Bart Ehrman on New Testament Textual Criticism: Has the Text Been Lost in the Process?

A common misconception among the common individual is to view the present New Testament scripture to be the result of centuries of scribal errors, caused by continuous trends of scribal weakness, which consequently changed its text and meaning, rendering the original text as completely lost.

However, the common reader might reach this conclusion by misunderstanding the common terms and wording within the field of textual criticism and hence they misrepresent the actual of view of textual scholars such as Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman and F.F. Bruce among others.

Yet has the New Testament text undergone any serious changes due to centuries of scribal copying? And have scribal errors caused the original text and meaning to vanish; lets consider the wording of the popular textual critic Bart Ehrman:

Ehrman writes:

‘Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognised and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive...In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with a reasonable (though not 100 percent accuracy) (Barth Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for the Scripture and Faith We Never Knew, pp. 220-21).

Ehrman agrees in his later book Misquoting Jesus:

‘For my part however, I continue to think that even if we cannot be 100 percent certain...that it is at least possible to get back to the oldest and earliest stage of the manuscript tradition...This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote’ (Barth Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p. 62)

Why I accept Form-Criticism but don't buy the Form-Critical theory

Just a few words on the Bible and form-criticism.

Form criticism as a method is not necessarily an enemy of Christianity as often presumed.
In fact form ciriticism has privileged us to recognise and study the variaty of forms and genres in the Gospels.

However Form criticism as a theory is a different matter.

While Form Criticism applies the methods that may be reasonable for Christians to take on board, the theory also carries a number of presuppositions (which I would call blunders) that Christians need to be aware of.

Firstly, it presupposes that the society of the first century was utter chaos, for example, that people generally, were unable to read, passive and unable to memorize and preserve information, unable to remain united or to organise themselves.

However, this description of the early Christian community is utterly wrong.

The ancient world was highly concerned about preservation even among the illiterate.

Secondly, people in both the Greek and Jewish world were able to read and write. In fact the highest literacy in the first century existed among Jews.

Thirdly, the practicse of memorization, recitation and transmission via a chain of successors was a common practice among both Greeks and Jews.

This simply renders the entire Form-critical postulate on this matter futile and false.

Form criticism also presupposes that a variaty of forms or genres necessarily idenfies a variaty of sources. This idea has continually been utilized by atheists and muslims alike in their attack on the Bible.

For example: Jesus taught individuals (source 1), Jesus taught the crowds (source 2), Jesus spoke in parables (source 3), Jesus spoke wisdom (source 4), Jesus healed the sick (source 5), Jesus travelled back and forward (narrative) (source 6), Jesus died and resurrected (source 7).

Form-critical scholars tend to assume that because these vary in their genre, these must therefore derive from separate sources that the gospel writers must have compiled from various locations, individuals and from different eras of the first century.

Yet is this a reliable conclusion?

Imagine a surgeon who practicing in a university hospital is involved with both teaching and practice.

Let's say that for one day he will be accompanied by an individual who will record every detail, word and deed for this one day only.

1. In the morning he chats with co-workers, students, friends and patients (this is source one).

2. Prior to lunch he gives a tutor session to a student (source two)

3. In the afternoon he lectures to a group of twenty students (source three)

4. Just before take off home, he is called to do an emergency surgery (source four)

5. He drives home (and of course he drow to work in the morning) (source five)

6. Unfortunately on the way he ends up in a serious road accident, which sends him to the hospital, he nevertheless recovers after two weeks (source 6).

If this particular day was to be published in a book and we decided to apply the theory of form criticism in our scrutiny of it, we would certainly agree that we had a number of genres combined, which to general reader simply reveals that the person engaged in a number of situations and activities, each which in their descriptions required their own identical genre, which suggests that this is one on and the same person, yet, from which the form-critic if he applies his methods concludes that this is not the same person.

There you have it: none of us (if we apply form critical methods on the records of our lives) can apply more than one genre to our life, and hence an individual cannot exist.

Examples of Oral Transmission in Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Irenaeus

Prior to the writing of Mark, the Christians utilized a oral transmission, which today is included in the four Gospels. However, memorization in the first, second and third century church continued to utilize the oral transmission alongside the written transmission.

The early church father Ireneaus (120-190 AD), the disciple of Polycarp (70-150 AD) who himself was a disciple of John the apostle (died 90/95) the disciple of Jesus, records a number of details relating to memorization and oral transmission. In his Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 3 and verses 2-3 he records from the line of Roman successors and narrators:

‘...the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles... To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him...’

Hence Clement of Rome the bishop of Rome and an apostolic successor was in position to memorize and recite the apostolic tradition.

Irenaeus himself records in the Fragments of the Lost Sayings of Irenaeus, chapter 2, how he sat under the influence of Polycarp the successor of John the apostle and memorized the traditions:

‘...I then listened to them attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind’.

