A Verdict on Josh McDowell
Gordon
B. Hazen
Table of Contents
6/23/99 Luke's account of the birth of Jesus
7/30/99 NT Error rates; disputed passages affecting articles of faith
8/6/99 Historians' criteria for reliability
11/1/99 Paul's silence on the life of Christ
11/18/99 Motives of McDowell and motives of Paul
12/6/99 Rebuttal on Paul's silence
12/28/99 Rebuttals on Luke's nativity account
1/2/00 Luke's nativity account: Commentaries of Clark and of Archer
1/5/00 Correction on Luke's omission of Mark 10:45
1/20/00 Luke's nativity account: Joseph Free's discussion
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 which 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.
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,". Do not confuse these with headings.
6/23/99 Luke's account of the birth of Jesus
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.
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.]
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]
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.]
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.
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.
7/30/99 NT Error rates; disputed passages affecting articles
of faith
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
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.
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.]
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.
D.C. Parker (1997), The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge University Press.
G.A. Wells (1999), The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court.
8/6/99 Historians' criteria for reliability
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
Gordy
REFERENCES
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.
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).
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.
D.C. Parker (1997), The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge University Press.
G.A. Wells (1999), The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court.
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:
1.1 Luke's claims of eyewitness testimony
1.2 Eyewitness claims in II Peter
1.3 Eyewitness claims in 1 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?
Gordy
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)
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
11/1/99 Paul's silence on the life of Christ
Dear Gordy,
Here are a couple thoughts I’ve 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
C. The role of believing [not included here]
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 Paul’s 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 didn’t 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 God’s 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 Paul’s 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 God’s 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 Paul’s writings and/or were coming into prominent circulation at the time of Paul’s 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 God’s 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 I’ve 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 layman’s 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.]
Here is one contemporary occurence 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 today’s sports page (Th, Oct.28, 1999). Paul’s situation is almost like reading today’s sports page commentary by a local sportswriter on the significance of the Yankees’ World Series victory last night. This newspaper commentator doesn’t 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 O’Neill 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 hadn’t 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 didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t have to; he doesn’t want to; he doesn’t 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.]
11/18/99 Motives of McDowell and motives of Paul
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
F. What I meant about argument style [not included here]
G. Encouraging irrationality [not included here]
A. History being written by the winners
Concerning this topic, you wrote:
I’ve 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.
"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 that’s 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.
In his conclusion to Chapter 4 on the historical reliability of the Bible, McDowell makes the following claim:
"After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scripture, I came to the conclusion that they [sic] are historically trustworthy." (McDowell 1977 p. 76)
In light of the way McDowell selectively and deceptively cites his sources, there is simply no way that McDowell is "trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scripture." But what then is he attempting to do? What motivates him? Is he a liar? If not, then does he really believe the claims he makes?
I don't think there is a simple answer, but my guess is that McDowell is simply carried away by evangelical ferver, as you suggest. There are a couple of comments from the forward and preface to McDowell's book that are relevant to this issue:
"Thus, it is the Christian who will derive the greatest benefit from reading Evidence That Demands a Verdict. It will not only strengthen his own faith in Christ, but it will provide evidence that will enable him to share his faith more effectively with others. (William R. Bright in a forward to McDowell 1977)
"The proper motivation behind the use of these lecture notes is to glorify and magnify Christ - not to win an argument. Apologetics is not for proving the Word of God but simply for providing a basis for faith." (McDowell 1977 p. iii)
McDowell's goals are apologetic, not historic accuracy, not truth. McDowell believes truth supports his apologetic claims, but he believes this so strongly that he does not feel obliged to treat his evidence carefully. Ok so maybe the evidence doesn't very strongly support Luke's claims about the time of Christ's birth, but McDowell knows Luke's claims are true, so what harm is there in convincing others that the evidential support is strong? Maybe Acts 26:24-26 doesn't really provide evidence that the events in Jesus' life were well known at the time, but surely they were, so what's the harm in using Acts to convince others of that? Especially if the others are Christians whose faith will thereby be strengthened, who are anyway looking for reassurance in their beliefs, and who will therefore not critically examine what McDowell says?
