|
| |
Skeptical of Skepticism
By Bavinck
Did Jesus really exist? Not only Christians but probably most non-Christian historians answer this question in the affirmative. For the most part, it seems that critics of the Biblical Jesus don't question Jesus' existence but instead question the picture that the canonical Gospels paint of Jesus. Christianity often finds itself defending the historicity of specific canonical statements concerning Jesus but not his mere existence. However, the more extreme skeptic might question Jesus' existence and argue that there was no historical figure of Jesus. The present essay responds to the view that Jesus never existed and attempts to point out problems with the extreme skepticism behind this view.
In attempting to reconstruct the historical Jesus, scholars often rely on the canonical Gospels as evidence. There are a number of critical tools that historians can use to show material in the canonical Gospels as historically probable. For example, it is unlikely that the canonical authors would have fabricated material that was potentially embarrassing to early Christianity; and thus, such material has strong likelihood of being historical. Likewise, material that is dissimilar to early Christian thought and practice also has strong likelihood of being genuine. Finally, there is source independence across the canonical documents that gives us multiple attestation of Gospel material. These three criteria of embarrassment, dissimilarity and multiple attestation can establish strong probability to much of what the canonical documents say about him. The point here isn't that we should categorize as non-historical that which these criteria fail to identify. Instead, these criteria offer strong argument that much of the canonical material accurately reflects the historical Jesus. Granted, Robert Funk and Roy Hoover of the Jesus Seminar claim to show that Jesus only said 20% of what the Gospels depict him as saying (The Five Gospels, 1993, p. 5). However, we might restate this sensational Seminar claim and say that historical criticism confirms that Jesus said at least 20% of what the Gospels purport. In this case, we might take the other 80% by faith and use the 20% as an historical basis for this faith. If historical criticism shows part of the Gospels to be historically likely, then this apologetically grounds the Christian faith in history and supports the whole as reasonable.
The more extreme skeptic however, might reject the 20% of the Jesus Seminar and instead see the Gospels as total fabrication. An extreme skeptical argument is that the Apostle Paul made up the notion of Jesus, and the Gospels are a later spin off from Christianity as started by Paul. At any rate, extreme skeptics seem to launch their argument from rejection of the canonical Gospels and Pauline corpus and then demand that Christians produce independent corroboration of Jesus' existence. In other words, the skeptics demand documentary evidence from other than Christian documents. Now certainly it is important to consider early non-Christian sources that pertain to Jesus' existence. However, we don't need to vindicate the canonical material by corroborating it from non-Christian sources. Instead, corroboration from non-Christian sources provides additional augment to an already established argument from the canonical documents. The historicity of Jesus doesn't stand or fall on corroboration from non-Christian material. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument this essay plays the skeptics' game of looking for non-Christian corroboration of the existence of Jesus. The intent of this is to beat the skeptics at their own game.
Before presenting the non-canonical evidence, it is important that we first discuss the use of evidence in historical reconstruction. The historian is unlike the scientist, in that the historian can't use experimentation and observation to test theories. Instead, the historian tests theories against bits and pieces of historical evidence. The theory that best explains all the evidence is the most corroborated. Other theories that disregard pieces of evidence and only explain a subset of the evidence lack corroboration. All the evidence is important to the historian because each piece of evidence is yet another part of an incomplete puzzle. Each piece of this puzzle takes the historian closer to understanding the whole. It is a mistake, therefore, to disregard partial evidence on the basis of it not proving the whole. We can't completely observe the whole picture of history, and our reconstruction depends on all evidence that we possess, in all its imperfect parts.
The skeptic who asks for anything like scientific evidence sets up a false analogy and simply doesn't ask for historical evidence. It is also a false analogy for the skeptic to ask for evidence that would prevail in a court of law. While the skeptic may or may not explicitly use a court analogy, it seems that the more extreme skeptic still tends to presupposes a court test for evidence. The skeptic can appear as a defense attorney who pleads that evidence be ruled inadmissible. In a criminal court, there is a formal bias for the defendant's innocence. The defense attorney attempts to discredit evidence that seems damaging to the defense. Often the defense asks the court to find such evidence as inadmissible and to keep it from the jury's consideration. This certainly isn't like the historian who instead must resist the temptation to ignore this or that little piece of evidence. The more pieces of evidence that the historian's theory can explain, the more that theory seems likely. The historian often has nothing but secondary and circumstantial evidence yet wouldn't think of categorizing this evidence as inadmissible. The historian isn't a defense attorney that is more interested in discrediting evidence than in using evidence to reconstruct history.
