Doubting the Skeptics: A Seminar Examining Secular Scholarship on the Origins of Christianity

INTRODUCTION: WHAT’S THIS ABOUT, AND WHY SHOULD I CARE?

If you go to a secular or Liberal-Christian university to study Christianity, you will likely be told that Jesus was not God but merely a man. Thus, the Gospels were not records of actual events, but evolved over time as peoples’ beliefs about Jesus evolved and amplified until this “Jewish Rabbi” somehow became “God in the flesh, fully God, fully man.”

This is a mini-seminar meant to survey and critique this understanding.

…but, you say, “I have never, nor will I ever, go to a secular or liberal university!” In this introduction, I provide five reasons why you NEED to know this information, including the ability to understand the Emergent Church engage with culture, and grapple with Islamic apologetics.

THE FATHERS ON THE GOSPELS

How did we get our four gospels? Why don’t we ask the scholars and church-leaders who lived within three hundred years of the actual events! Here is a run-down of the ancient, historic understanding of how the gospels were written.

For a written summary of Eusebius on the authoring of the Gospels, see here.

Please note that I am not saying that we simply accept Eusebius’ word on the subject, then consider the matter closed. My point is that we should bring these ancient sources to the table and consider them. These people are not uneducated or unintelligent, and they are living much closer to the events than we are. As C.S. Lewis says, it is pure “Chronological Snobbery” to believe that just because we are more recent, we are automatically smarter than these people!

THE LIBERALS ON THE GOSPELS

This is a summary of what you will hear if you take a class on Christianity in a secular or Liberal school.

For a definition of “Christian liberalism,” see here.

If you have never heard of “Q” before, this article may help explain what I am talking about.

For a more thorough critique of the “Q Hypothesis,” see “Ten Reasons to Question ‘Q’ ” or buy Mark S. Goodacre’s The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and Synoptic Problem.

THREE CRITIQUES OF THE LIBERAL CONSENSUS

When presented in a class, the secular/liberal perspective on Christianity is always presented as “the way” that “all educated peoples believe.” However, there are at least three major problems with it.

(note: The author/book which I cannot remember on the spot is Albert Schweitzer, “The Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Although an older book, the quality of the scholarship has made this work a classic which is still cited and interacted with in contemporary scholarship).

Please note that my purpose is not to DISPROVE their theory: only to prove the point that it is a THEORY, which is based upon beliefs. It is far from bullet-proof, and ultimately it is based upon “prior beliefs,” or “presuppositions,” just like Christianity is.

An excellent book, for more on this topic (from a highly reputable source) is Craig A. Evans’ “Fabricating Jesus” (book review to come shortly).

SON OF MAN, SON OF GOD

This is a major topic, which deserves to be examined by itself. If Jesus called Himself “The Son of Man,” why do we call Him, “The Son of God?” This is a major argument which will come up if you ever get into a conversation with an informed Muslim. It is also raised often by Liberal/secular scholars like Thomas Sheehan.

CONCLUSION: IT ALL COMES DOWN TO BELIEF

As I say several times in this sermon, the point of my talk is NOT to disprove the Liberal understanding of the Gospels. It is merely this: to give an overview of it, to provide a few critiques of it, and then say, over and over, “It’s just a THEORY!” The conservative belief is ALSO a theory. Neither are in the realm of hard science: at the end of the day, you must simply choose to believe what seems the most plausible to yourself.

Most importantly, I want you to understand that both of these theories come down to basic beliefs: do you believe that miracles can happen, that God answers prayers, that God is “Emmanuel – God WITH US”? If so, then there is no real reason to doubt the historic understanding of the Gospels. If you DOUBT this fundamental belief, however, then historic Christianity is impossible. Then you will be forced to adopt something like the secular version of the gospels.

It may at times seem that “everyone” believes the secular version of the Gospels, which includes the belief that Jesus was not God. Indeed – I will agree that “most” scholars believe this. However, this doesn’t really shake me. Why? I recognize that most of the people studying Jesus are not Christians. Most of them are skeptics, agnostics, atheists and adherents to other religions such as Islam. Considering this starting point, it is not at all surprising that they have come to these conclusions: they flow naturally out of their naturalistic beliefs.

They have begun with the assumption that miracles cannot happen. Thus, the records which show that Jesus walked on water, fed thousands and rose from the dead must be false. …so they decide beforehand that they are false. Then they have done all their research from that starting point, and ended up with the conclusion that “no miracles happened here.” Tell me – where is the mystery in this? Isn’t it obvious that their conclusions are based upon their presuppositions?

Christianity has always been based on the fundamentally “foolish” concept of miracle, and of a resurrection. This concept has always caused us to be mocked (Acts 17:32), and it has always made our religion basically “foolish” to the educated elite of society (1 Cor. 1:23).

