Historian of Early Christianity waiting for school to start . . . ask me anything!

[billsherman]

The raising of Lazarus is found in only one Gospel, which I suppose must mean that it ranks pretty low down on the historicity scale.

For scholars who put significant weight on the criterion of multiple attestation, that is true. The miracle stories in general are difficult to deal with historically, because miraculous events by definition break the known rules.

On the other hand, there are some authors who claim that it was this event, rather than Palm Sunday or the cleansing of the Temple or anything he said in his preaching, that prompted Annas and Caiaphas to lose no more time and to have Jesus arrested and handed over to Pilate to be crucified. Does that make sense to you?

I don’t see why. Aren’t there stories of Jesus raising two others from the dead? And I don’t understand why that would get someone executed.

If not, what exactly, in your view, was the Temple authorities’ main charge against Jesus, calling for urgent action?

Causing trouble. Jesus was clearly not interested in Roman or Jewish politics, but he was deeply subversive of the social order. All that talk about the meek inheriting the Earth, the last being first stuff, etc. That is the controversial Jesus, and that is why he was killed. People get killed for trying to subvert the social order. Look at the Jesuits in El Salvador, or Archibishop Romero. They were killed for preaching the radical message of Jesus. That can get you killed. In my very non-historical opinion, more Christians could do to remember that.

 

[billsherman]

The Jefferson bible: could it be said that it encapsulates the “Historical Jesus” person?

No. The miracle stories, in particular, are central to him. Since historians can’t verify them, to me it doesn’t matter if they actually happened. What matters is that people around him believed they happened. And that we can prove. The miracles are just as important part of Jesus as his parables, followers, and eschatological preaching.

 

[billsherman]

I can’t help but think that Christ must be somewhat irritated at what His beautiful gospel has been turned into by so many!

I think God has a pretty good sense of humor. How else can you explain the platypus?

 

[billsherman]

One of the things that has struck me is that many NT scenes are theatrical (in the way of Greek drama) which makes me wonder whether drama/performance was seen as means of conveying the story and the message?

Of course. Where do you think preaching originated? There are, in fact, many rhetorical devices found in the New Testament that are similar to those found in Greek literature. Most of the New Testament was written by and for Greeks after all.

Luke, in general, is the author who best encapsulates the Greek ideal of a story teller. He is particularly influenced by Greek historians.

 

[billsherman]

So another question, why do some people question the authenticity of some Pauline letters, most notably Hebrews.

Predominantly because of linguistic issues. There are clear stylistic differences in some of the letters - these differences are usually smoothed out in translations, but are stark in Greek. There are also some internal clues in a few of them.

Hebrews in particular has always been in doubt. Even going back to the first century, its authorship has been debated.

How accurately have the Gospels been preserved?

Most modern historians believe that each gospel went through a broad composition process by several redactors, before becoming the versions we have today. Based on early quotes we have, I am confident that the gospels we have today are rather close to the redacted forms in circulation around 100 AD.

Do we know who the writers of the Gospels were?

In short, no. Only John is attributed in the text, and virtually all scholars reject that attribution. There are early sources that identify them with their attributed authors, but all of these are at least a generation after the composition - and the church fathers clearly weren’t that familiar with how they were composed. That wasn’t their concern, of course.

As I mentioned above, it is most likely that at least Matthew, Luke, and John actually had multiple redactors over several years. Each one added, removed, or reworked material until the text was considered “done.”

 

[billsherman]

Even if Queen Salome had bequeathed her throne to an heir who had what it takes to make Judea a well governed country, was there a real chance that it might have survived as an independent kingdom? Or would Rome have stepped in anyway?

I imagine Rome would have arrived on the scene eventually. Rome was in the midst of a massive territorial expansion at the time, and that thirst is rarely quenched. An army to a politician is like candy to a child. They just can’t help themselves.

I may be projecting a twentieth-century Cold War mindset back onto the Augustan age, but I suspect that Rome would never have tolerated a neutral buffer state anywhere on the coast of the Mare Nostrum, in particular at a point so close to Parthia.

I suspect you’re correct. Rome was well aware of the strategic value of the region.