As is often the case with historical reconstruction, the evidence for Jesus is imperfect. However, The question of Jesus' historicity isn't one of "proof" in some ideal sense. Instead, it is a question of likelihood. If the evidence establishes strong likelihood of Jesus' existence, then this is about all that one can expect from the evidence. The skeptic who demands proof analogous to scientific or legal proof simply isn't facing that the issue is one of likelihood and not proof. An important point here is that if the evidence establishes strong likelihood of Jesus' existence, then there is also strongly likelihood that the skeptics are wrong in arguments against Jesus existence. In this case, these skeptics will be pushing against the weight of the evidence, and this will give us good reason to be skeptical of these skeptics.
A good place to start among the non-Christian material is Josephus' book, The Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus was a 1st century Palestine Jew who in his later years moved to Rome and wrote two major historical works: The Antiquities of the Jews, and The Wars of the Jews. Since Josephus was born in 37 CE, he obviously couldn't have been a eye witness of Jesus who died about 29-33 CE. However, being an educated political and religious figure in Palestine, Josephus would have almost certainly been aware of any common 1st century Jewish perspective about the origin and claims of early Christianity. In the extant copies of Josephus' Antiquities, there are two references to a Jesus that obviously pertains to the Christian Jesus. However, at least one of these references clearly seems to involve the work of a later Christian scribal hand. This reference, Ant. 18:63-64, at least in part seems spurious. Some scholars have even argued that it is completely Christian interpolation. However, the majority of scholars, whether Christian or not, seem to accept the other reference, Ant. 20,200, as genuine. In this reference Josephus speaks of an incident in 62 CE when Ananus a new high priest in Jerusalem named Ananus eliminated many of his enemies. This occurred when the Roman Albinus was traveling to Palestine as the replacement for the recently deceased Roman procurator Festus. The temporary absence of Roman authority in Palestine gave Ananus the opportunity to kill his enemies. Concerning
Ananus' elimination of his enemies, Josephus explains the following:
>>>Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim
of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Ant. 20,200).<<<
There simply isn't reason to doubt the authenticity of Ant. 20,200. It is present in all extant manuscripts of Antiquities and neither its wording or context suggests Christian scribal addition. Granted it is possible that interpolation is involved; however, Josephus is the accepted author of Antiquities, and nothing about 20,200 suggests that it specifically is other than by Josephus' hand. Thus, specific interpolation in 20,200 is unlikely. The burden of proof so to speak rests on the skeptic who argues for specific interpolation in 20,200. Now in assuming this burden, the skeptic is without evidence since the passage on all accounts has no appearance of interpolation.
Granted the skeptic might point to the apparent Christian interpolation in Ant. 18,63-64 as sufficient reason to suspect such in 20,200 as well. However, just because both passages mention "Jesus" doesn't mean that both are interpolation. Also, there is clearly a difference between the two passages, and this difference suggests that unlike 18,63-64, Ant. 20,200 is genuine Josephus. While 18,63-64 has grandiose Christian language that glorifies Jesus as the Christ, 20,200 doesn't. Instead, 20,200 has incidental and neutral language for Jesus, that is quite unlike that of 18,63-64. The words of Ant. 20,200 that say of Jesus, "who was called Christ" are markedly more neutral than the words of 18:63-64, "He was the Christ." Also obviously Christian sounding are the words of 18:63-64, "Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man..." The grandiose religious language of 18,63-64 is clearly different from the words of 20,200, "who was called Christ." The obvious interpolation in 18,63-64 clearly contrast with the incidental and neutral sounding 20,200; and thus, the latter simply doesn't sound like interpolation.
The skeptic might here agree that 20,200 doesn't involve intentional Christian scribal addition, but instead suggest that it involves unintentional addition of a marginal note. The suggestion here is that perhaps a scribe wrote a clarifying note in the margin, and then a later scribe inadvertently added this marginal note into the text. While there is no evidence to suspect this, it is perhaps a better suggestion than that 20,200 involves intentional Christian addition. The words of 20,200 that could have the look of an added marginal note are, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." These words function to define what James died at the hands of the high priest
Ananus. Now if these or similar words weren't in the original text, then it is easy to see why a scribe would have added clarification in the margin. Without clarification, James would just be one of many unknown countless men called James, and this leaves the text very ambiguous. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Josephus failed to define the James in question. Not supplying clarification such as this isn't characteristic of Josephus who characteristically defines people in terms of personal relations. If Josephus defined James, as it seems he would have, then there wouldn't have been need for marginal clarification. Clearly then, marginal addition as an explanation of this passage seems very unlikely.
