they are not all mutually exclusive. And second, when I say messiah it is important to understand that I do not mean the later Christian interpretation of the messiah as the divine son of God. I mean the messiah many Jews were expecting, who was supposed to restore Israel.

Now for some references:

For general works on the historical Jesus (I will list more in part two):

A great starting book on the historical Jesus is the text is Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz. It is intended to be a textbook, and it is available in an English translation, although I can’t vouch for how good the translation is because I haven’t read it (but it is probably more than adequate, and is published by a well known publisher)

Jesus Remembered by James Dunn (an excellent analysis, particularly because he deals intently with orality behind the gospel tradition)

A Marginal Jew (vol I-III) by John P. Meier (excellent and very detailed work on the subject, with many references to other works, the only weakness being Meier’s lack of dealing with orality and his dependence on literary models for gospel analysis.

I will give more in part II.

On the genre of the gospels:

The New Testament in Its Literary Environment by David Aune
What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Robert Burridge
Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst by Dirk Frickenschmidt
"Genre for Q and a Socio-Cultural Context for Q: Comparing Sorts fo Similarities with Sets of Differences" Journal for the Study of the New Testament by F. G. Downing
On the oral tradition behind the gospels:

Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition edited by Henry Wansborough
Memory & Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity by Birger Gerhadsson
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham
Jesus Remembered (volume 1 of Christianity in the Making) by James D. G. Dunn
Jesus als Lehrer by Rainer Riesner
Story as History-History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History by Samuel Byrskog
"Informal Conrolled Oral Tradition and they Synoptic Gospels" Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991) and "Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels" Expository Times 106 (1995) by Kenneth Bailey.

 

[Storm]

Guys, is the historicity of Jesus really relevant to the topic? And even if it is, hasn't it been done to death?

 

[dogsgod]

Guys, is the historicity of Jesus really relevant to the topic? And even if it is, hasn't it been done to death?

If our country is going to continue killing Muslims we want to make sure Jesus is on our side.

 

[themadhair]

I bring this up because when it comes to the issue of the historicity of Jesus (in other words, whether or not Jesus was a historical figure) we have a rare thing in academia: unanimity. This is a special thing in any branch of scholarship, because there is almost always at least one dissenter in any given issue within any particular field.

Argument from authority…? And Price shows the unanimity argument to be false. Inb4HatchedJob

The longer of these references is generally thought to have been edited/altered by Christians. However, most scholars agree that the core of this passage (Antt. 18, 63) is genuine, …
…
The second reference is far shorter, but is also accepted as genuine (and unaltered) by a vast majority of scholars.

Do they have evidence of this or is this another argument from authority?

Myths (of the types mentioned above) always occur in “bygone” days, far, far removed from the time of the account.

This is the false multichotomy again. While I agree that the recency of timeline would make it much more likely, I do not see it sufficient to bump it into historical certainly.

Unlike the myths, the gospels are nailed down to a particular time and place, within a few decades of their composition.

I mentioned the different timeframes for Jesus’s alleged birth.

Likewise, parts of the gospels, for example many of the people mentioned, are confirmed independently of the gospels (John the Baptist and Caiaphas the high priest in Josephus, Pilate from archaeology and Philo among others, Herod, etc). The gospels, then, clearly do not fall into the genre of myth.

Archaeology and geology has confirmed that the Iliad, for example, described a real landscape. My point here is that the confirmation of the places and famous figures of the time do not evidence Jesus to historical certainty standard, and I actually think this history was incorporated into the tale as backdrop. To give an example, while Josephus noted Herod bumping off John, he never recorded the silver plated head. I interpret this to be an example of story telling.

Clearly the gospels can’t be history, because they contain miracles, theology, inaccuracies, etc, right? Well, they certainly can’t be considered history by modern standards. However, ancient standards were different.
…
What is most important to note is that as a type of ancient biography, the gospels are concerned with history. This is not to say they view history in the same way that we do, or that they are unbiased observer of the events they describe, but that they were attempting to record accurately what they believed was the life of Jesus.

I don’t buy this argument at all, purely because I don’t think the purpose was to record history. At least that isn’t my impression when I read them.

All we can achieve by placing the gospels into a particular genre of ancient history is that 1) They aren’t myth, 2) The authors were recording “history” as they believed it.

So by classifying the gospels in a particular genre allow us to deduce they aren’t myth?? Unless I’m missing something there is a bit of a non-sequiter in there somewhere.

