I've been thinking about something I read in the U.S. News and World Report magazine I discussed in my previous entry. In one of the articles, a measure of doubt was cast on the authenticity of the Gospels. It was suggested that portions of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were "borrowed" from the Gospel of Mark in that Mark was written first and the other two used it as a sort of template to produce their Gospels. It was further suggested that Mark was "borrowed" from an as yet unidentified earlier source known by the scholarly community as "Q". Thus, it is concluded that there aren't really three corroborating sources (Matthew, Mark, Luke), but only one original source ("Q") from which the others were copied and recopied. Or, so the story goes. We'll set aside the fact that this "Q" document hasn't even been found and is, therefore, purely speculative. Now, I've seen these arguements presented elsewhere, and they are very often used in an attempt to discredit the Gospels as reliable sources. But should they be discredited?
First, it seems that the case for the "plagarizing evangelists" falls a little short. If Matthew and Luke really did copy their material from Mark, then they must have been some of the worst copyists in all of history. Several details between the Gospels have the distinct appearance of contradictions. Notice I said "appearance." I did so because I do not believe they are actually contradictory and can be reconciled with a little time and study. But I digress. Given the time they were written and the fact that so many eyewitnesses were still alive, how could Matthew and Luke possibly hope to have any credibility while being so sloppy in their acts of "borrowing" material? Especially when some of the apparent contradictions revolve around arguably the most central tenant of Christianity: the resurrection. In Mark, the two Mary's and Salome first arrive at the tomb and are met inside by a young man in a white robe. Also, the stone was already rolled away from the tomb's entrance. In Matthew's Gospel, Salome is not mentioned and the women experience an earthquake and see an angel descend and roll the stone away. In Luke's version, the two Mary's and Joanna (along with other women not mentioned) were the first on the scene. As in Mark's version, the stone was already rolled away, but instead of one man greeting them, two stood beside them. Let's be honest here. If you were writing a gospel that you had stolen to impact people for your faith, would you be so careless with the details surrounding the most critical and foundational aspect of your beliefs? I doubt it.
But, just for kicks, let's say we agree that Matthew and Luke copied Mark who copied this undiscovered "Q" document. Regarding the credibility of these Gospels, what follows from this? Nothing! Suppose they did copy portions. So what? It simply does not follow that they should be discredited based solely on this notion. Let me use an example to clarify. After 9/11, Time magazine ran an article on the events surrounding that date and the tragic loss of life on American soil. Imagine that, some time afterward, I also wrote an article about 9/11 and copied a few paragraphs from Time's article. Fast forward a thousand years when someone discovers the remains of both Time's and my articles. Of course, they notice the similarities between the two and they conclude that I "borrowed" my material from Time. As it turns out, they'd be right. Could they then legitimately conclude that 9/11 never occurred based solely on this evidence? Of course not! Likewise, they couldn't conclude that, instead of commercial planes crashing into buildings, a Cessna landed on the roof of a building. Yet this is what some have done in the case of the Gospels. They conclude that, either Jesus didn't even exist, or he was simply a guru or a really swell guy. These conclusions are completely unfounded based on these details.
Keep in mind that these accounts (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are based on eyewitness testimony. The author of Matthew was the apostle Matthew who witnessed Jesus' acts and heard his words. The author of Mark was a disciple of Peter, who witnessed Jesus' acts, heard his words, and, according to Jerome, approved and authorized the Gospel to be read in the churches. The author of Luke was the disciple of Paul who, post-resurrection, witnessed Jesus' acts and heard his words. So, it can hardly be said that these Gosples are fanciful fiction. Even if some portions were copied, they were done so by way of agreement with what was written. They copied and wrote down what they believed because they witnessed it!
What better testimony do you need than multiple independent eyewitness accounts? For my money, it doesn't get much better.
Jun 10, 2010
Jun 3, 2010
Not-So-Secret "Secrets"
U.S. News and World Report recently released a Collector's Edition magazine titled “Secrets of Christianity”. The magazine purports to reveal these secrets and explore the questions raised by them. The introductory article states, “Like massive desert sand dunes that shift and re-form, some of the most cherished beliefs about early Christianity are collapsing, and fresh ideas are replacing them.” Not surprisingly, there are few (if any) “secrets” revealed in this magazine. In fact, most of the material covered has been discussed ad nauseam in the last couple of years.
The first, and, as the article claims, “most compelling”, questions raised are “Did Jesus really exist, and if so, who was he?” I must say that it seems slightly irresponsible to even raise the first question. There is very little debate anymore that Jesus existed. Practically all scholars agree that Jesus existed in history as a real person. I think this question has been more than sufficiently answered. The same is not entirely true of the second question. While I feel it has certainly been sufficiently answered, there is yet much debate regarding the identity of Jesus.
Unfortunately, this magazine offers little in representing that debate. The first section, entitled “Who Was Jesus?”, would be more appropriately titled, “Who Does James Tabor Say Jesus Was?” Indeed, the first article in this section focuses on Tabor's view that Jesus intended to set up an earthly kingdom restoring Israel and conquering Rome. True, a few gratuitous quotes from other liberal scholars are thrown in at the end of the article. (They even include a quote from Anne Rice. That's right, the fictional novelist and author of “Interview with a Vampire” weighs in for U.S. N&WR.) However, most of the article's concepts come from Tabor.