It appears that neither intentional Christian propaganda nor unintentional marginal addition is involved in 20,200. The passage simply doesn't appear to involve either. Instead, it has the look of being genuine Josephus. This seems evident from the general appearance of the passage, but it also seems evident from further consideration of the passage. Whether intentional propaganda or marginal addition, the scribes involved would still be Christian, and a Christian in defining James probably wouldn't have said, "brother of Jesus," but instead said. "brother of the Lord." The argument here is that early Christian usage tended to speak of a relative of "the Lord" and not "of Jesus." John P. Meier in volume one of his monumental, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, argues that neither the New Testament nor the earliest patristic writings denote the brother or family of Jesus with the term "Jesus." Instead, they use the more respectful construction involving "Lord." This seems apparent from the following quotations:
>>>But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother (Gal 1:19).<<<
>>>Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and
Cephas? (I Co. 9:5).<<<
>>>But the Jews, after Paul had appealed to Caesar, and had been sent by Festus to Rome, frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares they had laid, turn themselves against James, the bother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem was committed by the apostles
(Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. 2,23).<<<
>>>But after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as our Lord had for the same reason, Simeon, the son of Cleophas our Lord's uncle, was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed, as the cousin of our Lord
(Hegesippus in Eusebius, Hist. 4,22).<<<
Since the evidence speaks of relatives of Jesus as of "the Lord/Savior" and not "Jesus," it seems that early Christianity typically used "the Lord/Savior" and not "Jesus." It doesn't work to argue that the hypothetical Josephus scribe wasn't aware of the above examples, and thus wouldn't have used "Lord" instead of "Jesus." This doesn't work because the scribe was almost certainly familiar with the Pauline passages. Also, since the above examples apparently reflect broad normative usage, the use of "Lord" most likely wasn't restricted to these passages. Given that there isn't sufficient reason to suspect interpolation in the first place, then this argument from apparent normative early Christian usage is particularly strong. Not only is there a lack of evidence to suggest specific interpolation in Ant. 20,200, but there is specific evidence that suggests that there isn't interpolation.
Another point that Meier raises against interpolation is that the mid 2nd century
Hegesippus, the later Clement of Alexandria and the 4th century Eusebius relay a different martyrdom of James tradition than does Ant. 20,200. This strongly suggests that 20,200 isn't early Christian interpolative propaganda. Granted, a hypothetical interpolating Christian scribe might not have been aware of Hegesippus nor even Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius is later than the hypothetical interpolation). However, a Christian scribe is exactly the type of person who would be familiar with these works. More important here is that these works clearly seem to reflect early normative Christian tradition. A Christian scribe would have likely conformed to this tradition whether or not that scribe was familiar with Hegesippus or Clement of Alexandria. The point is that the scribe would probably have been aware of this tradition and would have employed it and not something incongruent with it as we find in Ant. 20,200.
Overall, the evidence indicates that Ant. 20,200 is very likely genuine Josephus and thus provides independent non-Christian verification of Jesus' existence. There is no viable argument to doubt its genuineness, and there is even positive argument for accepting it. As it stands, it is more than enough to provide independent attestation to Jesus' existence. Again, the event that Josephus describes involves a James of 62 CE and defines this James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." Two things are important concerning this passage. The first is that it clearly speaks of the existence of a Jesus that was called Christ, and does so within the correct time period that makes sense with the Gospels. This in itself strongly corroborates Jesus' existence. The second important point is that like the New Testament, 20,200 depicts Jesus as having a brother named James who is associated with the Law. Given this corroborative detail, it seems that the best and only reasonable explanation is that Josephus in this passage speaks of the New Testament Jesus, and thus corroborates his existence apart from Christian documentary evidence.
There is also the other passage in Josephus, which is the one that clearly seems to involve Christian interpolation. This passage is the Testimonium Flavianum of Ant. 18:63-64. It clearly seems that a Christian hand has influenced this passage, which is evidence from the following translation:
>>>Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.<<<
The majority of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, see the Testimonium as involving Christian embellishment or revision. However, it seems that the majority don't see it as 100% forgery or interpolation. Granted, Christian embellishment leaves the exact wording of the underlying text uncertain, but the apparent underlying text still seems to verify Jesus' existence. Granted a few individuals have argued that Josephus' hand doesn't underlie this passage because as they argue the
Testimonium breaks the narrative progression of Antiquities 18. Now it is true that the
Testimonium's overdone Christian language gives it an odd appearance; yet, beyond this observation, this argument seems to subjectively presuppose what Josephus must have said. Also, if Ant. 18:63-64 is embellishment of a simple report of Jesus' death, then it does seem to fit into its immediate context. As Meier points out, directly before the
Testimonium Josephus speaks of Pilate's solders killing many Jews (60-62) and directly after speaks of others being crucified (65-80). A short report of Jesus' death by Pilate fits quite well within this context!