Indeed Irenaeus records in Fragments of the Lost Sayings of Irenaeus, chapter 2 how Polycarp had engaged in memorization from the apostles, those who were eyewitnesses and hearers of Jesus:

‘...and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracls and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all...’

We read here of two lines of successors, both lines leading us back to the apostles and then to Jesus, of which both lines of successors are engaged in memorization.

Of similar lines of successors we could refers to Papias who memorized the ‘The Living and Abiding Word’ (that is information transmitted by an eyewitnesses of the account and under his control) from John the Elder and Eyewitnesses and disciple of Jesus (Eusebius, The History of the Church Book 3, chapter 39).

Irenaeus confirms in Irenaeus in his Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 4, verse 1, that in 180 AD the oral transmission is still so intact within the church, that even with no Bible the oral preservation of the Gospel would be sufficient to preserve the entire tradition:

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?’

Early Christianity, Oral Transmission and Preservation of the Gospel Account

This is an older post, which I add to this blog due to the field-study emphasized here. I recently completed an MA on this topic and I am currently looking for the possibility to embark on a PhD for more indepth study in this area of research.

I have spent almost two years emerging myself into source criticism, early Christian testimony to the Gospels and early oral transmission. The last three months I have occupied myself with early Christianity and oral tradition. It has been fascinating to study the works of authors, such as Sanders, Riesenfelt, Bultman, Kummel, Kloppenborg, Mack, Streeter, Bauckham and others. Yet I guess the most exciting part of my research has so far been probing into the text and world of the early church fathers.

I personally reject the methodology and approach of Sanders and most liberal critics here. Sanders proposes that the most realistic approach to the New Testament and the historical Jesus is to reject all historical fact and occupy oneself with modern theories. I find it funny that this approach is categorized as something that comes somehow near historical studies. This seems to confirm the words of Etta Linneman that modern Bible criticism is more of a philosophy than historical research. This aspect relates closely to the foundational presupposition of modern critical scholarship, namely the idea that the supernatural is absent from the natural world if it even exists.

I find it funny that intellegent atheists devout themselves to follow such approaches. I find it even more funny that adheres of the religion of Islam whose life and purpose is to undermine and wipe out the Christian, follow these secular theories.

So far I have opted for reading, comparing and devouting myself to the material and facts that are available rather than reading into these a range of modern conjecture created by individuals who were not even present in the first and second century, but seem to imply that they know more about the local details of the ancient world than Jesus, Paul, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Such an approach is extremely naive and virtually foolish, it reveals logical and academic integrity.

So where am I at with my insight into early oral tradition?

Early Christianity and oral tradition can be divided into three eras.

1. The Oral Period
   
2. The Transition Period
   
3. The Post Transition period.

Each of these are again sub-divided:

The Oral Period is divided into, three eras:

• Jesus' transmission to his apostles and training of the apostles
  
• The Apostolic fixing of a oral body of information, including narrative and sayings
  
• The transmission of the Apostles to the apostolic disciples (successors)

The Transition period is divided into:

• Oral transmission still dominant but its text in existence (Papia-Polycarp)
  
• Text dominant but Oral transmission still in existence (particularly among the illiterate) (Justin Martyr-Irenaeus)

The Post Oral era relates mainly to one aspect, in which oral tradition is a matter of interest (Clement of Alexandria - Origin)

While the use of text is already referred to by Papias in 80-100 AD to Matthew and Mark, and later by Justin Martyr (150). It is interesting that the favour of the written word does not derive until the death of Polycarp, even though Christians read and used them (see Ignatius of Antioch).

The reason being, Christians applied the ancient rule of 'the living and the abiding word', that is history is effective history as long at the eyewitnesses are still alive and are able to transmitt the information and confirm it.

Polycarp was the last of the apostolic disciples and died approximately 140-50 as a martyr.

After Polycarp, the oral transmission is continuous, the Christians turn however to the transmission of the apostles in its written form, as the written form had been written under the guidance of the apostles and the successors (e.g. Luke).

In other words the Gospels are of the same nature as the 'living and the abiding word'.

The study is fascinating and it provides strong historical evidence that the Gospel information could not have been corrupted or fabricated within the first 200 years of Christianity.

Review and Critic of John Dominic Crossan's book: ‘The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant’

Introduction

John Dominic Crossan’s book ‘The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant’ had at one point a great impact within the third Quest of the Historical Jesus. Crossan presented a new strand within the Quest adopted by a range of modern scholars, such as Marcus Borg, Gerald F. Downing and Burton Mack in which Jesus being born a Jew of the first century, leans slightly towards a Hellenistic mindset, namely in this particular case the Cynics. This approach has resulted in two strains of reactions in modern scholarship; those who strongly favour innovative ideas and approaches, and those who consider Crossan to be highly speculative, to the point of even loosing his academic integrity.