That the gospels, despite the fact that they were written from a sect that was increasingly dividing itself from Judaism nonetheless show Jesus’ Jewish concerns is some evidence of reliability.

I’m not following this line of reasoning. The fact that several places and figures were used in the bible would seem to indicate that including the Jewish backdrop practically follows.

Jesus all of our sources, including the Josephus (a non-Christian sources) describe Jesus as a teacher who had followers.

Isn’t that under serious dispute?

On the whole, however, there is good reason to believe that a large portion of the gospels may be traced back to Jesus.

Or to the person(s) who concocted it.

I really learned a lot there, particularly in how oral traditions of the time were kept standardised. Don’t see the smoking guns in terms of evidencing the historicity though.

 

[Oberon]

Argument from authority…? And Price shows the unanimity argument to be false.

No he doesn't. Price is not a biblical expert or a historian. He is one of a very small number of people who are genuine scholars in a different field. Wells is a professor of German studies, although he has backed off the "mythical Jesus" theory and now says that parts of Q probably go back to Jesus, and that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus. Richard Carrier is a classicist (and he would actually be a better authority than Price, because he is an ancient historian). However, he has yet to fully articulate his theory on the historical Jesus. He is coming out with a book on the subject, but until then I can't really say if he will argue that Jesus is historical or not.
Price is the only other actual scholar I know of, and he has not (as far as I know) backed of his theory that Jesus was mythical. However, he is primarily a theologian, not a biblical scholar, still less a historian. Nor have his publications dealt with a great deal of scholarship contradicting his view.

Virtually all ancient historians, and all biblical/NT scholars believe Jesus was historical. Over a century of scholarship has been dedicated to the issue, and perhaps the one thing that has remained constant was a determination that Jesus lived an died in first century palestine.

Do they have evidence of this or is this another argument from authority?

First of all, it should be noted what the evidence is against taking the longer Josephus passage as altered. All of our texts contain the passage. We possess no direct evidence that he didn't say exactly what is represented in the text. The evidence against taking the longer passage as entirely Josephan is that as a Jews it seems unlike something he would have said. However, parts of the longer passage ARE very much Josephan. He uses very characteristic phrases like describing Jesus as "a wise man" and "a doer of startling deeds." Not only are these characteristically josephan phrases, they are unlike christian titles for Jesus, and therefore are unlikely to be christian alterations. In other words, it is far more likely that christians added to what was a genuine Josephan passage, than that the entire passage is added.

As for the other reference to "James the brother of Jesus" there is no reason to suppose any christian alteration. Jesus is referred to as "the one who is called the christ" (or the so-called christ) NOT Christ Jesus (in other words, not what a christian would say). The passage fits well with the overall narrative (Jesus is used soley to identify James). There is nothing (as with the first reference) that is suspicious.

While I agree that the recency of timeline would make it much more likely, I do not see it sufficient to bump it into historical certainly.

There is no such thing as historical certainty. History isn't like science (which is also not certain per se). Once an event happens, it is over with. You can't try to replicate the results. History is a study of what probably occured, given the evidence. As far as ancient history goes, the evidence that Jesus existed is overwhelming.

I mentioned the different timeframes for Jesus’s alleged birth.

Jesus' birth isn't important. In fact, I personally think that there is next to nothing historical in the birth narratives. It is Jesus' mission which made an impact, not his birth. And people in the story of his mission and death are independently attested to (John the Baptist, Caiaphas, Pilate, etc). In other words, unlike with myth, Jesus is nailed down to a particular time and place. Furthermore, the earliest sources were written while those who knew him were still alive.

Archaeology and geology has confirmed that the Iliad, for example, described a real landscape.

This actually tells against your argument more than anything. Even in the Illiad, an oral tradition which was not controlled, and was re-created every time it was told, which was filled with myth, which was recorded centuries after the events described, which was part of a poetic tradition, etc, even in this there is a bit of history. Troy was a real place. There is evidence of at least one (and probably more) battles there. How much more likely is it that the story of Jesus, recorded by different sources a generation or two later, and written in a historical genre, in a tradition which was controlled, and is independently attested to, contains a historical core, beginning with a historical Jesus.

I don’t buy this argument at all, purely because I don’t think the purpose was to record history. At least that isn’t my impression when I read them.

Yes, but again what ancient histories are you using to compare? First, history is NEVER written solely to record. There is always an element of story telling or something else, even in the most boring scholarly monograph.

