I was looking for something else on my computer’s hard-drive, and came across an old article that I had written for some long forgotten reason. I post it here because I can do it without having to think very hard.
“Scepticism regarding a successful escape: Questioning David Lewis’s view of gospel history.”
David Lewis wrote an article on the Christian gospels in The Sceptic, Autumn 2005.i He argues that people are still, in these postmodern times, caught in the orbit of the Christian gospels. He believes it is time to break free from their influence, suggesting that they are of doubtful historical value. His paper has produced in me a great deal of scepticism. This, I suppose, might please Mr Lewis. But my scepticism is of this character—I am sceptical that he or any other person will successfully escape the gravitational pull of the gospels for the same sort of reason that prevents us from escaping the earth’s gravitational pull. The reason is that the gospels have evidential weight that will not go away. They can bear any honest scrutiny. To extend the metaphor a little—like our Earth, the gospels are essential for life. Even if people can escape the Earth’s gravitational force, in a rocket ship perhaps, they cannot stay away long without risking death. I believe the same is true of the gospels.
I offer just are a few comments on his article for you to look into.
David Lewis seems to assume that miracles are impossible. What I mean is, he claims that the earliest date for the writing of Mark’s gospel must be 70 AD. The implication seems to be that the information recorded in that gospel about the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD) is history, not prophecy. Mark’s account of Jerusalem’s destruction can be proof that the gospel was written after the event only if it is first true that miracles, such as prophecy, are impossible. Unless David Lewis can produce evidence other than the assumption that miracles are impossible, his statement regarding the earliest possible date for Mark is a matter of faith, not evidence.
David Lewis doubts the authenticity of the passage from the Gospel of John regarding the woman caught in adultery. The passage is missing from Papyri P66 and P75 of the second and third centuries and the oldest Greek extant manuscripts from fourth and fifth centuries (Aleph, A, B, C). However, Augustine (353-430 AD) quotes the passage in his Lectures or Tractates on The Gospel According to St. John. Tractate XXXIII : 4.
And now observe wherein the Lord’s gentleness was tempted by His enemies. “And the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman just taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, and said to Him, Master, this woman has just been taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? But this they said, tempting Him, that they might accuse Him.”
Augustine obviously believed this passage was authentic. His sermons were based upon set liturgical readings from the gospel,ii and that indicates the passage existed long before Augustine’s time in a manuscript copy. In addition to this, nine-hundred Greek manuscripts, from about the fifth century to the ninth, give a version of John 7:53-8:11. The variations among these extant copies (none of which significantly alters the story) suggest that there was no ‘collusion’ in their transmission. Anyway, as a teacher of ancient history, David Lewis knows that all extant texts from the ancient world exist as copies. For comparison, there are nine ancient manuscript copies of Thucydides’ history; copies of copies that were made sometime in the ninth century AD—some 1300 years after the historian wrote the original. The earliest copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars (written ca. 50 BC) also date from the ninth century AD. Of Homer’s Iliad (a very popular book) there are around 640 copies dating from about the fourth century BC (some 500 years after original composition). For the New Testament, there are over 5000 manuscript copies dating from the early second century, not to mention ancient translations and abundant quotations in the writings of the early church fathers.
With this weight of manuscript testimony to the gospels, I cannot tell why David Lewis believes the gospel history must be doubted because some people doubt the authenticity of a passage in Josephus’ history. The passage, which Josephus wrote about 100 AD, reads like this:
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 wonders, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew many after him both of the Jews and the gentiles. He was the Christ. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among 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 then thousand other wonderful things about him, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).
Firstly, as mentioned above, if this passage in Josephus is not authentic, the New Testament is still the best-attested set of documents we have from the ancient world. Secondly, there are other non-Biblical testimonies to Jesus. One of them, Tacitus (AD 54-119), might even have used Josephus as a source for his brief account of the Christ (Annals,15:44):
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome …iii
But even if the offending passage from Josephus did not exist in his original history, this does not eradicate Josephus’s testimony to Christ. Origen in about AD 250 wrote against a second century critic of Christianity named Celsus. In chapter 47 of his book Contra Celsus, Origen made these statements:
… in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist [Josephus, Antiquities 18, V:2], and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, … says … that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ) [Josephus, Antiquities 22, IX:1],—the Jews having put him [James] to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.
Here Origen quotes Josephus’ references, not only to Jesus, called the Christ, but also to John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus, all of whom were probably known to Josephus’ readers. A logical source for this knowledge of Jesus are the writings of the New Testament. It is interesting also to note that a ninth century Arabic copy of Josephus contains a shorter version of the disputed “Jesus” passage, which, even with bits ‘left out’, gives clear testimony to the historical reality of Jesus. See http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html (accessed 5 June 2005).