The Situation

In his book Crossan’s historical methodology includes a triadic process, the anthropological, historical and literary approach to history, in which he carefully analyzes the economic, cultural and social-political environment of the Mediterranean world. He proposes the idea that the Historical Jesus can only be discovered by considering not merely the specific era and location of Jesus in Palestine, but the entire environment of the Mediterranean world and situation alike.

Crossan’s assessment depicts the Mediterraean society as notoriously corrupt, unjust and suppressive; mainly controlled by the minority rulers, landowners and corrupt organised religion. He describes vividly the devastating situation of women, children, slaves and particularly the suppressed peasant society; these being deprived of their human rights and drained by imposed taxes.

Desperation caused various rival groups to emerge, such as revolutionists, the bandits, and the thaumaturgical response of prophets and magicians; their aim was to challenge the societal structure.

Jesus according to Crossan

According to Crossan, Jesus grew up in Nazareth, in Crossan’s view a highly Greco-Roman influenced environment due to its proximity to Sepphoris, a Gentile city and regional centre.

Jesus however begins his spiritual journey as a follower of John the Baptist, a prophet promoting an apocalyptic message. Crossan envisages a sudden turning point in which Jesus changes his mind about John and his message. Jesus embarks in a new direction excluding all elements of apocalypticism and the supernatural; which indicates that Jesus turned perhaps to the philosophy he had been exposed to in Sepphoris prior to his association with John, that of Cynicism.

Crossan’s main evidence is Sepphoris’ proximity to Nazareth combined with certain aspects of Jesus’ teaching and his wandering lifestyle. Being a Cynic, Crossan describes Jesus as repulsed with the evils of society, he becomes an introvert who escapes the typical life and structure of society. Yet unlike a Greek Cynic, Crossan’s Jesus is a Jewish Cynic, his mind is set on reformation, to create a new egalitarian society.

His mission begins with a band of disciples, to whom he offers a social program; they challenge the authorities, and seeks to deliver the less fortunate from societal and religious suppression.

To challenge the suppressive societal system and delivering its victims, Jesus and his followers devised two perfect means of resistance, what Crossan entitles ‘magic and meal.’

Magic to Crossan, in this case Jesus’ miracles, is unofficial religion, basically a rival reaction to official religion. Yet to Crossan healing-miracles were not supernatural they were merely declarations.

According to Crossan, the problem was rooted in the priestly system, that had succeeded in applying the idea of sickness as divine reaction to individual sin. This concept had led to mental degradation and suppression, in which the necessity of temple rituals and the cost of ritual participation were the only means of salvation. Others such as lepers were merely ostrized and excluded from society. By declaring the sick pure the priestly system lost its power and those caught in its grip were reintegrated back into society.

Jesus’ focus on exorcism suggests a similar motive, while Crossan in his book excludes any notion of personal demons he describes exorcism as deliverance and recovery from traumatic and mental disorder; particularly of individuals who had been victimised by the unjust structure of society or colonial powers.

The second mean of reform included a meal of commensality. Crossan effectively describes the vitality of sharing a meal, as it symbolised social status and identity. By eating with the poor and the sinful outcasts, Jesus broke the barrier of the class system and the religious exclusion; indeed therefore, to Crossan Christianity is the religion of the poor, the excluded and outcasts, the humble and the victims.

The Jesus of Crossan is also purely sapiental, whereas divine, prophetic and messianic descriptions are considered later myths; Jesus performed no miracles, and his resurrection is considered to be a later invention.

Jesus opposition to the priests and the temple culminated in his death. Initially he was arrested, crucified under Pilate, died, and his body was thrown in a ditch and eaten by the dogs.

Criticism and Evaluation

Generally Crossan’s appraoch has been strongly criticised. His focus on the Gospel strata, his preference to non-canonical Gospels, including the construction of his own, the so called ‘Cross Gospel’ and his criterion of multiple attestation has been deemed highly speculative.

Furthermore, his methods fiercely oppose the rules of archaeology, by basing his assessment from the earliest strata toward the later, while archaeology can only work the other way round.

Also his use of multiple attestation is questionable! Crossan appears highly inconsistent in utilizing this criteria and frequently refrains from this criteria when the information does not suit his own theory and conclusion, such as Jesus’ prediction of his apocalyptic return (Allan, 106).

A third matter relates to the Mediterranean environment, how relevant was it for Galilee and Judea of Jesus time.

The whole Cynic idea has also been criticised; Witherington points out that there is little resemblance in neither message, lifestyle and practice; these two are clearly distinguishable. In fact his focus on the commensality meal might even contradict the Cynic view, as Cynics considered begging to be an honour (Witherington, p.72). Witherington also points out that the proximity of Sepphoris to Nazareth plays little role, as enmity would separate the locations. Furthermore, no evidence remains that cynic influence flourished in Sepphoris.

Speculative interpretations also mark Crossan’s picture; Jesus change of view relating John the Baptist needs explicit evidence, and his reference to miracles and exorcism as a means of social deliverance is not explicitly evident from the context.