As far as ancient history goes, the historian was supposed to tell the truth, but the primary purpose of history was not to record but to record something which could be used, whether to teach a lesson, for theological purposes, for philosophical purposes, or for political purposes, or whatever.

The gospels record information which shows that they were concerned with history. Luke, for example, begins both his works in a fashion typical of historians. The gospels record Jesus using titles like "the son of man" which were unimportant in christian faith or tradition and are virtually never mentioned again. In other words, that Jesus said these things was remembered, but the phrase doesn't very well into early christian theology, and apart from the gospels (which set out to record what Jesus said and did) it is not mentioned. Facts embarrassing to the church are even recorded. For example, the record Jesus' rejection by not only his home town but even his own family!

So by classifying the gospels in a particular genre allow us to deduce they aren’t myth?? Unless I’m missing something there is a bit of a non-sequiter in there somewhere.

You are missing something. Myth was a particular genre. The fact that the gospels aren't myth is clear from any comparison with myth. However, this doesn't make them history. But the fact that comparison with ancient history/biography puts the gospels near or in that genre means that the authors put themselves into that genre. Either we are left with the fact that they were trying to record history, or with the fact that they created a genre of "historical religious fiction" which never existed again.

I’m not following this line of reasoning. The fact that several places and figures were used in the bible would seem to indicate that including the Jewish backdrop practically follows.

I'm not sure what this sentence means (the Jewish backdrop practically follows?). However, trying to deny the "jewishness" of Jesus has been part of christainity since shortly after Paul (up to and occasionally including the present day). The fact that the gospels (unlike, say, certain later and fantastical gnostic gospels) record a Jewish Jesus further evidence that they were writing "history" not fantasy.

Isn’t that under serious dispute?

I'm not sure which part you are talking about. There is a wide consensus that the Josephan passage is not entirely a christian creations. As far as Jesus being a teacher with followers, virtually no one disputes this. In the probably thousands of specialists there have been perhaps only a handful within the past century (i am aware of only two) whose speciality is at least peripheral to Jesus research who deny that Jesus was a teacher. So no, that isn't under any serious dispute.

Or to the person(s) who concocted it.

Why? For what purpose was the story "concocted?" The early followers were persecuted and killed. Paul ended up dead. It wasn't like being a christian was a "good" thing back then. It got you killed. So if the story was concocted, and no personality lies behind it that convinced people he was the "way" why did anyone follow? How did christianity begin and grow based off the teachings of a man which were pure concoctions?

 

[dogsgod]

Wells is a professor of German studies, although he has backed off the "mythical Jesus" theory and now says that parts of Q probably go back to Jesus, and that Paul believed in an earthly Jesus.

Well, let's see,

I have treated both the Galilean and the Cynic elements less skeptically in The Jesus Myth, allowing that they may contain a core of reminiscences of an itinerant Cynic-type Galilean preacher (who, however, is certainly not to be identified with the Jesus of the earliest Christian documents).

I have argued that there is good reason to believe that the Jesus of Paul was constructed largely from musing and reflecting on a supernatural 'Wisdom' figure, amply documented in the earlier Jewish literature, who sought an abode on Earth, but was there rejected, rather than from information concerning a recently deceased historical individual. The influence of the Wisdom literature is undeniable; only assessment of what it amounted to still divides opinion.G A Wells

 

[Oberon]

Well, let's see,

I have treated both the Galilean and the Cynic elements less skeptically in The Jesus Myth, allowing that they may contain a core of reminiscences of an itinerant Cynic-type Galilean preacher (who, however, is certainly not to be identified with the Jesus of the earliest Christian documents).

Wells DOES not identify Q with Jesus. However, not with the "dying and resurrecting" Christ. You don't even know your own sources:


From Wells
"Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court. Moreover, my revised standpoint obviates the criticism (gleefully endorsed by Holding) which J. D. G Dunn levelled at me in 1985. He objected that, in my work as then published, I had, implausibly, to assume that, within thirty years from Paul, there had evolved "such a ... complex of traditions about a non-existent figure as we have in the sources of the gospels" (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 29). My present standpoint is: this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q in its earliest form may well be as early as ca. A.D. 40), and it is not all mythical. The essential point, as I see it, is that what is authentic in this material refers to a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."

In other words, Jesus is historical, Christ is mythical (according to Wells).

I have argued that there is good reason to believe that the Jesus of Paul was constructed largely from musing and reflecting on a supernatural 'Wisdom' figure

I know that Wells argues that Paul Jesus' was largely (or wholly constructed). What I said was that Wells does not argue that Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Solid scholarship is on Oberon's side here.
There are some dissenting POV's but the preponderance of Biblical scholars are in agreement with Oberon here. Sorry.

