Did Jesus Exist? A Response to James F. McGrath

Did Jesus Exist? A Response to James F. McGrath

By Thomas Verenna

Dr. James McGrath, a respected member of the scholarly community, has invited me to have a ‘bloggersation’ with him concerning an area of disagreement that we have pertaining to the historicity of the figure of Jesus and I am more than happy to do so. Some preliminary items must be understood from the start. First, Dr. McGrath is a tenured Associate Professor at Butler University and has held several teaching positions. I am not credentialed and have never held a teaching position. Dr. McGrath is a Christian ‘progressive’ (although I am not quite sure what that means) and I am an agnostic-atheist. Dr. McGrath has studied and taught in Romania. I have enjoyed a leisurely life in Portugal. We are very opposite people. In spite of that, it must never be assumed by the reader that I do not respect Dr. McGrath (I do). Nor should it be assumed that because we disagree that this conversation will be hostile and polemical (It will not be on my end and I do not think Dr. McGrath the kind of person to attack me personally over an argument). That will not stop me from being blunt in pointing out where I feel Dr. McGrath has erred and fallen into logical traps.

Moreso, it should be understood from the beginning that our two separate backgrounds and our different epistemological stances will be reflected in bias and assumption. But I would like Dr. McGrath to know that I will do my best to reserve my own bias, even to the point of accepting the possibility of being wrong. I am sure (although I do not wish to speak for him) that he will have the intellectual integrity to demand the same standards of himself. And I would like to start by asking him to not generalize, as he does in his opening of the very article he has asked me to review and reply too. He writes:

Anyone who has ever visited an atheist discussion forum will know that there are plenty of atheists and “freethinkers” who take it as a given that Jesus didn’t really exist…If you ask a professional historian whether Jesus existed, however, you will never receive an answer other than “yes”.

First, I must wonder why ‘freethinkers’ is “quoted” as if to imply “sarcasm.” I must also question why he limits this position to only atheists? I know many (modern) Gnostic Christians who hold to an ahistorical figure of Jesus. Several of these I know to even frequent atheist message boards because they cannot find acceptance on Christian boards that hold to a dogmatic perspective about Jesus.

Why, secondly, must Dr. McGrath create a false dichotomy laden with hyperbole? Does Dr. McGrath not know of Richard Carrier, Thomas L. Thompson, Robert M. Price, R. Joseph Hoffmann, and many other very notable historians who do not accept the oft-taken-for-granted historicity of the figure of Jesus? Is it because these scholars and historians also happen to be “freethinkers” that he disregards them? Perhaps because some of them are atheists they are not worth considering? I do hope that is not the case. I know from personal correspondence that Dr. McGrath does know of Richard Carrier and find it difficult to accept the fact that he would not have known of Richard’s position on the figure of Jesus from his reviews of Earl Doherty. (Not to mention his own upcoming book on the ahistoricity of the figure of Jesus!)

And why must one be content with just “asking a professional historian?” Where is the objectivity there? I find this position, the Appeal to Authority, to be an intellectually lazy response. To clarify, I do not think we should ignore the valuable information that historians can give to the world. As a historian myself, I can appreciate the research and work involved when writing a paper for submission or working on a monograph. However, it is one thing to accept the fact that historians have researched conclusions and quite another thing indeed to just accept what they say in all instances as researched conclusions. One should not be content with simply asking a historian their opinions because historians can still fall prey to the same intellectual laziness that Dr. McGrath suggests his readers should succumb too.

In other words, historians can just as easily submit to their own presuppositions and assumptions when coming to a conclusion that any other human being can. It is not only possible today, but as McGrath would readily admit, scholarship is plum-full of historical Jesus scholars willing to allow their own personal bias to determine interpretations of the historical figure of Jesus (if we assume such a person existed, that is). It is also a historical fact that many early eighteenth, nineteenth and even early twentieth-century historians and scholars did just that very thing (i.e. many stated opinion as if it were fact in every type and manner of publication from the period). This is why it is imperative that modern historical methods reflect rigorous standards and why modern studies in classical history are filled with other modern studies no earlier than thirty years old. (And that may even be pushing it a little)

It should also be recalled that at one point in the history of scholarship, scholars were unanimous in the historicity of the patriarchal narratives. Later, after much kicking and screaming, scholars accepted a ‘historical core’ of these traditions. Today, one would be hard pressed to find any scholar who would accept the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives in any form; at least as far as academia is concerned. So it is presumptuous of Dr. McGrath to assume that this position cannot be changed in the future and that “professional historians,” as Dr. McGrath phrased it, cannot be wrong. Dr. McGrath, in this instance, is an example to this rule not an exception.