Crossan’s approach to sources is also questionable; he values his interpretations as sufficient if they can be based upon any piece of preceded writings; in fact, in his book, Crossan uses this approach continually; but on what basis is such a conclusion evident, especially, when previous texts and immediate events are strictly exclusive of each other?

Positives about Crossan’s Book

Neverthless Crossan also points out issues of remarkable significance

His book challenges an often typical tendency of Christians to spiritualise even the matters which to Jesus were urgent and practical. While the tendency is to gaze forward and hope for an apocalyptic order and reform only, Crossan describes an immediate social reform against poverty and injustice in which the followers engage and get practical.

Similarly the commensality of shared meals, Crossan gets the point across effectively; while these may not have been the ultimate devise of changing society, Crossan is correct in its outstanding application; Jesus was publically breaking down the barriers of suppression.

Similarly with the healing factor, while the exclusive view of Crossan that healings were a mere announcement of acceptance; the healings certainly triggered such an effect.

Crossan’s view certainly encourages a modern Christian to seek the true values of life, to resist the temptation of pursuing wealth while others lack the basics, to get practical, to speak out where injustice occurs, to liberate the poor and the victims and to seek and fight for what may benefit a suffering majority rather than a benefitted minority.

A Short introduction to the Christological aspects of the Historical Jesus: To what Extent has Modern Liberal Scholarship attempted to refute these?

This is my first work ever on the Historical Jesus, an essay I completed in 2005. If you are looking for a very detailed reading, this my not be what you are looking for, yet it might be worth a read.

Two years ago I completed two very detailed essays on the Historical Jesus: a much more extensive introduction and one on the Resurrection of Jesus in response to the modern theory that Jesus' resurrection was originally viewed as mere spiritual occurance in which the soul left the body.

I will post both essays here and probably on my website when it starts running as soon as I get green light from my university to post them.

Introduction

The philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55) proposed that a focus upon the historical Jesus confirms nothing of significance to the Christ of our faith. He maintained that the appearance of the eternal in time ascends history and becomes trivialised within the frame of history; thus Christ in history is not comprehensible and is only perceived by faith.[1]
Kiergegaard’s proposition has however failed to receive a common consent among scholars. Macquarrie points out that if Christ ‘existed only for faith’ then how would this explain the fact that knowledge toward faith is historically bound?[2] And thus, should not the historical Jesus and his ‘functional Christology’ be combined?[3]
To combine the historicity of Jesus and his Christological role, three main issues become inevitable in our assessment: the date and authorship of the Gospels, the miracles, and resurrection of Jesus!

The Gospels, their date and authorship

Regardless of, whether the original Jesus was distorted or kept intact, a reasonable assessment requires first an estimation of the origin and era of transmission, composition and compilation of the Gospel text which conveys to us the information of his historical role.
Recent manuscript discoveries have placed it within the second half of the 1st century[4] and according to Maurice Casey who otherwise proposes a critical and negative conclusion in comparison to the Bible-believing Christian, such a compilation took place within the first sixty years of Christianity.[5]

The next step is determining whether the text underwent stages of developments or remained intact.

Here Sanders, who inaugurated the third Jesus Quest, suggests that an early and oral original account of Jesus indeed existed, yet this tradition was gradually corrupted by additions.

But how and why would the early church produce these additions?

Sanders, proposes three reasons:

• Christological elements which developed through early Jewish-Christian debating
• Assumed Old Testament predictions to Christ
• Mythological elements meant to attract followers[6]

Here Sanders, summarizes parts of earlier theories of the First and Second Quest, e.g. the ideas of Schweitzer and Bultmann, who both suggested scriptural fabrication.

Schweitzer had earlier postulated that Jesus’ mission failed, which forced the fabrication; hence it was a cover-up, while Bultmann who utilized existentialist methods[7] assumed the same reason but elaborated further on the extent of the corruption as a result and a means of attraction.

Bultmann claimed that Jesus had predicted eschatology but not the Christological elements; these were the additions of the early Christian community,[8] which he coined ‘kerygma’, the mythological elements plagiarised from the Old Testament or contemporary or earlier religions.

Bultmann therefore asserted that any attempt to discover the historical Jesus required total demythologizing of the text, in which Jesus’ words had to be isolated from the kerygma,[9] however, which he rendered a task impossible to achieve, as he stated: ‘The problem of the Christology of the New Testament is the problem of the New Testament’.[10]

Bultmann’s theory was however deemed too complex and too biased.[11] It was refuted by succeeding liberals, such as Kasemann and Bornkamm who inaugurated the Second Quest.
These still focused on isolation but refuted the impassibility to get beneath the kerygma.[12]

Like Bultmann, Kasemann also perceived Jesus to be a mere teacher. He objected to the rigid mythological factor of Bultmann, yet stated that the Gospels were separate compositions which indeed contained authentic sayings with fabricated mythological additions.[13]