Nothing has changed. Today, as 2000 years ago, the person who wishes to follow Christ must decide whether or not they are willing to rise, pick up their cross of shame, and FOLLOW Christ, no matter what the world believes.

This is what I would like to encourage and empower you to do, even as you go on to study in higher education, and may be presented with beliefs just like what I just presented here today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eusebius of Caesarea. Church History. c. 330. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890). Available for free on newadvent.org (click on “fathers,” or see here)

Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels . Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008) (Review coming soon!)

Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1923, reprint 2009. (buy here, or access for free electronically here)

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. 1906. Edited by W. Montgomery. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2005.

Sheehan, Thomas. The Historical Jesus: How did Jesus of Nazareth, who never claimed to be Christ or divine, become the Son of God? Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2006. (You may download Syllabus, and/or take class on iTunes U for free)

RELATED POSTS

How Machen Helps Me Sort Out Wacky Jesus Scholarship

What is Liberalism?

What is the Gospel? A Response to Liberalism and the Emergent Church

Modernity and the Roots of Classical Liberalism

The Man Who Wrote “Liberalism and Christianity”

Deconstructing the Modern Man Part 2: Immanuel Kant

Deconstructing the Modern Man, Part 1: The Enlightenment

 

What Does Eusebius (300 AD) Say About the Gospels?

Eusebius of Caesarea was a Church Father who lived about 250-300 years after the death of Christ. Commissioned by the Emperor Constantine, he wrote the first history of the Christian Church. Below is a summary of what he wrote as to the authoring of the canonical gospels:

Matthew written by disciple Matthew in Hebrew, to the Hebrews (Bk III, Ch 24, v. 5)

Mark was written by John Mark in Rome. Mark was a disciple of Peter, and this book was based upon his sermons. Peter did not originally request Mark to write the book, but he verified that it was accurate.

• Not written in strict chronological order (Bk II, Ch 15, vv. 1-2)
• Mark was written after Matthew (Bk VI, Ch 25, vv. 4-10)

Luke was written by Paul’s associate Luke, as he interviewed eye-witnesses of the events and also relied on Paul’s testimony (Bk. III, Ch 4, v. 7)

Matthew, Mark, Luke written before Paul’s letters: When Paul says “my gospel,” he means Luke (Bk III, Ch 4, v. 8)

John was written at end of John’s life. John was familiar with the other gospels, but wished to speak more of Jesus’ divinity, and the events of the beginning of His ministry: that is, events before the imprisonment of John (Bk 3, Ch 24, 7)

This account is based on 1) a careful reading of Scriptures with 2) reference to some traditions and accounts from the Fathers. Most accepted it until the 1900’s.

Although I am not advocating a full acceptance of Eusebius’ beliefs, based solely on his antiquity and his position as a Church Father, I DO think that many people discount and disregard his witness too quickly. We must remember that he lived a mere two and a half centuries after the events, in a highly-developed society. It is quite likely that his information is more reliable than we give it credit for. Perhaps it is even more reliable than the reigning Liberal scholarship on the topic today.

 

The Perspicuity of Scriptures

These last few months have been months of realizing the importance of little words I skimmed over in college, which are highly important in navigating the oceans of life, and of seminary. In particular, this little word “perspicuity” – on it, the whole doctrine of revelation, of God being able to really speak to us in Scriptures, seems to hang.

According to Theopedia,

The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the “perspicuity of Scripture”) teaches that “the meanings of the text can be clear to the ordinary reader, that God uses the text of the Bible to communicate His person and will.” [1] “The witness of the Church throughout the ages is that ordinary people, who approach it in faith and humility, will be able to understand what the Bible is getting at, even if they meet with particular points of difficulty here and there.” [2]

Here is what this doctrine means: when I read the Bible, God can speak to me. More than that, when I have a question about life, I can go to the Bible and find the answer. When I am living in sin, others can use Scriptures to correct me, and when I am confused about a moral topic, a clear presentation of Scriptures will be able to straighten me out. That is what it means.

“But Josiah – everybody believes that! This is so obvious that it is not worth saying!” That is what I thought in college – but out here in the real world, this is simply not true.

The bottom line is that in our day and age, everybody wants to be allowed to make the Bible subject to them. The human mind, we are told, is to be the final authority on politics, on math, on science, on philosophy – so why not on religion? We hate, we balk at the idea of a book which has the audacity to tell us what to do, what to think. And so we have all sorts of clever ways of sounding spiritual, while really setting ourselves up as the arbiter of truth.