What do I mean by that? Dr. McGrath’s article consists of nothing but a lot of complaints, none of which are useful or helpful to the dialog he seems to genuinely want to have. It does not help his position that he labels those who disagree with him “atheist fundamentalists” (whatever that means, since there is not a fundamental ideology behind atheism – it’s akin to suggesting that there are ‘fundamentalist bald men’ or ‘fundamentalist 15 year olds’). It also does not help that he degrades the integrity of those who he disagrees with by labeling them as anything but what he constitutes as ’serious historical’ investigators. How can he suggest that? It seems rather hyperbolic to do so.

Dr. McGrath is also very comfortable assuming consensus where there really is none to be had. He asks aptly, “…how can historians be so certain?” Scholarship is far from certain on almost everything related to the New Testament, Jesus included. From the dating of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles and the pseudonymous epistles along with Revelations to the authorship of certain epistles and Gospel accounts, down to the very essence of Jesus’ character and Paul’s identity. Scholarship is so completely skewed on these issues, often times scholars seem to accept another scholars opinion in ‘good faith’ rather than taking the enormous amount of time to review all the evidence and straighten out problems that have been swept under the metaphorical rug since the days of the redaktiongeschichte schules started in Germany centuries ago. There is no certainty at all. There is only speculation, assumption, blind faith, and acceptance, all of which have been concealed under the guise of “certainty.” When examined fully and unabashedly, this concealment is lifted and can be seen for what it really is.

Dr. McGrath then makes a statement containing a rather glaring assumption; “[t]he answer lies in a simple fact that casts all serious doubt aside: the crucifixion.” But does it really cast “all serious doubt aside?” Dr. McGrath has just committed the fatal error of using circular reasoning to try to prove a point. Jesus is real because he was crucified. He was crucified because the Gospels say he was. The crucifixion is real because Jesus was real. It’s not only circular, but it begs the question while special pleading the end result. But this also negates early testimony about Jesus possibly being killed under Alexander Jannaeus in 100 BCE and that he was the teacher of righteousness from the Qumran texts or that he was killed by Herod Antipas instead of Pilate in the Gospel of Peter. These positions are put forth by scholars as much as the far-too-cliché perspective that Jesus was killed by Pilate. The fact that Paul suggests that Jesus was put to death by the heavenly Archon’s (not on earth by Pilate) has even troubled some scholars like Carrier and Price to deny historicity as part of the original Christian movement. Certainty about anything in the New Testament, particularly the crucifixion, is a dream.

Dr. McGrath follows this up with the more absurd statement “there was nothing that more automatically disqualified someone from consideration as God’s appointed savior than being tortured and executed by the foreign overlords who were ruling over his people and their land.” This is clearly not a realistic overview. Apparently Dr. McGrath is not familiar with Isaiah 52-53, which lays out the very foundation of Mark’s passion narrative, including the torture, crucifixion, and death by the hands of others–the very things that Dr. McGrath finds “automatically disqualifying.” (cf. Isaiah 52:14-15; 53:1-5, 7-11) Isaiah is not only the foundation of the death of Jesus, but Isaiah’s author is also relating to us his interpretation of how Mosaic law fits into his narrative; particularly his understanding of atonement of Aaron from Leviticus 16. The Son of Man sent by God must die and bear the burden of Israel’s sins. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. The tent of meeting in the Gospel of Mark is Pilate’s Palace, and the lots (Jesus Bar’abbas – son of the father – and Jesus Christ – Son of Man) are cast. As described in Leviticus, Bar’abbas is released into the wilderness taking with him Israel’s sinful past, while Jesus must be sacrificed to atone for the sin which flees from the community. Jesus “poured his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). Mark tells us this is what is happening. He cues the reader to this when he writes “they cast lots to see what each would get.” A full-knowing reader would be aware of Mark’s allusion here and would have appreciated it.

Mark is interpreting for us scripture in the guise of Jewish fiction narrative. Dr. McGrath may not be convinced of the idea that “in attempting to invent [a messiah] from scratch, [they] would come up with the crucified Jesus,” but his opinion is irrelevant. Not only were the Jews knowledgeable of a crucified savior (Jesus, literally means “savior” or “Yahweh saves”), but it was the manner in which Yahweh promised his salvation to Israel through the prophets! And clearly this is how Mark felt. It was clearly accepted by Jews, because Christianity had to start somewhere and somehow (just saying “because Jesus started it” is not good enough). Clearly it was accepted because Christianity developed and exploded onto the scene. So regardless of whether or not Dr. McGrath feels it is “unimaginable,” the evidence would indicate that it was so imaginable that Mark imagined it and wrote about it. And what Mark didn’t make explicit, Matthew and Luke—certainly John—rectified this.