Another faction within the Jesus Quest, was that of the Jesus Seminar. Norman Perrin (1920-76) who provided its method, singled out assumed authentic sayings based upon:

• Multiple attestation of two gospels sayings or independent pre-Gospel traditions.
• The criterion of coherence: that the sayings have to be consistent with subject matter and tone with those already attributed to Jesus.
• Exclusion from Jewish and early church elements, e.g. the Eucharist and John’s Gospel.[14]

By utilizing Perrin’s method the Jesus Seminar considers only ninety of the fifteen hundred sayings as authentic and these exclude all Christological and messianic notions.[15]

The integrity of the Jesus Seminar has however been severely challenged and is an approach abandoned by the majority of scholars; it is accused of a theological agenda which avoids the fundamental questions.[16]

Why place Christ outside of Judaism and early Christianity to determine his historical reality? On which basis do we have the authority to do so? Why not rather study him within available history? Meier points out that the same method could be applied to any figure of history and result similarly; this would however mythologize both Luther and Beethoven.[17]

Getting back to Sanders’ approach, he approached this from a different angle; primarily he questions the lack of biographical characteristics in the Gospel account to present an historical account.[18] Sanders reckoned that an account could only be fully reliable if the author presented all the details of every reference to individuals and events in their context.[19] Thus, the critical perception is two-fold but united: the Gospel account lacks historical data, and contains too much mythology. Today these arguments are fairly refuted, the majority of scholars perceive the Gospels as biographies.

Sanders also pointed out a second matter, that the authenticity of the Gospels should be based upon confirmation of the actual authorship. He suggests that the Gospel account was written by the early first century church, while the names of the authors, such as Matthew or Mark, according to hearsay were added in the second century to provide them with apostolic authority.[20]

Hence, according to Sanders, the authenticity stands or falls upon the confirmation of the authorship of the four Gospels.

Sanders’ theory may however, not be fully compatible with early history. A look at early New Testament manuscripts and fragments and writings of early church fathers suggests that the four Gospels were fairly well recognised in all Christian centres by the early second century.[21] In fact, Eusebius’ (AD 260-339) reference to Papias (AD 100) in his The History of the Church, reveals that Papias referred to Matthew, Mark and John as contemporaries with those who provided him the information. He further describes Mark dictating the Gospel from Peter and Matthew writing his Gospel to the Jews in Hebrew.[22]

While full consent amongst scholars is lacking,[23] these three factors are of significance here: a) he interacts with first-century individuals who knew Matthew, Peter and John, 2) he was a disciple of Polycarp, himself a disciple of John,[24] 3) and he is supported by Justin Martyr (AD 150), who in his Dialogue 100.4 and 106.3 entitles the Gospels as the ‘Memoirs of the Apostles’, to which one is dedicated Peter.[25]

Therefore asserting that the authorship of the Gospel account was not recognised in the first century is willingly neglecting basic facts, and the issue is therefore not that of authorship but that of authorial integrity!

So far we can only assume that the church within the first century believed the Historical Jesus to be the risen Christ; at least this is what first century authorship indicates. The question we need to ask is: whether the authors were portraying an honest account on the historicity of Jesus? Were they covering up failure or simply attempting to attract followers?

A deceiving activist or psychiatric moralist: his resurrection and miracles

Did Jesus rise from dead in the first place? Within the first Jesus Quest, Herman Reimarus (1694-1768) was probably the first to have a significant effect on the historical search for Jesus. His motive was however not to discover the historical Jesus, but rather to discredit supernatural religion so as to make way for natural religion.[26] He describes Jesus as a moral teacher and political activist who despised Jewish legalism and predicted the coming of a future glorious kingdom.

Reimarus elaborates on this and asserted that Jesus’ predictions failed, particularly his resurrection; his book Fragmente eines Ungenannten, even suggests an early apostolic conspiracy, in which the disciples stole Jesus’ body possibly as a cover up.[27]

Scholars, such as David Strauss (1808-74) were unconvinced by Reimarus’ proposition. Strauss stated that the resurrection in its totality was an apostolic fabrication, that Jesus never spoke to his critics about his resurrection[28] and pointed out that speeches which included any indication of the kind, such as ‘his body being the temple’ or the ‘sign of Jonah’ were symbolic and unclear.[29]

He points out three main arguments against the resurrection: 1) the ignorance of the religious leaders;[30] 2) the legendary nature of the post-resurrection appearances which occur within the inner circle only; 3) and the variant elements in the accounts of the resurrection appearance.[31]

There are however objections to Strauss’ arguments, first and most the religious leaders did perceive these speeches, which Strauss considered as unclear, as predictions of Jesus’ resurrection (Matt.27: 62-6).

Secondly, Paul’s reference to five hundred individuals who saw Jesus at the same time (1 Cor.16: 5). Here, Pannenberg points out that Paul intended to challenge his contemporary critics; that the multiple numbers of witnesses welcomed any inquiries.[32]

Hence despite Strauss’ objections being reasonable, the paradoxes remain unsolved: if the resurrection was a fraud:

1) Where was the body located?