David Lewis also claimed that the apostle Paul did not refer in his letters to words or events from the life of Jesus, and, since these documents predate the gospel histories, he claims that Paul knew little or nothing of Jesus’ life.iv Even if Paul hadn’t referred to any of the events of Jesus’ life, it does not mean the events recorded in the gospels were unknown to Paul or the earliest Christians. It could just as well indicate that the stories were very well known, and only had to be written down against the time when the original eyewitnesses would die. For instance, the opening paragraph of Luke’s gospel tells of its author’s investigation of eyewitness accounts. ‘Luke’ tells us that he was not the first to write an account, but that many (polloi) had done so before. The writer of Luke’s gospel was a contemporary and companion of Paul, since the person who wrote Luke also wrote its sequel, the Book of Acts (see the ‘We’ and ‘Us’ passages in Acts, 16:11-15, 20:6 & 13-15, 21:1-17).v The author’s time in Palestine (Act 21ff, ca. 59-61 AD) would have given him opportunity to research his gospel (Luke 1:1-4). If Luke started his research during this time, we could have many written accounts by about 60 AD. By the way, twice in the Book of Acts it is recorded that the doings of Jesus were generally well known (Acts 2:22-24 and 10:36-38). It is unlikely, then, that the early church or Paul was as ignorant of Jesus’ life as David Lewis claims.
Nevertheless, Paul’s letters are not as utterly silent as has been suggested. Paul refers to the crucifixion of Christ often.vi If one adds to this list Paul’s abundant references to the death and resurrection of Christ, it will appear that Paul was not silent regarding the cross and its aftermath.vii From what David Lewis said, one might think that Paul really needed to describe the details of crucifixion to first century people who were living under Roman rule. Paul’s chief interest was to explain the meaning of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18ff); the fact of crucifixion was all too plain. Further, the birth of Jesus is represented by Paul as one like and unlike ours. Romans 1:3 tells of his birth as the seed of David according to the flesh, while Galatians 4:4f and Philippians 2 stress Jesus’ humiliation in being born as a human being; born of a woman, born under the law. Romans 5 speaks of Jesus as the second Adam (not sinful from birth, but free from sin). These passages involve no contradiction to the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. It is striking, too, that Paul nowhere suggests that Jesus had a human father. The only father that Paul ascribes to Jesus is God (Rom 1:4, Gal. 2:20, Phil. 2:6). This also is consistent with Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35. Another parallel passage between Paul’s letters and Luke’s gospel include the Lord’s supper passage from 1 Corinthians 11:18-30 (compare Luke 22:19-20). It is also worth mentioning that Luke records how Paul related a well known saying of the Lord Jesus: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’ (Acts 20: 35). This saying doesn’t appear in any gospel account, but the passage indicates that sayings of the Lord were current and reported among early Christians since Paul asks them to recall this saying. Other letter writers, such as James, Peter and John (an eyewitness who wrote a Gospel, three letters, and the Revelation) report gospel events. Note, for example, the parallels between Matthew 5:36-37 and James 5:12, Mark 9: 2 & 7 and 2 Peter 1:17-18, and compare the opening passage of 1 John 1:1-4 with the Gospel of John 1:1 & 20:29 & 31, 21:24-25.
David Lewis imagines that there was enmity between Peter and Paul. Although a popular idea in some circles, it seems unlikely. We have an account of Paul correcting Peter as a brother. No enmity is implied or plausible. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul wrote: “For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.” This does not sound like a put down to me. And Peter wrote of Paul in the following manner: “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16. As to David’s claim that Paul never mentioned Pontius Pilate, you will find one in 1 Timothy 6:13.
I could go on, but this seems to be enough to show that matters raised by David Lewis need to be looked into. True scepticism is an appropriate response to articles such as his and mine. These are serious matters and must be looked into carefully.
i I believe it also appeared in Quadrant Magazine, May 2005.
ii Augustine, in his Tractate XIII on John 3:22-29, said the following: ‘The course of reading from the Gospel of John … so proceeds in regular order, that the passage which has now been read comes before us for exposition to-day.’
iii Complete Works of Tacitus, tr. A. J. Church & W. J. Brodribb, Ed., Moses Hadas, New York: The Modern Library, 1942.
iv A modern form of this argument comes form Dr G. A. Walls. William Paley anticipated a criticism like this in 1794—see his Evidences, Proposition I, Chapter VII,starting at the paragraph beginning, “The remaining letters of the apostles…”
v See William Paley’s Horae Paulinae (1790) for a careful comparison of Paul’s letters with the Book of Acts.
vi Romans 4:24, 6:6, 1 Corinthians 1:13, 18, 23, 2:2, 2:8 15:3-4, 2 Corinthians 1:5, 5:14-15, 13:4, Galatians 1:4, 2:20, 3:1, 3:13, 6:14-16, Ephesians 2:14-16, Philippians 2:8, 3:18, Colosians 1:20, 2:14, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, Heb 12:2.
vii Romans 1:4, 4:18 & 25, 6:5, 7:4, 8:11, 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15, 2 Corinthians 4:14, Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:20, Colosians 2:12, Philippians 3:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 2 Timothy 2:18.
Don't take it from me 