Background
A few of my closest friends are Christians. Because of them I'm often reading, listening, and thinking about religions. It more recently started with Wes Huff on Rogan's podcast. That has kept an ongoing discussion about Christianity. One that has included Alex O'Connor's.
Huff and O'Connor led me to Elaine Pagels. Her book, Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus, is by far the best single source of information about Jesus and the early Christians. Through Pagels, I have learned a lot.
Pagels became famous for her book The Gnostic Gospels (1979). This book was heavily awarded and recognized. From the book's description:
In 1945 an Egyptian peasant unearthed what proved to be the Gnostic Gospels, thirteen papyrus volumes that expounded a radically different view of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ from that of the New Testament. In this spellbinding book, renowned religious scholar Elaine Pagels elucidates the mysteries and meanings of these sacred texts both in the world of the first Christians and in the context of Christianity today.
Introduction
Everything I present is ignoring divine intervention. With divine intervention anything is possible. Logic doesn't matter with divine intervention.
Without divine intervention, how can and does anyone know if the Gospels and early Christian texts are true?
Here is a very good argument:
Premise 1: The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses.
Premise 2: Eyewitnesses are generally reliable sources of historical information, especially when accounts are consistent and corroborated.
Premise 3: The New Testament writings have been reliably preserved through manuscript transmission.
Premise 4: The New Testament accounts are internally consistent and externally corroborated (by archaeology, early Church Fathers, etc.).
Conclusion: Therefore, the New Testament is a historically legitimate and trustworthy source for the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
I would generally agree that the NT is a historically legitimate and trustworthy source. I do not accept premises 1 or 4, so, therefore, I do not think the argument is enough to convince anyone of the authority of what the NT. Especially considering, that there are non canonical texts that could gain authority from the same argument above.
Back to Pagels
Pagels is not an atheist. I do not think she would consider herself a Christian either (maybe she does??). Either way, she outlines the progression of ideas about Jesus from the canonical and non-canonical texts. When analyzing from this progression, it becomes clear that the early Christians had a diverse group of followers. Followers with many opposing and varying views on who Jesus was and what Jesus said.
When viewing the early Christian texts in chronological order, it is clearer to see how and why details about Jesus could have been added without being literally true. The early Christian writers had agendas. They wanted to legitimize their messiah. They added details to solve some of the biggest concerns about who Jesus was. They used the Old Testament and prophecies to fill gaps. They elevated Jesus’ status to Son of Man, like other great men of his time, and eventually that grew into Jesus being God. When tracking the progression in order it’s clear.
Pagels outlines the progression magnificently in her book. She offers multiple explanations and builds context for readers to understand better how the early Christians, authors, and audience may have thought and understood the ideas and events in the texts.
Due to recency bias, a lot of my ideas will be heavily influenced by Pagels.
The Problem with Jesus
A gigantic problem with Jesus was that he died! How could he be the Messiah if he was dead?
Jesus was born illegitimately.
Jesus was a trouble maker.
He may have spoken to be misunderstood.
The list goes on...
Fixing the Problems
The NT solves these problems.
Yes he died, but he was resurrected. Then wasn’t the Messiah; He is God. He knew He was going to die, and He died for humanity's salvation.
Yes he was an illegitimate child because he was born of immaculate conception.
Yes he was a trouble maker, but he was a trouble maker for the Jewish people, not the Romans.
Mark, likely the earliest gospel, says Jesus spoke to not be understood. This idea is more profound in the non-canonical texts. Thomas claims Jesus taught secret teachings to his closest followers. One of the teachings was this, Logion 3:
Jesus said, "[If] those who lead you [say to you, 'See], the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky [will precede you. If they say that] it is under the earth, then the fish of the sea [will enter it, preceding] you. And, the [kingdom of God] is inside of you, [and it is outside of you. Whoever] knows [himself] will discover this. [And when you] come to know yourselves, [you will realize that] you are [sons] of the [living] father. [But if you] will [not] know yourselves, [you dwell] in [poverty] and it is you who are that poverty."
According to Thomas, Jesus has a different theology about salvation. One that doesn't rely on churches, bishops, or priests.
John solves this problem by turning Thomas into Doubting Thomas. John discredits the Gospel of Thomas and the followers of Thomas by turning Thomas into the dummy that doesn't believe anything. Mark, Matthew, nor Luke mention anything about Thomas’ character. This isn't proof of anything, but it begs the question. Did John add Thomas' doubts to delegitimatize Thomas and his gospel.
And the list goes on.
The Rise of Christian Orthodoxy
Bishop Irenaeus, an extremely influential early Christian, wrote Against Heresies. He was against the Gnostic teachings and ideas. He is the first known Christian to make a case for exactly four canonical Gospels today: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. At Irenaeus’ time, Christians followed vary number of Godpels. Groups would have followed just one gospels or mixed and matched. Irenaeus loved the Gospel of John and thought John was the most important Gospel. This led to the future orthodoxy. Itenaeus was influential to the following generations of Christian thinkers and bishops.
By the 4th century, the NT became a set canon that has mostly been unaltered. The canonization created an assault on the non-canonical texts. Few would survive.
Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria stands out for his condemnation of the heretical texts. In his Easter letter, he listed the 27 books of the New Testament for the first time in the exact form we have today. In the letter he also condemned the heretical texts. There isn't evidence for this, but his influence is likely a contributing factor in the destruction of the heretical books, Gnostic texts and non-canonical texts. To keep it very simple, this was the rise of Christian Orthodoxy and the New Testament (NT) as we know it.
Along with the destruction of the heretical texts, was the destruction of alternative interpretations. Gnosticism became heretical. The church started an ideological cleansing. With the imperial support of Emperor Constantine, the bishops and churches had the power to enforce orthodoxy.
There is a huge problem here. The church and bishops denied access to information. Information that many early Christians were persecuted and died for. People for over 1,500 years were ignorant of the non-canonical texts. They accepted the claims of early Christian scholars, like Irenaeus, who said the non-canonical texts were dangerous and heresies. But for over 1500 years people couldn’t decide for themselves.
Luckily, some Christian monks hid some of these texts (divine intervention??). Are they the dangerous heretical texts Irenaeus and Athanasius feared?
Non-Canonical Texts
People can read some of the destroyed heretical texts. The texts can be scrutinized and analyzed by the same logic that is used on the NT. People can choose for themselves how likely, heretical, or dangerous the texts are.
Most of the non-canonical texts seem to be 2nd to 3rd century. It's difficult to say because the books were banned and destroyed. For some of the texts only fragments have been discovered, for most only references from ancient Christian writings. Still, although debated, scholars seem to mostly agree that most of the known non-canonical texts are most likely from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
This would make them further removed from eyewitnesses and associates, and thus would make them less reliable. But still, following the formal logic above for the canonical gospels, they could still be a useful sources of information. They can add corroborations to both non-canonical texts and the NT.
The exceptions are Thomas and Egerton. These two texts could be as old as the canonical gospels. Here is another taste of Thomas:
“If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”
Did Jesus teach or say the above idea?
It is possible. The followers of Thomas certainly thought so. It unclear exactly what early Christians thought. They were obviously a diverse group of people with diverse and wide ranges of ideas. But it is not clear how prevalent the ideas were. David Bentley Heart suggest the early Christians were universalist. If the early Christians were closer to witnesses and associates shouldn’t they know better than 4th century bishops? It’s important to consider the early Christian when analyzing the life and teachings of Jesus.
There are over 30 known non-canonical gospels of Jesus, upwards towards 50. These texts were mentioned by early church fathers, like Irenaeus and Eusebius. Today there are at least fragments of 15 non-canonical gospels of Jesus.
The following is a table of know Gospels, estimated dates, and a very brief note of each book.
Almost Final Thoughts
The 30 plus gospels cannot all be true because they have direct contradictions. This proves that people could write inaccurate gospels and texts about Jesus. God and or the universe allowed it. So people have to decide which gospels, which ideas, etc are more or less likely and or true.
A friend of mine thinks God put everything in the Bible exactly how it should be. This is the divine intervention that cannot really be debated.
Would that make the Monks saving the Gnostic texts also divine intervention? Man tried to destroy it, but God wouldn’t allow it. We can imagine a future with more texts and fragments discovered, would that be divine intervention too?
Is God or men saving and destroying these texts and ideas?
Why should and shouldn't we accept the 4th century conclusions?
Using the formal logical above, we could broaden the scope of the NT. The non-canonical texts could have been written by or preserved from eyewitnesses or close associates of Jesus. Most of the ideas are consistent with and could corroborate other canonical and non-canonical texts.
Conclusion
Monks in Egypt saved these books for a reason. They thought they were too important to destroy. If humanity is lucky, the remaining fragments and texts will be discovered too. Then scholars and people in general can have a fuller picture of Jesus and the early Christians.
In the end, men wrote these texts. Men vetted the texts. Men successfully and unsuccessfully tried to destroy the texts. Men decided on the heretical and canonical texts. It's all men. Without divine intervention, it is all men.
With divine intervention, one just opens a new can of worms. How does one separate divine intervention from what humans do? It's not possible.
If one wants to use divine intervention for peace of mind, I'm all for that. But is that any different than saying I like this better because I like this better? it's just following a gty feeling, and that is fine too. I think we all do that.
The difference is, people don't admit they just like it better. I won't admit that. I honestly think I scrutinize the information and make logical conclusions. The ideas presented here are the result of countless books, lectures, hours thinking, articles, and discussions with friends. I do not take these topics lightly. I'm always learning and improving my understanding, especially of Jesus.
But there is no reason I have found to accept divine intervention. It doesn't solve any problems for me. It only raises more unanswerable problems. Collective knowledge, systems of logic, and the scientific method have allowed humans do answer so many questions about the world. Questions that used to be explained by Gods. The more humans learn, the less God is needed to explain.
I'm currently listening to The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. It is very interesting and bordering too detailed for my taste. Wright makes a great case for how and why man created a God, who created man in His image. Wright is not an Atheist either.
Many find solace and control in religious faith, particularly given the inherent uncertainties and anxieties of life, including the inevitability and unpredictability of death.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. This was a specific response to friends in a chat group.
DeleteI'll have to make another post or modify this one. I looked up and found that I was wrong about the logic of divine intervention. One can logically believe in divine intervention without belief in the Bible. I was wrong. I should have said many people use circular reasoning, certainly not all. If being honest, I haven't even polled or asked many people why they believe in divine intervention. I must admit I have a small sample size.