2) What was the impetus behind?

3) How about the risk of the hoax failing and leading to further assaults

4) What was the reason behind the hoax? Was it material gain or power

5) and if so, from where would it come?

The amounts of paradoxes are most likely to be solved if the resurrection proclamation logically made sense, being based upon individuals who clearly believed it. While this may not prove the resurrection account itself, it presents the possibility that the disciples truly believed the resurrection occurrence themselves.

Here Raymond Brown points out two factors on which Christianity rests. He declares that the empty tomb would not be sufficient to inaugurate the resurrection proclamation; the Christian faith would merely build upon an empty tomb; hence the post-resurrection appearances would be a necessary confirmation to launch the proclamation.[33]

Pannenberg also pointed out that without the appearances the early Christian community would be non-existing;[34] Strauss and Bultmann themselves seemed aware of the matter and even postulated that the disciples mutually or subjectively might have hallucinated the appearances.[35]

Yet the fact that the body was missing would in itself cause complications for the first century critic, if later Jewish polemic is correct then the body of Christ was presented to the Jerusalem community by being dragged through the streets (The Toledoth Yeshu).[36] But if later Jewish polemic is correct why then, was the Gospel proclamation not discredited?

Crossan elaborates further on the missing body of Jesus, envisaging that the disciples fled Jerusalem, and that the body of Jesus according to common practice toward crucified criminals, was probably eaten up by dogs.[37]

The Jesus Seminar however, proposes that mere ignorance is the only suitable solution, that we are simply unable to draw any conclusions; that the body was probably placed in a different tomb and rotted away.[38] While these possibilities remains, they fail to explain why the body was removed or forgotten; if Jews were behind the plot, why was the proclamation not discredited? If the disciples were behind it, how do we explain the impetus of the proclamation?

This is where Matthew’s account becomes vital; in it the tomb and body are located and guarded until the resurrection occurrence (Matt.27-8). Reimarus, however questioned Matthew’s integrity; wondering why Matthew contains the only account to record the specific historical details. He suggests that Matthew fabricates a scene where the guards are not properly questioned and the incident is bribed away rather than assessed.[39] Here even Brown who critically assesses the scene, and despite considering the probability of the resurrection, perceives the Gospel account to be heavily interpolated.[40]

Yet again, even though Matthew would have fabricated his account, it does not undermine the fact that the impetus of the proclamation was somehow inaugurated, and the authors who were or knew the eyewitnesses themselves believed account! Furthermore, there were probably good reason why Mark, Luke and John did not include this incident in their writings as these being Greek writings in circulation would quickly attract the Roman interest a cause speculation of rebellion. Hence the incident only circulated in oral form and occurred in written form in the Aramaic written Matthew’s Gospel only.

How about the miracles? Do they reveal integrity or deception? While Strauss (1808-74) denied that Jesus deceived his hearers by predicting the resurrection, he did propose the possibility that Jesus in fact was a charlatan who through miraculous tricks deceived the illiterate and ignorant.[41]

Hence if Strauss and Reimarus were correct then the historical Jesus was originally a deceiver, his disciples including. But what would be the purpose behind the miraculous deception?

Within the Third Quest movement there is strong disagreement, e.g. Vermes who perceives Jesus as an extraordinary Jew, who simply followed the trend of the holy men movement;[42] or Crossan, who offers the possibility that Jesus’ miracles and predictions were fakes and means to organise the masses to political activism.[43]

Interestingly both the First and some Third Quest advocators present the possibility of Christ being merely or either a teacher, a political activist, or both. The main focus then, due to the miraculous elements is to ask whether he consciously utilized deceptive tricks or in fact performed them supernaturally.

Strauss envisaged that since Jesus purposely avoided miraculous tricks amongst the educated body of religious scholars, he revealed the risk of being exposed.[44] However, the Gospel account challenges this perspective: 1) miracles were indeed performed in front of the religious leaders (Matt.9: 1-8), 2) and the miracles of Jesus were perceived by the religious leaders not as hoaxes but as demonical (Matt.9: 34; 12: 24).

This indeed seems to be confirmed by contemporary and later Jewish writings. Talmudic writings describe him as a practitioner of magic (Sanhedrin 43),[45] while Josephus describes him as a worker of mighty deeds (Testimonium Flavianum, Ant 18.3.3, 63-4).[46] Hence deducing the Jewish material, these support the notion that Jesus’ miracles would mainly have been perceived as supernatural within the educated circles.

Concerning the integrity of the historical Jesus, another possible motive is introduced by Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), one of the originators of the first quest. He excluded the notion of deception or political activism and portrayed Christ as a moral teacher who consciously believed in his own future resurrection and exalted glory.
He describes Jesus as unique and vital for the ongoing ethics of human history but as a failure in his eschatological predictions;[47] hence Jesus was not consciously a deceiver!