Does McDowell believe that he is promulgating falsehoods? Obviously not. He strongly believes he is promulgating truth. He so strongly believes this that he feels no obligation to adhere to nondeceptive methods of argumentation.
Do you think McDowell would die for his beliefs? I suspect he would. I think his evangelical fervor would carry him that far. Does that mean I should trust what he says? Obviously not.
All this is relevant to your psychological analysis of proto-Christians. As you say, people will die for certain things, if they believe them strongly enough. But I think there is a simultaneous tendency in the other direction too: If people become so strongly committed to a movement that they find themselves taking extreme measures in its behalf, that itself will induce further unquestioning belief in the movement. Commitment to the movement will overwhelm commitment to truth. McDowell is a case in point. Perhaps certain proto-Christians are as well. Clearly they exhibited evangelical fervor and sometimes even died for their beliefs. Does that mean I should trust what they say? I don't think so.
You wrote:
What puzzles me is how critics can claim that these proto-Christians like Paul not only made up these things but also then died for things they knew were false. I just don’t get that. It doesn’t make sense. (Bob 9/25/99)
You're right - it doesn't make sense. It's also not what I or any critics I have read believe about Paul. As I've pointed out, Paul makes very few claims about the words and life of Jesus. His authentic works mention only the eucharist, the crucifixion, the resurrection on the third day, and some later post-resurrection appearances, but no other details of Jesus' life. The only miraculous events Paul mentions are the resurrection and some post-resurrection appearances, and of these he witnessed only Jesus' appearance to him on the road to Damascus. I don't think he made up any of these miraculous claims. I think he really believes they happened. But whether he also believed or even knew about the detailed stories in the gospels is far from clear, as I've mentioned.
Yes, Paul died for his beliefs, or at least for his missionary activities in bringing people to Christ. Does that lend authenticity to the stories in the Gospels? Perhaps it does if Paul knew those stories and believed them - but whether he did is far from clear to me. A subsequent letter of yours addresses this very topic, so I'll respond in more detail to this issue later. But if the Gospel stories were legends which developed after Paul's death or without his knowledge, then the fervency of Paul's beliefs lend no support to the Gospel stories at all.
Does Paul's death lend authenticity to the actual claims he does make about Jesus in his writings? Perhaps to some degree, but then again, perhaps Paul was a McDowell-style evangelist who believed he was spreading truth, but whose commitment to his own movement in fact overwhelmed his commitment to truth.
One comment about your critique of the trilemma, for example: McDowell did not originate this trilemma; many others have written about this, including C.S.Lewis back in the 1940s or so. My read on the trilemma device is that for most Christian apologists, the fourth option of "legend" is something that was simply not considered, not out of dishonesty or laziness but because it seems to have been dismissed almost without a thought, since most Christian scholars that I have spoken with and read do not think that the evidence and timeframe was such that there was even time for a legend to develop. (Bob 9/25/99)
I don't think you can maintain the position that the legend option never even occurred to most Christian apologists. The notion of the Gospels as myth or as apologetic tools was introduced in the 19th century and continued from then to the present day. For example, Blomberg writes:
In the 1830s, D.F. Strauss ushered in a new era in dealing with the Gospels. He rejected both the traditional attempts to harmonize them and the rationalistic school of thought in favor of an understanding Jesus' more spectacular deeds and claims as myths - pious but fictitious legends that couched theological beliefs about Jesus in narrative form. (Blomberg 1997, p. 78).
Throughout the nineteenth century numerous scholars also composed "lives of Jesus." Believing that the Gospels were a blend of fact and fiction, they sought to strip away the later theological interpretations of the early church from the "historical Jesus." (Blomberg 1997, p. 78).