 

[Raafat]

In short, no. Only John is attributed in the text, and virtually all scholars reject that attribution. There are early sources that identify them with their attributed authors, but all of these are at least a generation after the composition - and the church fathers clearly weren’t that familiar with how they were composed. That wasn’t their concern, of course.

So what promoted early church fathers to accept some as “canonical” and some as apocryphal? According to their whims?

 

[fredystairs]

Most modern historians believe that each gospel went through a broad composition process by several redactors, before becoming the versions we have today. Based on early quotes we have, I am confident that the gospels we have today are rather close to the redacted forms in circulation around 100 AD.

As I mentioned above, it is most likely that at least Matthew, Luke, and John actually had multiple redactors over several years. Each one added, removed, or reworked material until the text was considered “done.”

What evidence is there that the Gospels went through a editing process? What was that process, how was it done? What early quotes are you referring to?

Thank you.

 

[billsherman]

So what promoted early church fathers to accept some as “canonical” and some as apocryphal? According to their whims?

“Whim” is a bit of a loaded word, but the general idea is accurate. They accepted some as “authentic” and others as “inauthentic” largely due to their theological concerns. They generally assumed even the “inauthentic” material was historical. Their problems with it was doctrinal. Remember, these were the men who were in the long process of defining orthodoxy.

 

[billsherman]

What evidence is there that the Gospels went through a editing process?

The evidence for this is based on textual criticism. This is a process by which manuscripts are compared against each other and the changes are carefully examined. In addition, the process breaks down the material at a linguistic level in order to help detect passages that were added or changed by other redactors. These techniques are astoundingly accurate when applied to blind samples from all known languages and times. There is no reason to think somehow the gospels are exceptions.

What was that process, how was it done?

This is unclear. In all likelihood there was no “process.” Many of the changes were probably made in the process of copying (for example, of the 60 or so examples of Matthew that exist from prior to 600, none are identical), but others were clearly purposeful additions (like the long ending to Mark). More information on this process would be welcome to any historian.

What early quotes are you referring to?

I meant early quotations from the gospels themselves. These are helpful to textual critics in determining how the text has been transmitted across the centuries.

 

[Raafat]

“Whim” is a bit of a loaded word, but the general idea is accurate. They accepted some as “authentic” and others as “inauthentic” largely due to their theological concerns. They generally assumed even the “inauthentic” material was historical. Their problems with it was doctrinal. Remember, these were the men who were in the long process of defining orthodoxy.

How did their orthodoxy came to be?
So they weren’t concerned about who wrote what? Just the message according to what they see as orthodox.

 

[billsherman]

How did their orthodoxy came to be?

They invented it. The people who invented it, got to define it, and they defined their opponents as heterodox. The early Church was messy.

So they weren’t concerned about who wrote what? Just the message according to what they see as orthodox.

They certainly weren’t overly concerned with questions of historicity. For modern historians that makes our job a lot harder. They never investigated claims of authorship, oral transmission, or even appear to have looked into how source documents were used. These are modern historical concerns. Their concerns were purely theological.

 

[GKMotley]

History, generally, is messy. What with people, and all.

 

[BartholomewB]

Bill, repeating two earlier questions of mine that you missed:

(1) In one of his books about the Dead Sea scrolls, Edmund Wilson mentions a hypothesis that the authors of the NT books, when they quote from “the Law and the Prophets,” were not quoting directly from the scrolls of the Hebrew Bible, either in the original or in translation. Instead, they were probably using a compilation of snippets from the OT arranged under headings such as “messianic,” “legal,” “apocalyptic,” and so on. This would explain—according to Wilson—why all too often it turns out that the OT passage seems to have been misquoted or misattributed or, worse still, is simply untraceable. Justin Martyr drew attention to this problem as early as the mid-second century. In his Dialogue with Trypho he accuses “the Jews” of tampering with the Hebrew text so as to omit or distort the passages quoted in the NT.

Wilson concedes that up until the time of writing (in the 1960s) researchers had failed to identify any Christian compilation from such an early date, though one of the first Dead Sea scrolls to be pieced together and published was just such a reference work, evidently intended for the use of the Qumran community. My question now is this: In the fifty years or more since Wilson published his book, what has happened to the “testimonia” hypothesis? Is it still around? Has anyone attempted to take the research any further? Or has it disappeared down the memory hole?