However, Schweitzer leaned toward Strauss’ theory that Jesus’ high views of himself were caused by possible psychiatric and hallucinating problems,[48] and this was the problem which the disciples later had to deal with.

Yet again, while Schweitzer’s postulate needs consideration, it does not explain the resurrection account or the continuous proclamation.

Conclusion

The fact remains that historical Jesus Christ cannot be fully assessed from history any more than any other ancient historical figure. The only reasonable conclusions are based upon an individual’s recognition of available sources, whether the Gospel accounts or the information provided from early church fathers; hence in all fairness Jesus is historical.

So far the debate concerns the Christological functions, his miracles and resurrection and whether these were fakes or acts of the supernatural? The only evidences are the sources which have not been proven to be corruptions, and which are backed up by both the resurrection paradox and the existence of the continuous proclamation. We can only assume therefore that these are historical probabilities. Following this, since the historical Jesus is so combined with the Christological functions, they are difficult to separate.

Kierkegaard might be correct in his strong emphasis on faith; yet unless we can move beyond the philosophical and speculative propositions and present the actual evidences against Jesus as being Christ, it still remains an historical probability that the Christological functions of the historical Jesus reveal him to be the exalted Christ.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Macquarrie, 1990:237
[2] ibid, 1990:240-2
[3] ibid, 1990:7
[4] Charlotte, 1998:149, 256-9
[5] Casey, 1991:97
[6] Sanders, 1993:57-63
[7] Allen, 1998:24
[8] Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1958:11-8
[9] ibid, 1958:18
[10] Bultmann, Faith and Understanding, 1969:262-4
[11] Meier, 1991:27
[12] Charlotte, 1998:250
[13] ibid, 1998:250-3
[14] Charlotte, 1998:263-4
[15] ibid 1998:276-7
[16] James Carleton Paget, Quests for the Historical Jesus, in the Cambridge Companion to Jesus, pp.152
[17] Meier, 1991:173
[18] Sanders, 1993:57-8
[19] ibid, 1993:76
[20] ibid, 1993:63-6
[21] Bruce, 1998:117-96
[22] Eusebius, 103-4
[23] see F.F. Bruce’s The Date and Character of Mark, in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, 69-91
[24] Eusebius, 101-3
[25] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
[26] Charlotte, 1998:114
[27] Ladd, 1989:41
[28] Strauss, 1973:704
[29] ibid, 1973:576-80
[30] ibid, 1973:704
[31] Strauss, 1973:718-44
[32] Pannenberg, 1968:97
[33] Brown, 1973:126-8
[34] Pannenberg, 1968:91
[35] Craig, 1984:182-185, see also Ladd, 1989:188, for a reference to Bultmann
[36] Voorst, 2000:122-6
[37] Crossan, 1989:154
[38] Charlotte, 1998:277
[39] Reimarus, 1970:154-5
[40] Brown, 1973:127
[41] Strauss, 1973:414-5
[42] Vermes, 1973:33-6, 69-80
[43] Crossan, 1989:102-22; 142-58
[44] Strauss, 1973:414-5
[45] Voorst 2000:114
[46] ibid, 2000:85
[47] Schweitzer, The Quest of the historical Jesus, 2000:477-87
[48] Schweitzer, The Psychiatric Study of Jesus, 1963:34-5, 40-1, 62-3, 72-3

A Short Review and Summary on Barth Ehrman’s book: ‘Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew’

Barth Ehrman’s recent book ‘Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew’ is yet another evidence of the recent awakening of historical interest and sympathy toward early Gnosticism, primarily as an alternative to the traditional Christian faith.

In his book Ehrman effectively depicts a confusing matrix of early Christianity that consisted of several factions. Among these significant doctrinal differences emerged, ranging from the belief in one God versus several gods, a fully human Jesus against a fully divine, to a Jesus with mixed natures or persons and a variety of ideas related to his mission.

Ehrman’s book is erudite and insightful; Ehrman most certainly has an overall purpose and also a targeted enemy whose agenda he clearly opposes. Otherwise, Ehrman’s approach is fairly balanced, and without being markedly biased, Ehrman effectively elaborates on the very wide amount of religious diversity and the various scholarly approaches that critically assess these views. As an author however, he also appears elusive in his opinions, almost agnostic, and it must be admitted that this approach makes his writing even more curious and attractive.

The fundamental basis of the book is how Ehrman perceives early Christianity and its sources. Here Ehrman appears truly agnostic but nevertheless positive. He describes carefully the great diversity of early Christianity, comprising the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Ebionites and what he entitles the proto-orthodox view.

Originally each of these views where considered equally valid.

Ehrman does not appear antagonistic to any of these factions. Rather he seems to value the excitement of such diversity. He perceives the Gnostic teachings as warm, sincere and moral, and apart from considering Herman Reimarus’s presupposition on Jesus, he defends even proto-orthodoxy, including Paul and describes Jesus and Paul as doctrinally united.