The dominant figure in the history of biblical criticism and theology during the first half of the 1900s was Rudolf Bultmann.... [Bultmann] consistently set out to demonstrate that we could know virtually nothing about the historical Jesus because of the interweaving of history and faith throughout the Gospels. (Blomberg 1997 p. 181)
Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville Tennessee, 1997.
12/6/99 Rebuttal on Paul's silence
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the enjoyable time over Thanksgiving. This is a reply to the first two sections of your 11/1/99 post. I have some comments on your third section "The Role of Believing", but I'll have to get to these later.
Gordy
A. A Better Description of What I Think Happened
B. The Reliability of Oral Tradition
C. Were Paul and the Gospels Contemporaneous?
G. Appendix: The Tom Powers Article
A. A Better Description of What I Think Happened
In your discussion of why Paul mentions so little of the life and works of Christ, you formulate Case 1 presumably as representative of my position, but I wonder whether you are not, like McDowell ("liar, lunatic, lord"), simply formulating a position that is easy to attack and defeat. Your Case 1, which follows, doesn't describe what I or many scholars think happened.
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. (Bob 11/1/99)
In response, let me say that your standards for judging modern versus ancient Christian writings seem contradictory: If McDowell contains falsehoods, then you say he is simply overzealous. If the gospels or Paul contain historical falsehoods, then you say early Christians were fakers, liars and deliberate creators of fiction. Surely you realize that not all falsehoods are deliberate lies. Legend does not necessarily mean fake. For example, in your discussion of Tom Powers' 10/28/99 St. Paul Pioneer Press commentary article, you have created the "legend" that Powers does not quote Joe Torre, when in fact he does so twice (see below). I do not thereby conclude you are a liar or faker. I think you were merely carried away in your attempt to make what looked to you like a convincing point.
My suspicion is that early Christian writers were all too much like your characterization of McDowell: writers who in their fervor intentionally or unintentionally overstate their case. Here is what I, along with many NT scholars, believe:
Case 1A: The gospels were not written when Paul composed most of his letters. Jesus never existed as the gospels describe him because the gospels record unreliable oral tradition, molded by the needs and desires of communities who passed the tradition on. Communities which included McDowell-style evangelists who "knew" they had the truth and had no compunction about enshrining that "truth" in written form; individuals whose commitment to furthering the movement and converting others was stronger than their commitment to historical accuracy.
This by no means indicates that everything in the gospels is false. However, I think suspicion is more than justified for extreme claims like virgin births and risings from the dead.
B. The Reliability of Oral Tradition
You bring up the topic of reliability of oral tradition:
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). (Bob 11/1/99)
Yes, Blomberg does claim (without citing any proof) that "venerated rabbis had at times committed the entire Bible (our 'Old Testament') to memory." (1997, p. 84) But as Crosson notes (1998, pp 50-52), memorizing a written text is quite different from memorizing oral tradition. With a written text, the memorizer can always check the absolute correctness of his account by referring to the "gold standard" - the written text. The memorized account cannot therefore drift very far from the true account. For a memorizer of oral tradition, however, there is no "gold standard" to compare with - all one has are successive memorized versions of unknown accuracy. The potential for drift is substantially greater, even when there is a commitment to historical accuracy, a commitment which we have no good reason to suppose existed.
What is the basis of your claim that "oral tradition in the intertestamental period is known to have highly reliable and very structured"? Yes, Blomberg does claim that it "would have been quite normal and expected for Jesus' disciples ... to commit to memory significant portions of his teaching and ... great works, and to have remembered those accounts accurately for a significant span of time." (1997, p. 84) But of course this is only educated speculation - Blomberg can cite no evidence. He also admits that "none of this would have precluded the disciples from paraphrasing, interpreting, and rearranging the material they had learned; that, too was the convention of the day." (1997, p. 84)
Mark's accuracy in reproducing old testament passages is not encouraging, as Helms points out (1999, pp. 3-4). Here is Mark 1:2-3:
It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way" -
"a voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "
But only the last three lines come from Isaiah (40:3), and even here Mark has changed "for our God" found in Isaiah to "for him" - no feat of memorization is happening here. Worse, the first two lines are not from Isaiah, but seem to come from Septuagint Exodus 23:20 (the Greek is virtually identical), and then Hebrew Malachi 3:1.