 

[dogsgod]

Solid scholarship is on Oberon's side here.
There are some dissenting POV's but the preponderance of Biblical scholars are in agreement with Oberon here. Sorry.

bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

 

[dogsgod]

[/i]

Wells DOES not identify Q with Jesus. However, not with the "dying and resurrecting" Christ. You don't even know your own sources:

I know my sources very well, that's why I quoted him, and I don't disagree with him.

From Wells

"Now that I have allowed this in my two most recent relevant books (the earlier of which, JL, Holding includes in his list of works consulted), it will not do to dub me a "mythicist" tout court. Moreover, my revised standpoint obviates the criticism (gleefully endorsed by Holding) which J. D. G Dunn levelled at me in 1985. He objected that, in my work as then published, I had, implausibly, to assume that, within thirty years from Paul, there had evolved "such a ... complex of traditions about a non-existent figure as we have in the sources of the gospels" (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 29). My present standpoint is: this complex is not all post-Pauline (Q in its earliest form may well be as early as ca. A.D. 40), and it is not all mythical. The essential point, as I see it, is that what is authentic in this material refers to a personage who is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles."

I've never had a problem with that, but Paul doesn't, nor do the epistle writers know anything of this Galilean. Q says nothing of a crucifixion or a sacrifice.

I know that Wells argues that Paul Jesus' was largely (or wholly constructed). What I said was that Wells does not argue that Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus.

I think what Wells considers is plausible as well, but the Jewish literature of a sacrifice may be referring to one that died on earth in 100 BCE of whom biographical details Paul knows nothing about, nor does he care.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Yes cry the "band-wagon" fallacy- just like all the YEC and proponents of intelligent design. I hope you give all those theories an equal hearing.

 

[dogsgod]

Yes cry the "band-wagon" fallacy- just like all the YEC and proponents of intelligent design. I hope you give all those theories an equal hearing.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

 

[Mister Emu]

bandwagon fallacy

It is not a bandwagon fallacy to note that the vast majority of experts in a certain field accept a proposition...

 

[dogsgod]

It is not a bandwagon fallacy to note that the vast majority of experts in a certain field accept a proposition...

Experts at what? Swallowing hog slop?

 

[Oberon]

Experts at what? Swallowing hog slop?

That's your problem. You have hardly studied this matter at all, and your research consists almost entirely of reading websites. Of the three actual scholars you have referred to in your "jesus is a myth" theory none are actual experts in the topic (although two are experts in peripheral fields), one (Wells) has backe of this theory and no longer supports you, another (Carrier) has only acknowledged the possibility that Jesus isn't historical, but has yet to publish his study on the matter or clarify his position, leaving you with one actual scholar (Price) in a peripheral field who backs your theory.

Then their are the literally thousands of experts from various fields including classicists, Judaic studies, early Christian studies, Biblical/Nt studies, ancient history, etc who ALL have researched this matter far more than you have and disagree with you. Yet all you have to say is that they are "experts at swallowing hog swap." You haven't done the research. They have. You haven't studies the texts. They have. You can't read even read the texts in their original languages. They can. You haven't studies ancient genres. They have. And so on.

So, to answer you question, they are experts in all the relevent issues in determining the historicity of Jesus, and you have next to no knowledge of any of them.

 

[dogsgod]

That's your problem. You have hardly studied this matter at all, and your research consists almost entirely of reading websites. Of the three actual scholars you have referred to in your "jesus is a myth" theory none are actual experts in the topic (although two are experts in peripheral fields), one (Wells) has backe of this theory and no longer supports you,

Hog slop. Wells now considers that Paul's Christ may have come from Jewish literature that places a Jesus type being sacrificed in or about the year 100BCE. I don't have a problem with that. Paul may very well have believed his Christ was once on earth several generations before his time. If that makes Paul believe his Christ is in some sense historical, so be it. Doherty considers that Paul's Christ is completely mythical and that it's impossible to connect Paul's Christ with a Jesus type from a distant past. Either view is worthy of consideration. Neither Doherty, Well's, nor Price consider a Jesus from Paul's recent history. Doherty also considers that a preacher type sage may have come from Galilee that may have preached in the 70's of the first century, but he too sees no connection between this preacher and Paul's Christ nor with the Christ of any of the epistle writers.