(2) Paul’s death isn’t mentioned in Acts. Different authors give different explanations for the omission. Have you ever looked into this question?

 

[billsherman]

repeating two earlier questions of mine that you missed:

Sorry about that! Please accept my apologies.

Justin Martyr drew attention to this problem as early as the mid-second century. In his Dialogue with Trypho he accuses “the Jews” of tampering with the Hebrew text so as to omit or distort the passages quoted in the NT.

One thing that recent scholarship has been able to show, is that some of the early apologists were particularly anti-Semitic. Justin Martyr did not understand Hebrew, but wrote at least one (and possibly several that have been lost) deeply antagonistic attacks on Jews.

In the fifty years or more since Wilson published his book, what has happened to the “testimonia” hypothesis? Is it still around? Has anyone attempted to take the research any further? Or has it disappeared down the memory hole?

Wilson’s hypothesis has mostly fallen out of favor. Scholars today are fairly certain that most of the early Christians making these arguments (like Martyr) did not understand Hebrew well enough (if at all) to make meaningful contributions to the debate. Like much of the early antisemitism within Christianity, these people were trying to make a political point, rather than a historical one (i.e. they were deliberately trying to paint Jews as a “cursed people,” to use the phrase of Martyr).

(2) Paul’s death isn’t mentioned in Acts. Different authors give different explanations for the omission. Have you ever looked into this question?

My suspicion is just that since Paul is Luke’s hero in Acts, Luke just couldn’t have him die at the end of the story. There is no evidence for why Paul’s death (or Peter’s death, etc.) was left out, so we are left with guesses. That’s mine.

 

[HarryStotle]

Two reasons: First, evangelizing is fundamentally about convincing someone of your point of view. That means it is by definition, not objective.

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. It would only mean that if your “point of view” itself is not objective. If your point of view happens to be essentially the truth of what actually occurred, then your point of view is, by definition, the objective one.

I see a great deal of “evangelizing” of your own point of view in your answers, which, by your definition would make them not objective. Unless, of course, you assume that your point of view is the “objective” one. The problem is that those who purport to promote “objective” views are, in fact, concealing their subjective “point of view” behind a guise of objectivity. That is fundamentally dishonest.

Playing up certain “facts” and playing down other facts establishes or clouds the point of view or lens through which the truth of things needs to be viewed. Historians today establish AND cloud things as poorly as anyone else, it is just that they have access to a greater body of factual data from which to pick and choose which facts get played up or down, and thus fewer and fewer opposing views can get in the way of their establishing their own pet theory as the objective one – provided they have armed themselves with an arsenal of carefully selected “facts” to support their privileged point of view.

A cursory glance through the history of Scripture study shows that, especially in the past three hundred years, the “objective” theory du jour functions much like a bandwagon rolling through town.

 

[HarryStotle]

Second, even though the Gospels are the most significant sources on the life of Jesus, they can not be seen as simply objective views of history because of both their heavy editorial content and because all four Gospels narrate the same scenes differently, in different order, or place sometimes very different words in the mouths of characters.

Actually, police detectives determine the reliability of eyewitnesses by the discordance in their testimonies. If they are too much the same, collusion is very likely. It is in reconciling the surface differences between accounts that the real events can be ascertained. The fact that you claim differences in the narratives among the Gospels is the fundamental reason for dismissing them as valid historical accounts shows that you don’t really understand how eyewitness testimony is to be properly assessed.

Your use of the term “heavily editorial content” actually reveals your own subjective “point of view,” which according to your own rules would make your determinations “not objective.”

It isn’t that I object to you providing your point of view, but rather in the portrayal of the views of certain modern text critics as the “objective” ones as if the case has been closed on the matter. It hasn’t.

The two-source solution to the synoptic problem isn’t as compelling as its made out to be and the late dating of the Gospels that you seem to take as gospel (pardon the pun) is fundamentally flawed since it has no real historical evidence to support it. You have to presuppose a great deal and dismiss a great deal of evidence to buy into it. Which is why it is merely another “point of view,” and not as objective as some suppose it to be.