Mark doesn't even get the Ten Commandments right, having Jesus invent a new commandment "do not defraud" in Mark 10:19. Mark's commitment, or his source's commitment, to historically accurate transmission of written text - even sacred text - is not high. Can we be any more confident about the accuracy of his transmission of oral tradition? Matthew and Luke, having access to the "gold standard" written OT, realize Mark's mistake and delete "do not defraud". But for Markan inaccuracies in oral tradition they would have no such gold standard.
C. Were Paul and the Gospels Contemporaneous?
You continue on to discuss three related cases:
Case 2. The gospels were in fact already written and were in common circulation at the time of Paul’s writings. ...
Case 3. The gospels were only just being written at the time of Paul’s writings and/or were coming into prominent circulation at the time of Paul’s 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. ...
Case 4. The gospels were in fact not even written yet. ...
From an informed layman’s 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.
(Bob, 11/1/99)
In reply, let me ask: consistent with what evidence? Paul's ministry ran from the 30s AD to the late 50s and early 60s. Paul was under house arrest in Rome in 62 AD, and the standard view is that Paul was killed in Rome during the Christian persecutions by Nero in 64 AD. Blomberg has Mark most probably written in the 60s AD. Many scholars place Mark into the early 70s. Matthew and Luke are usually placed into the 80s or 90s. The case for Paul having direct access to the written gospels seems weak. Can you defend it more strongly? No doubt Paul had access to some stage of oral tradition, but it is far from clear whether that oral tradition included what we today find in the gospels - that is the very point I question.
You respond to comments in one of my earlier posts (8/11/99) regarding the "mysterious" silence of Paul regarding the life and teachings of Jesus. Why did Paul not refer to the gospel tradition more? You write:
For the negative reason, he did not quote from or refer to the gospels because the gospels were so commonly known that he simply didn't 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 God’s incarnation rather than interpret specific actions and particular sayings of Christ. ... (Bob 11/1/99)
Yes, these are plausible reasons. But I think you are here missing the second part of what I brought up about Paul's silence: He is silent even when it would have been natural and effective for him to use gospel material. Here's what I said:
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. (Gordy 8/11/99)
Yes, perhaps Paul wanted in places to talk about significance rather than specific actions or sayings. But we know that Paul also had other motives. He wanted to address controversies that had arisen in the Christian communities to which he wrote. Is it permissible for Christian Jews and Christian gentiles to eat together? Do Christians need to be circumcised? Certainly, citing relevant gospel teachings of Jesus would have been persuasive, but Paul does not do so, even though he sometimes cites the OT. "Again, Paul tells his Christian readers to 'bless those that persecute you', bids them 'judge not', and urges them to 'pay taxes'. Surely in such instances he might reasonably be expected to have invoked the authority of Jesus, had he known that Jesus had taught the very same doctrines, as according to the gospels he had." (Wells 1997, p. 13).
Yes, it is true that mentioning the words or deeds of Jesus would sometimes have been superfluous had they been familiar. But mentioning familiar teachings or deeds of Jesus would have been especially effective if they supported Paul's positions on the controversial issues he sometimes addressed. So why no mention?
Take a look at Wells and at Martin for details. We can discuss their arguments one-by-one if you like. My point is that you have to do more than explain why Paul doesn't refer to much of the gospels - you have to explain why he failed to do so when a reference would have been to his clear advantage.
You defend your thesis concerning Paul's silence by attempting to show that contemporary writers are equally as silent on well-known details as you claim Paul was. As an example, you cite a commentary article by Tom Powers in the sports section of the 10/28/99 St. Paul Pioneer Press, pointing out Power's silence on key details of the Yankee's game-4 victory over the Braves in the World Series.