Dr. McGrath also ignores (perhaps not intentionally) the large tradition of eponym in the Jewish literary tradition. Moses (to draw out), Abraham (father of all nations), Isaac (laughter), Joseph (addition), Joshua (Jesus), Immanuel (God is with us), Job (Persecuted), and many others are nothing more than fictional creations of the whims of authors who were trying to get across edifying stories. These names reflect the characters role in the narrative, they are not random names given to historical characters. I find it interesting that Dr. McGrath, in an attempt to historicize the narrative of the Gospels once more, misses the interpretation of the author when discussing it in a recent blog article here. He writes:

It is, ultimately, the account in Mark (and what later Gospels do to it) that persuades me that Jesus was not buried with the honor his followers believed he was due. The reference to being anointed beforehand and to women seeking to do so after the fact seems to me to be sufficient indication that, if nothing else, anointing was left undone. And it seems from both Mark and John (albeit in different ways) that this fact troubled at least some Christians.

Dr. McGrath ignores the intent of Mark’s burial of Jesus. It is not to cover up some troubling reality the disciples had known about; it was a direct allusion to the Son of Man in Isaiah. Joseph of Arimathea was the rich man in his death (Isaiah 53:9), but there is a more rich understanding to be understood here. Something that Dennis R. MacDonald also points out and I agree with. Mark’s conclusion of his narrative is about thwarting expectations. It is not Simon Peter, who Jesus says to ‘pick up your cross and follow me’ who carries Jesus’ cross to Golgotha. It is another Simon, Simon of Cyrene, who does this. It is not Mary, Jesus’ mother, who anoints Jesus with oil or who mourns for him, or who visits the tomb the next day. It is another Mary, and the Mary of peace (Shalom), who visits the tomb, anoints Jesus’ feet and mourns his death. And it is not Joseph, Jesus’ father who tends to Jesus’ body and wraps him in linens. It is another Joseph who does this. Lastly, it is not Jesus, the risen Christ, who greets the women in the tomb. It is a boy, a reborn savior, who speaks of the Gospel to them. Mark thwarts our expectations, not to cover up a dreadful history or because of some embarrassing issue (this is an assumption that rests on no logical or rational foundation) but rather it is because he is creating a narrative the way all Jewish fictional stories are created. He is interpreting scripture and reinventing tradition. Even the idea of wrapping Jesus in linens is not necessarily a question of burial customs, but a direct connection Mark is making with the preparation for atonement in Leviticus 16:4. Spending time on questions concerning burials and how Jesus’ body was handled and dumped after crucifixion is completely useless and not helpful. It adds a whole layer to the narrative which was never there to begin with. This is the whole problem with trying to historicize a fictional story instead of trying to understand it in its literary milieu.

Finally, is it true what Dr. McGrath writes? Is it so that “[t]o deny Jesus’ existence would be to deny certainty about everything in the past?” One could not make a more grandiose statement founded on exaggeration if he were President Bush talking about the war in Iraq. No, denying the historical Jesus is not more threatening to historical methodology than denying the existence of a historical Adam and Eve, a historical Odysseus, a historical Priam, a historical Jason of the Argo, or a historical Serapis. Jesus is a notch in a tradition of euhemerized characters in history; a tradition which follows into modern history with Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan. It follows with King Arthur and Robin Hood. People love legend to the point where believing it is not difficult. That is something that Dr. Joseph Campbell was well aware of when he suggested, “I don’t believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive.” Legends, full of literary trope, anecdote, philosophy and drama, pull the reader into a world where they are helpless against the words of the author. This is as true of Shakespeare as it is for J.D. Salinger as it is for Mark. Ancient cultures had no trouble at all fictionalizing their own histories; and in antiquity the 30+ Jewish sects that existed had no trouble forming their own interpretations and identifying with newly created traditions based off these interpretations. To ignore the possibility that Mark was doing just that—that he was formulating a story based off interpretations and reinvented traditions from scripture—is not only to take for granted the questions that deserve to be asked of such literature and according it a special place (for no reason), but that is truly somebody denying all certainty about everything in the past.