As if that weren't enough of Tabor's perspective, the third article is an excerpt from Tabor's book, “The Jesus Dynasty”. The point of this article seems to be connecting four of Jesus' apostles to his brothers. In like manner, the fourth article is a brief presentation of the Talpiyot tomb evidence delivered in the program aired by the Discovery Channel titled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”¹, of which Tabor was a main contributor.
I don't just want to “beat up on” Tabor. As a matter of fact, he is highly credentialed. He received his Ph.D. in New Testament and Early Christian Literature from the University of Chicago. He is Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He previously held positions at the University of Notre Dame and the College of William and Mary. He's no dummy. However, the application of his knowledge has fallen short, even by the standards of liberal scholars. In the U.S. N&WR article, Paula Fredriksen is quoted characterizing his work by saying, “It sounds like a creative reimagining of the historical material, more like historical fiction than history.” Either way, too much of one perspective seems off balance.
Only the second article had a glimmer of balance. This article is an excerpt of a debate on the Resurrection of Jesus between New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at Depaul University, John Dominic Crossan. Unfortunately, only two pages (which amount to one if the graphics were removed) were dedicated to this topic. However, Wright managed to make the point that the ability of the authors of the Gospels to maintain foundational revealing details surrounding the resurrection despite “their very different language and the obvious apparent surface inconsistencies” is best explained when viewing these accounts as true. Not the most convincing argument, I'll grant, but something is better than nothing. Crossan's long-winded response? “The resurrection is a metaphor” [paraphrase]
Of course, this debate is nothing new. The issue can be traced back to the very time period when Jesus walked the earth. He, himself acknowledges this point of contention: “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:13-16)
Thomas echoed this belief when he said of Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) And what about Jesus? Who did he claim to be? Referencing the name of God revealed to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3:14, Jesus said "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) That they all understood his claim to be God was evidenced in the fact that immediately after, the religious leaders tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy.
I suppose U.S. News & World Report could have saved a few bucks if they had just consulted what God's word established two millennia ago. But then what would I have to write about? Fortunately, God's word is constantly reinforced by history, archeology, science, and philosophy. The same is the case with the identity Jesus. Who is Jesus? My response is the same as that of Thomas: My Lord and my God!
¹ For an analysis of the Talpiyot tomb evidence: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7125
The first, and, as the article claims, “most compelling”, questions raised are “Did Jesus really exist, and if so, who was he?” I must say that it seems slightly irresponsible to even raise the first question. There is very little debate anymore that Jesus existed. Practically all scholars agree that Jesus existed in history as a real person. I think this question has been more than sufficiently answered. The same is not entirely true of the second question. While I feel it has certainly been sufficiently answered, there is yet much debate regarding the identity of Jesus.
Unfortunately, this magazine offers little in representing that debate. The first section, entitled “Who Was Jesus?”, would be more appropriately titled, “Who Does James Tabor Say Jesus Was?” Indeed, the first article in this section focuses on Tabor's view that Jesus intended to set up an earthly kingdom restoring Israel and conquering Rome. True, a few gratuitous quotes from other liberal scholars are thrown in at the end of the article. (They even include a quote from Anne Rice. That's right, the fictional novelist and author of “Interview with a Vampire” weighs in for U.S. N&WR.) However, most of the article's concepts come from Tabor.
As if that weren't enough of Tabor's perspective, the third article is an excerpt from Tabor's book, “The Jesus Dynasty”. The point of this article seems to be connecting four of Jesus' apostles to his brothers. In like manner, the fourth article is a brief presentation of the Talpiyot tomb evidence delivered in the program aired by the Discovery Channel titled “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”¹, of which Tabor was a main contributor.
I don't just want to “beat up on” Tabor. As a matter of fact, he is highly credentialed. He received his Ph.D. in New Testament and Early Christian Literature from the University of Chicago. He is Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He previously held positions at the University of Notre Dame and the College of William and Mary. He's no dummy. However, the application of his knowledge has fallen short, even by the standards of liberal scholars. In the U.S. N&WR article, Paula Fredriksen is quoted characterizing his work by saying, “It sounds like a creative reimagining of the historical material, more like historical fiction than history.” Either way, too much of one perspective seems off balance.
Only the second article had a glimmer of balance. This article is an excerpt of a debate on the Resurrection of Jesus between New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, and Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at Depaul University, John Dominic Crossan. Unfortunately, only two pages (which amount to one if the graphics were removed) were dedicated to this topic. However, Wright managed to make the point that the ability of the authors of the Gospels to maintain foundational revealing details surrounding the resurrection despite “their very different language and the obvious apparent surface inconsistencies” is best explained when viewing these accounts as true. Not the most convincing argument, I'll grant, but something is better than nothing. Crossan's long-winded response? “The resurrection is a metaphor” [paraphrase]
Of course, this debate is nothing new. The issue can be traced back to the very time period when Jesus walked the earth. He, himself acknowledges this point of contention: “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:13-16)
Thomas echoed this belief when he said of Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) And what about Jesus? Who did he claim to be? Referencing the name of God revealed to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3:14, Jesus said "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:58) That they all understood his claim to be God was evidenced in the fact that immediately after, the religious leaders tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy.
I suppose U.S. News & World Report could have saved a few bucks if they had just consulted what God's word established two millennia ago. But then what would I have to write about? Fortunately, God's word is constantly reinforced by history, archeology, science, and philosophy. The same is the case with the identity Jesus. Who is Jesus? My response is the same as that of Thomas: My Lord and my God!
¹ For an analysis of the Talpiyot tomb evidence: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7125
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