Through the miracle of Internet technology :-), I was able to obtain a copy of this article ("Clemens Just The Latest To Profit From Juggernaut") and have read it. Believe it or not, Power's article actually supports my contentions, and does not, as you claim, tend to refute them. Specifically, if you ask whether Tom Powers is silent regarding the details of the series even when it would have been natural and effective for him to cite them, the answer is clearly no, he is not silent and does in fact cite relevant details when it is to his advantage.
First, your statement that Power's article concerns "the significance of the New York Yankees having played in and won so many World Series in the past 78 years" is only a partial summary of Power's thesis. Power's points are (1) that in an era of shifting franchises and inevitable change, the Yankees have been a constant in the world of sports - very good for a very long time; and (2) they maintain this position in a businesslike way by using fat salaries to lure and keep the brightest stars.
In support of position (1), Powers states:
a. The Yankees have stayed in the Bronx, worn the same pinstripes and played in the same ballpark.
b. They have 25 world series titles.
c. They have three world series championships in the last four years.
d. On average, the Yankees win one World Series every four years. More recently, they have won 12 consecutive World Series games.
e. They won game 1 in Atlanta by beating Braves ace Greg Maddox.
f. They swept the Braves.
g. Braves manager Bobby Cox was dejected after the series loss.
h. ``There's no question that this club was very, very special,'' Torre said. (Your assertion that Powers does not quote Joe Torre was wrong - he does so twice.)
In support of position (2), Powers states:
a. Roger Clemens is one example of an imported star. The premier pitcher in the American League for years, he had chalked up 247 victories. Not one of them in the World Series, however, until Wednesday night.
b. Clemens pitched 7 2/3 terrific innings.
c. For the bulk of his career, Clemens was the stopper for the archrival Boston Red Sox.
d. Afterward, Clemens' sons met him on the field and jumped in his arms. Manager Joe Torre kissed him on the neck.
e. As Clemen's longtime Red Sox teammate Wade Boggs did in 1996, he finally became a champion by joining the once-hated New York Yankees.
f. At 37 years and 2 months, Clemens was the oldest starter to win the deciding game of a World Series since Allie Reynolds (a Yankee, of course) did so in 1953 at 38.
g. ``It was a perfect way to end the World Series,'' Torre said. ``The man coming here because he wanted the World Series ring. It seemed like the perfect setup.''
h. As another example of a transplanted star, Chuck Knoblauch, since bolting the Twins, has won two consecutive World Series with the Yankees.
i. Twins fans not yet over the Chuck Knoblauch thing probably will giggle over the fact he was not on the field for the final out of Wednesday's game. He was replaced by Luis Sojo after the seventh inning for defensive purposes. Sure enough, Sojo made a nice play on Chipper Jones in the eighth inning while Knobber watched from the bench. (So, contrary to your assertion, there is a reference to a specific play in one of the four games.)
So there are lots of details about the series and about Yankee history which Powers cites when it is in his interest to do so. It is true, as you say, that Powers does not refer to "specific plays or actions of particular players, nor does he quote any players’ words, nor [with the Sojo exception above] does he refer to what happened in any particular inning." (Bob 11/1/99). But this is beside the point - these items would have been irrelevant to Powers' theses. However, when details are relevant, he does cite them.
On the other hand, suppose Powers had not mentioned one or more of these details, and we were reconstructing events 100 years from now. For example, suppose he had not mentioned Chuck Knoblauch. Wouldn't we think this was odd? Powers' major thesis concerns transplanted stars. If Knoblauch was indeed a star transplanted to the Yankees from the very city from which Powers writes, why would Powers not mention him? Wouldn't this lack of mention throw suspicion on whether Knoblauch's was even present on the Yankees during the series? Wouldn't we wonder whether perhaps Knoblauch was injured, or perhaps was never even traded to the Yankees in the first place? Perhaps our other sources indicating that Knoblauch was a 1999 Yankees team member are mistaken? This reasoning is perfectly proper, and to invoke it we need not assume anyone was lying, as you seem wont to do. Mistakes happen. If Powers does not mention Knoblauch, then perhaps our other sources are wrong, or perhaps Powers' proximity in time to the 1999 World Series is not what he seems to claim. Perhaps he is only passing on a story that someone told him. There are lots of possibilities.