 

[HarryStotle]

My suspicion is just that since Paul is Luke’s hero in Acts, Luke just couldn’t have him die at the end of the story. There is no evidence for why Paul’s death (or Peter’s death, etc.) was left out, so we are left with guesses. That’s mine.

Luke is big on martyrdom – he records a number of them. He also spends a great deal of ink showing that the lives of Paul and Peter are recapitulations of the life of Jesus. His account of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul would perfectly round out and bring to a theological close his entire theological purpose for writing them in the first place. Yet, he says nothing. Paul being Luke’s hero would be far better served by Luke reporting that this hero, Paul, died in the same manner that his Lord Jesus did. Your reason is not only weak, but self-refuting.

A far better reason for Luke not reporting the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul is because they hadn’t happened yet. That would put the writing of Acts before ~64 AD and the Gospel of Luke around or before 60. Which means, if you suppose Markan priority, Mark and, very likely, Matthew were written before that. Mid-fifties for Mark.
That completely changes the picture of the Gospels as eyewitness testimonies. See how much one simple presumption radically changes the entire “point of view?”

 

[billsherman]

I see a great deal of “evangelizing” of your own point of view in your answers, which, by your definition would make them not objective. Unless, of course, you assume that your point of view is the “objective” one. The problem is that those who purport to promote “objective” views are, in fact, concealing their subjective “point of view” behind a guise of objectivity. That is fundamentally dishonest.

You have not understood me correctly then. My sincerest apologies. The fault lies entirely with me.

History is not about being objective. Such a thing is impossible for a historian (I can recommend Peter Novick’s fine “That Noble Dream” on this topic).

History is about following evidence wherever it leads you. Historians will, and do, differ about where it leads you - life would be boring if we all ended up in the same place. That is not a lack of objectivity, it is a lack of consensus. Two very different things. If you show me the evidence that I am wrong, I may or may not agree with you, but I will be able to explain why I believe the way I do.

Evangelization is about faith, Truth, or other theological concerns. These are many things, but they are not objective. They can’t be, because they all require a subjective set of beliefs as preconditions. If Truth could be objective, there would probably be far more religious agreement in this world.

Historians today establish AND cloud things as poorly as anyone else, it is just that they have access to a greater body of factual data from which to pick and choose which facts get played up or down, and thus fewer and fewer opposing views can get in the way of their establishing their own pet theory as the objective one – provided they have armed themselves with an arsenal of carefully selected “facts” to support their privileged point of view.

That isn’t what we do. I highly suggest you spend some serious time reading scholarly (not popular) history before condemning an entire profession.

A cursory glance through the history of Scripture study shows that, especially in the past three hundred years, the “objective” theory du jour functions much like a bandwagon rolling through town.

I am not surprised a cursory glance would reveal this. That is why scholars exist. Major trends in the historiography are certainly not riding a bandwagon. For starters you can pick up James Dunn’s “Christianity in the Making.” It will show you how the scholarship on early Christianity has developed over the centuries. I’m happy to answer any questions you have about it.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you show me the evidence that I am wrong, I may or may not agree with you, but I will be able to explain why I believe the way I do.

How is that not “evangelizing?”

Evangelization is about faith, Truth, or other theological concerns. These are many things, but they are not objective. They can’t be, because they all require a subjective set of beliefs as preconditions.

Interesting how “evangelizing” is characterized as “theological,” but “subjective beliefs as preconditions” with regard to history isn’t “evangelizing.”

If Truth could be objective, there would probably be far more religious agreement in this world.

You can only make that claim with the assumption that “religious truth” is entirely innocuous. That implies agreement in the religious realm ought to be the norm because there is nothing of substance in religious truth that really needs to be haggled over – just everyone agree because nothing really hangs on it.

Unlike history, I suppose, which is entirely an academic exercise and anyone who attempts to impose an “agenda” is to be dismissed outright because they have misunderstood the innocuous intent of historians from the get go.

Perhaps the Truth is entirely objective which is why we don’t have “agreement in this world,” i.e., a great deal does indeed hang on the Truth and not everyone will agree to what may cost them a great deal – as for example, it cost Jesus, and Paul, and Peter, and the early Church, and perhaps even historians who don’t fall into the “history is innocuous” camp?