Usually, somebody who wants to destroy the authority of the Bible will say something like, “I want to get at the real message of the Bible.” In the words of one church father (Iraeneus?) they seek to “sound more orthodox than orthodoxy itself.” They use metaphors like the “kernel” and the “husk” of wheat, and say things like “Scriptures aren’t really God’s word – they just contain God’s word.” Apparently, the distortions of history, of tradition, of Constantine, of church history, have so distorted and confused Scriptures that without the expert help of this professional, Scriptures will be able to say nothing at all or – worse – will only say misleading, confusing, misguided things. What needs to happen is for the “expert” to cut, tear, and strip away the distortions, to get at “the real gospel.”

Usually this is done by inventing a new Jesus – usually in the scholar’s own image. The scholar will find some proof-texts which prove that Jesus was a certain way, and then they will spend the rest of their time explaining away all of the verses which don’t agree with this version of Jesus. In the end, they will have conveniently created a new religion: at the core is a messiah which they like, and around him there is a religion which is made in his image (thus, in the “expert’s” image).

The really radical Liberals are easy to spot because they tear the Bible apart. They do not even begin to believe that the authors were “men moved by the spirit, who spoke from God,” – rather, they believe that prophecy was an act of human will, and that it is subject to their interpretation 2 Peter. 1:21). They will be very outspoken in their refusal to listen to certain authors (e.g. “Paul is a misogynist – why should we listen to him?!), and to edit others (e.g. the Jesus Seminar systematically edited the words of Jesus, choosing only those ones that fit their Marxist/naturalistic worldview).

The more moderate Liberals are also out there, though, and I am becoming more able to spot them. They too balk inwardly at the idea of a God who actually speaks, who actually has the right to tell them – of all things – how to think. But they are more closely associated with Evangelical churches, and in many cases they really want to believe in God. In a few cases they want to appear to believe in God. In any case, there are a few doctrines that really rub them the wrong way. What are they to do? How are they to shelter themselves from the sharp edges of the Word of God?

The answer is to find an expert who agrees with them.

The argumentation is tricky – so tricky, I think many of the people who use it actually believe they are in the right.

Because they hold Scriptures in high regard, they never come out and say “this passage is wrong.” Rather, they say “The way that the Church has interpreted this Scripture is wrong.” Then they spend a lot of time deconstructing church tradition, quoting authoritative-sounding-sources, and all-around trying to sound smart. Then, at the end, they say, “What Jesus (or Paul, or whoever) really meant was this….” The interpretation which they end with clearly and blatantly contradicts the plain-sense reading of the text. However, after they have so thoroughly muddied the waters, the reader is disoriented and feels ashamed of simply reading the text for what it’s worth. Perhaps “experts” really are needed to interpret this text…naturally, this pseud0-liberal takes this opportunity to present their own interpretation of the text as the authoritative version of “what it really says.” Even though it is far-fetched or even opposite of the plain meaning of the text, they often sound very convincing, if you have sat through their entire argument.

If you want to see this process in all of its ridiculous glory, check out Scott Nameth, who uses exactly this sort of methodology to “prove” that premarital sex is okay. I could not help but think of Nameth when debating about gender issues and the afterlife. Although most “pseudo-liberals” (yes, I just made up that term!) actually land in fairly orthodox places just because they were raised in church, one cannot help but notice that if one has a methodology which allows them to change or ignore disturbing verses to meet their needs, they can just as easily change more serious verses – and even prove the ridiculous notion that fornication is blessed by God.

As I am nearing the end of my M.A. in Theology, I am being continually amazed at the insights and clarity of some of my back-home pastors. One pastor in particular stands out. He never had a post-secondary education, but he has been a missionary for 40+ years, reads the Bible every day, and is a voracious reader of commentaries, concordances and solid exegetical texts. Amazingly, some of the hard-won conclusions which took me several years in seminary to has out, have been simply and uneloquently repeated by this pastor friend. I cannot help but admit that with or without a formal education, I would trust his hermeneutical opinion more than most of the books I read. “By your fruits you will know them,” (Mat. 7:16). Where does he get his education? I can only conclude that he has been with Jesus, and this is education enough (Acts 4:13).

This perspecuity business is not completely clear in my mind. I am still not sure what to do with obviously cultural commands (e.g. head coverings, “holy kiss,” etc.), and how to differentiate those things from the non-cultural items. However, the bottom line is this: I know I’m not all that smart. I don’t want to pull myself up by my own bootstraps: I don’t want to detract from and confuse the Word of God to my own detriment.

If there is no other way to maintain the perspecuity of Scriptures than to dogmatically hold to an ultra literal interpretation, I am willing to go there. However, I think I will be able to to do better than this. As I (hopefully) finish this course on Modern Christianity, I hope to be able to move on to a class in Hermeneutics, where I can sort these issues out more concretely.

I hope to be able to keep the readers of this blog posted as I continue to grow in my understanding of Truth, and how to know Him better.