In summary, your example really supports the thesis that I advocate along with Wells and Martin: It is perfectly reasonable to question an authors knowledge of material he fails to mention when mentioning it is to his clear advantage. That Paul seems not to do so is very suspicious if he indeed had access to the gospels.
Craig L. Blomberg (1997), Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, Broadman & Holeman Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
John Dominic Crosson (1998), The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus, Harper, San Francisco.
Randal McCraw Helms (1999), Who Wrote the Gospels?, Millennium Press, Altadena, California.
G. Appendix: The Tom Powers Article
ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS
CLEMENS JUST THE LATEST TO PROFIT FROM JUGGERNAUT
Thursday, October 28, 1999
Section: SPORTS
Page: 1D
Tom Powers, Staff Columnist
Franchises shift from Brooklyn to Los Angeles, Milwaukee to Atlanta, Washington to Minnesota. Caps and jerseys go in and out of style. Ballparks are built, used for a while, then abandoned.
The New York Yankees have stayed in the Bronx, worn the same pinstripes and played in the same ballpark. And they continue to topple all challengers.
Change is inevitable, of course. Fans used to holler, ``Kill the umpire.'' Now they make an honest attempt to do just that. Fans used to call visiting ballplayers ``bums.'' Now they drop their pants and show 'em theirs.
But the Yankees are the closest thing there is to a constant in the world of sports. They've been so good for so long they have outlived the slogans once meant to deride them.
Rooting for the Yankees no longer is like rooting for U.S. Steel. In the era of the new economy, it's like rooting for Microsoft. Or for some other high-tech giant that gobbles up the opposition.
They are flush with cash, and it's burning a hole in their pockets. So they assemble a killer team. Then they point, click and destroy the opposition.
Imagine, 25 World Series titles, the latest secured with a sweep over the outclassed Atlanta Braves after a 4-1 victory Wednesday night.
``Well, this is what everybody said it was all about,'' winning pitcher Roger Clemens said. ``I finally know what it feels like to be a Yankee.''
Of their three championship teams in the past four years, this one may not have been the best. But it certainly was good enough. They really clinched the title by winning the first game in Atlanta against ace Greg Maddux. The Braves have been hanging their heads since.
``We would have liked to have made it a better contest, that's for sure,'' dejected Braves manager Bobby Cox said.
No chance. The Yankees also are big business personified. The brightest stars come to town and are allowed to stay as long as they earn their fat salaries.
Clemens is one such star. The premier pitcher in the American League for years, he had chalked up 247 victories. Not one of them in the World Series, however, until Wednesday night.
Thinking back to his arrival in spring training, Clemens recalled the Yankees showing him their World Series rings.
``They said, `We're going to get you one,''' said Clemens, who pitched 7 2/3 terrific innings. ``I feel blessed.''
For the bulk of his career, Clemens was the stopper for the archrival Boston Red Sox. Like just about everyone not situated in New York proper, he wasn't a big Yankees fan. But all ballplayers eventually get to the point in their careers where, above all else, they want to win.
Hello, New York.
He was thrilled with the trade, in which he had a lot of input, that put him in the Bronx last spring.
Afterward, Clemens' sons met him on the field and jumped in his arms. Manager Joe Torre kissed him on the neck. And, as longtime Red Sox teammate Wade Boggs did in 1996, he finally became a champion by joining the once-hated New York Yankees.
At 37 years and 2 months, he was the oldest starter to win the deciding game of a World Series since Allie Reynolds (a Yankee, of course) did so in 1953 at 38.
``It was a perfect way to end the World Series,'' Torre said. ``The man coming here because he wanted the World Series ring. It seemed like the perfect setup.''