It is also interesting that the 3rd century Origen speaks of Josephus as "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" (Contra Celsus 1:47). Origen says this when he quotes Ant. 20,200. Again, Josephus in 20,200 is neutral toward Jesus and just says that Jesus was "called Christ." Thus, it seems that Origen is perhaps aware of a passage other than 20,200 in which Josephus rejects Jesus as Christ. Now it seems that the only other passage that it could be is Ant. 18,63-64 as it stood before what was probably 4th century Christian embellishment.
Finally, Josephus' non-Testimonium reference to Jesus of Ant. 20,200 seems to presuppose an earlier reference to Jesus as called Christ. Ant. 20,200, identifies a man named James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." This method of identifying James with his brother Jesus presupposes that Jesus is well know to the reader, otherwise it wouldn't clarify the identify of James. This strongly suggests that Josephus had previously mentioned Jesus who is called Christ. Now in the extant text of Antiquities, the only passage before 20,200 that mentions a Jesus who fits the idea of being "called Christ" is a pre-embellished text behind the Testimonium of 18:63-64. This clearly suggests that the Testimonium is the previous reference to Jesus, or at least that the pre-embellished text is.
There are other reasons for taking the Testimonium as Christian embellishment and not 100% interpolation. A number of terms in the Testimonium are incongruent with early Christian usage but make sense in 1st century Jewish usage. This strongly suggests the existence of an underlying text written by Josephus that has been altered by a later Christian hand. The reader who is interested in this linguistic evidence should consult the above mentioned work by Meier. A final important point is that even Pilate killing Jesus in the
Testimonium sounds more Jewish than Christian. We might expect an early Christian of the Roman empire to blame the Jews instead of the Roman Pilate. This observation gives this part of the text added probability of being genuine. In summary, it seems that the Testimonium is embellishment of an underlying text that verifies Jesus' existence and his death by Pilate's hand. Still, when it comes to establishing the mere existence of Jesus, it's not the Testimonium that is the best evidence in Josephus. Instead, it is obviously Ant. 20,200. Nothing gives 20,200 the look of interpolation, not even the look of embellishment. There is even positive reason for seeing 20,200 as genuine Josephus. It is more than enough to provide independent attestation to Jesus' existence.
Further, independent support for the existence of Jesus exists in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus who lived from the mid 1st century into the 2nd. In his Annals, which he wrote at about 115 AD, Tacitus explains that the emperor Nero blamed the burning of Rome of 64 CE on Christians in the hope of stopping a rumor that Nero himself was responsible. Concerning Nero and the Christians of Rome, Tacitus explains the following:
>>>Therefore, in order to suppress the rumor, Nero falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, those persons who, hated for their crimes, were commonly called Christians. The founder of that name,
Christus, had been put to death by the procurator of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, in the reign of
Tiberius<<<
Tacitus speaks of Christians in 64 AD being called "Christians" after the name of their founder
"Christus" who is certainly Jesus Christ. Tacitus is apparently so used to hearing Jesus called "Christ" that he has mistakenly taken this messianic title as the proper name,
Christus. Now it is important that we no make too much of what Tacitus says in this passage. He clearly wasn't an eyewitness of Jesus and perhaps not even to official documents from Palestine concerning Jesus' death by the Roman Pilate. The latter is possible but perhaps not even probable. Thus, it would be to overstate the case if we were to regard Tacitus as anything other than secondary evidence, meaning without first hand knowledge of Jesus. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that Tacitus is useless as evidence for Jesus' existence. It would be to falsely apply the court of law analogy to historical reconstruction if we were to
dismiss Tacitus as inadmissible evidence.