What Ehrman deplores however is the initial rise and power of proto-orthodoxy to become exclusively orthodox, which consequently suppressed this religious variety.

The objective of the book therefore seeks to identify the lost embryonic diversity of early Christianity and expose, not necessarily the proto-orthodox view but its leaders and apologists who forcefully established it as the sole criteria of truth.

Ehrman then launches a merciless attack on proto-orthodoxy leadership; four points are significant.

Firstly, he describes their attitude as particularly intolerant and ruthless, and describes their means to establish orthodoxy through ecclesiastical politics, polemics and the creation of nasty rumours to disgrace their opponents.

Secondly, Ehrman points out how this early diversity nevertheless has been vindicated by modern scholarship finally breaking away from orthodox suppression and in return resorting to debunk it.

Here particular references are given to Reimarus (1694-1768) who changed the traditional view of Jesus and Walter Baur (1877-1960) who attacked the historical foundation of proto-orthodoxy.

Thirdly, he attempts to exonerate the Gnostics from these accusations. Ehrman carefully examines Gnostic writings to deduce from them whether the accusations of immorality fit the character portrayed by the writers of proto-orthodoxy.

Fourthly, he assesses the attacks of proto-orthodoxy on the Gnostic doctrine of God and creation in which so much diversity exist that convergence is virtually impossible. Here Ehrman points out that Gnostics did not approach these matters literally but mainly through metaphorical descriptions.

Ehrman however, values some of the orthodox polemics for the sake of knowledge, particularly the ideas of Gnostic origins, which the apologists traced back to the Greek philosophers and which through early Jewish Hellenists were incorporated into a Christian framework. Ehrman points out that the Christian Gnosticism may have its origin in the dissolution of failed apocalyptic prophecy. Many Jews were probably losing their faith in the Old Testament God and considered such a God as evil, hence there had to exist another, greater God, namely the God of Jesus who provides salvation.

The main positive outcome of orthodoxy, according to Ehrman, was the result of unity, one faith, one creed, and one church, which provided the church with a

strong foundation.

Secondary to the objective of the book is Ehrman’s view of Scripture, its preservation and corruption. He makes a great deal out of Scriptural forgeries, both Gnostic and orthodox, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of Paul; some forgeries even made it into the Christian Canon, such as the Acts of the Apostles, Second Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles. Thus he considers the majority of the canonical writings as somehow original, first century compositions, while the Gnostic writings originated in the middle second century and onward.

He does however point out that the New Testament manuscripts were written late and that hundreds of thousands of errors have crept in. These errors are however of minor importance, mainly spelling and grammar error and easily recognisable; furthermore most of the textual transmission can be traced back to its origin effectively. He does however point out that some particular manuscripts do reveal words having been changed to fit a particular doctrine or to argue against a heresy, but these are refuted by the majority manuscripts.

This does not suggest though, that Ehrman is predominantly sympathetic toward orthodoxy versus the contrasting diversity; his assessment so far concerns merely what we are able to assess historically at the present time.

There are some weaknesses in Ehrman’s approach. The picture he presents of first century equality of Christian doctrinal variance and the ambition of one faction to establish its view as the orthodox one, cannot be explicitly confirmed by history. Unfortunately, Ehrman’s main intention seems to be combating the front figures of orthodoxy, which seems to be a driving force of a personal vendetta. It seems that he virtually favours and praises any individual or group that either opposed orthodoxy or became its victim, namely the Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites, and even orthodox figures such as Origin and the Theodotians. It appears that conflict with orthodoxy is to Ehrman a sign of personal approval. While criticism is launched on the heretics too, this is not done in the same spirit of aggression; unfortunately, despite his tendency of balance and carefulness, this creates a flavour of bigotry.

While he seems to lean more toward orthodoxy in its historical aspect and strength, he is more attracted to the image of Gnosticism as it portrays a god that fits the modern agnostic view of a purely positive god, who contrasts the Old Testament God, who commits atrocities and deprives women of their equal rights with men.

If this observation is true it suggests that the particular faction he favours in his battle against orthodoxy, retrospectively is based upon modern philosophy, modern situation and its approach to life, and the debate related to God and the problem of evil. If these are driving forth the historical conclusions in the book it is dubious indeed.

One remarkable statement however, that he uses to support his view is his point that virtually every church associated with Paul was affected by some sort of heresy; how is that possible if orthodoxy was originally predominant

To those of us who lean toward the views of orthodoxy and exclusive Christianity

this book is certainly thought-provocative and unless such a person knows this field of study, the book appears seriously challenging altogether, but it is certainly worthwhile to read. One cannot say however, that the book promotes sharp criticism against the traditional Christian faith, but rather against those who represented it. This suggests a strong agnostic notion that nevertheless puts forward a positive attitude toward religion, and while at least appearing sincere about the search for truth, while admitting ignorance it appeals to people, wishing for a very pluralistic alternative to one exclusive view.