As for the Braves, they are considered by some misguided souls to be the team of the '90s. Yes, they were regulars in the postseason. But it should be noted they have won exactly as many championships in this decade as the Minnesota Twins: one.
The Yankees, on the other hand, are the team of the century. On average, they win one World Series every four years. More recently, they have won 12 consecutive World Series games.
Full credit should go to their spark-plug second baseman, old What's His Name.
Twins fans not yet over the Chuck Knoblauch thing probably will giggle over the fact he was not on the field for the final out of Wednesday's game. He was replaced by Luis Sojo after the seventh inning for defensive purposes.
Sure enough, Sojo made a nice play on Chipper Jones in the eighth inning while Knobber watched from the bench. But since bolting the Twins, Knoblauch has won two consecutive World Series. So he's having the last laugh.
``There's no question that this club was very, very special,'' Torre said.
Special, but, in a way, like all the other Yankees championship teams.
Yeah, there's death, taxes and the New York Yankees.
Tom Powers' column regularly appears Sundays, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. E-mail him at tpowers@pioneerpress.com.
All content © 1999 ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS and may not be republished without permission
12/28/99 Rebuttals on Luke's nativity account
Hi Bob,
I see you've had some free time over Christmas break! Here's a response to the first of the three messages I've received from you lately. Like you, I may not have time to say much more in the near future.
Happy new year to the Hazens. :-)
Gordy
Outline:
A. WAS THERE A ROMAN CENSUS AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH? [not included here]
B. WAS QUIRINIUS GOVERNOR OF SYRIA AT JESUS' BIRTH?
C. WAS EVERYONE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME?
All quotes preceded by "Bob:" in this post are from your 12/21/99 post. Everything preceded by "Gordy:" is my current reply.
B. WAS QUIRINIUS GOVERNOR OF SYRIA AT JESUS' BIRTH?
Bob:
In light of this cautionary advice, here is another interpretation of the political aspect of Luke’s nativity account:
"The enrollment or census (not ‘taxing’) of Augustus is surrounded by numerous problems. There is, however, sufficient evidence to show that a census of this nature was possible, that it could have taken place within the kingdom of a Roman client king, and that it was based on where one resided or held property....
Gordy:
I'd like to see this evidence!
Bob continues:
... The real problem is the date. Quirinius was governor of Syria from AD 6, and during this time there was a rebellion over the imposition of the census (Acts 5:37 and Josephus). Jesus, however, was born before the death of Herod (4 BC). Possible solutions are: a) ‘Quirinius’ is a textual error for ‘Saturninus’, governor 9-6 BC. b) Quirinius may have held an earlier post in the East, during which he initiated the census. This could not, however, have been the governorship of Syria, as W.Ramsay held. E.Stauffer has argued that he had a ‘roving commision’ in the eastern Empire. c) Since this was the first enrollment in Judea, the process of listing the people and then actually taxing them would take several years. Luke mentions the name of Quirinius as the well-known governor under whom the process was completed after Herod’s death; and the rising in Acts 5:37 will then have taken place when the new tax was first collected." (The Eerdmanns Bible Commentary on Luke).
Gordy:
Note that (a) requires Luke or a copyist to have made a mistake, and (b) requires him to have been ambiguous or misleading or uninformed, since Quirinius definitely did hold the governorship in AD 6. Either of these diminish his reliability as a historian. Regarding (c), according to Schurer, the census in AD 6 was initiated by Quirinius, who had just become governor of Syria, because Augustus had deposed Herod's successor Archelaus and Judea (but not Galilee) was put under the authority of the province of Syria. If this is so, then this census could not have started under Herod, because its impetus lay in Augustus' removal of Herod's successor. So I don't think (c) is even a possibility.
In sum, your first two options (a), (b) definitely do diminish Luke (the document, if not the person) as a reliable historian, and your third option (c) does not look feasible.
C. WAS EVERYONE REQUIRED TO RETURN TO THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME?
Bob:
This set of objections (about everyone being required to return to their ancestral home) is not difficult to deal with. The starred items are explained below.