Tacitus was probably familiar with Christian claims concerning Jesus, specifically his death at the hands of Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius. The point here is that it is possible and perhaps likely that
Tacitus' information comes primarily from Christian claim and not from official Roman reports. However, we must remember that Tacitus was an educated Roman historian and as such certainly had informed opinions concerning the factuality of popular views of recent history. This being the case, it seems very unlikely that he would have stated what he does if he had any reason to doubt that Christianity's founder existed and died by Pilate's hand during Tiberius' reign. Certainly an educated 1st-2nd century Roman of
Tacitus' caliber wouldn't have spoken of Christianity's founder being killed by Pilate if Tacitus knew of valid reason to doubt Jesus' existence. Tacitus apparently doesn't see any reason to doubt Jesus existence, and this provides good evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Another case of non-Christian documentary evidence that supports Jesus' existence is the letter of Mara bar Sarapion to his son. Mara bar Sarapion was a Syrian stoic who while in a Roman jail wrote a letter to his son, and a copy of this letter is extant. This letter seems to date from about 73 CE. Mara bar Sarapion isn't Christian, and probably isn't an eye witness of Jesus. He discusses the killing of three wise men of history, and he seems to depict Jesus as one of them. He seems to refer to Jesus with the following two comments:
>>>What did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on<<<
>>>Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera's statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law which he has given<<<
In corroborating Jesus existence, this documentary evidence isn't as strong as that provided by Josephus nor perhaps even
Tacitus. Still, it does have value and adds to the growing momentum from Josephus and Tacitus for Jesus' existence. Mara bar Sarapion doesn't mention the name "Jesus," but his speaking of the Jew's wise king whom they killed sure sounds like Jesus. Now, because Mara bar Sarapion sees this wise king as living on through his new law, it seems that he either hadn't heard of the resurrection or didn't accept it. Nevertheless, he does seem to believe that the Jew's had killed their wise king who had taught a new law and whose death was followed by the War of 66-72. At any rate, Mara bar Sarapion's letter clearly seems to shows that a 1st century non-Christians thought that Jesus existed, apparently without doubting that he did. It's value as evidence is similar to that of
Tacitus, which shows that an educated non-Christian Roman of the late 1st and early 2nd century also saw no reason to doubt Jesus' existence.
The evidence from Tacitus and Mara bar Sarapion strongly suggests that educated 1st century non-Christians saw no reason to doubt that Jesus had existed. Instead, it seems that they accepted that he did. This also seems evident from the rabbinical literature of the Talmud. It is true that the apparent Talmudic references to Jesus seem to consist largely of responses to Christian claims. Many scholars doubt the possibility of reconstructing any reliable independent Jewish tradition concerning Jesus from this literature. It seems that at best the rabbinical literature offers a few instances of 2nd century and later attempts by rabbis to discredit the Christianity of their day. Perhaps these rabbis used some limited older independent Jesus tradition, but reliably identifying this tradition seems next to impossible. While some scholars think otherwise, rabbinical literature seems virtually useless in reconstructing particular facts about Jesus. However, it does seem to have value in supporting that Jesus existed. Passages such as bSanh 43a;
Sanb. 10:1-2, Abot 5:19 and Aboda Zara 16b-17 have the purpose of discrediting Christianity by attacking Jesus. However, while using a variety of means to attacking Jesus, there is apparently no instance in which this literature questions Jesus' existence. It seems that if the 2nd century and later compilers of the rabbinical literature had known any reason to doubt Jesus' existence, they would have included this in the attempt to discredit Christianity. It seems, then, that rabbinical Judaism saw no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus. This is particularly important because rabbinical Judaism was certainly interested in Jewish oral tradition. The point here is that rabbinical Judaism was in a position to know of any reason to doubt Jesus existence, and it clearly had motivation to exploit any such knowledge. However, rabbinical Judaism clearly didn't exploit such knowledge; and thus, quite apparently saw no reason to doubt Jesus existence. This leaves us with strong reason to conclude that Jesus did in fact exist. When we couple this with Tacitus showing that an educated late 1st century Roman also saw no reason to doubt Jesus existence, this line of argument for Jesus existence becomes weighty, indeed.
As I explained at the beginning of this essay, the historicity of Jesus doesn't stand or fall on corroboration from non-Christian material. I believe that the canonical documents provide sufficient evidence to critically show Jesus' existence as very likely. It was for the sake of argument that this essay played the skeptic's game of looking for non-Christian corroboration of the existence of Jesus. In doing this, it seems that this essay has beaten the more extreme skeptics at their own game. Josephus' Ant. 20,200 by itself shows that Jesus existed, was called Christ and had a brother named James. Next, careful consideration of Ant. 18:63-64 shows that underlying the obvious Christian interpolation Josephus again seems to speak of Jesus and explain that he died by Pilate's hand. Tacitus also provides evidence of Jesus existence, in that it is unlikely that Tacitus would have been so accepting of Christian claims if he had any reason to doubt Jesus existence.
Tacitus, like Ant. 18:63-64 corroborates Jesus death at the hands of Pilate. Finally, Mara bar Sarapion and the Rabbinical literature by assuming Jesus existence also show his existence as likely. The point in all this is that even apart from the canonical Gospels' witness to Jesus, there is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus existed, was called Christ and died at Pilate's hand. It seems that there is good reason to be skeptical of the more extreme skeptics who question the existence of Jesus.
Bavinck
|