JESUS CHRIST & HIS BEING Did He Even Exist: PART ONE

 

By Noel Coypel - http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Noel-Coypel/The-Resurrection-Of-Christ,-1700.html, Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28274624

Internal Evidence:

The Gospel Account

Ostensively the gospel accounts provide the most extensive volume of information about Jesus and all that He supposedly said and did. But what is at issue for those arguing against the historicity of Jesus has to do firstly with the credibility of the gospel accounts themselves.

     Primarily, the collective sacred scriptura that comprise the ancient MSS of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that encompass the Biblical account, as a whole, is self-attesting. In other words, its truth claims are verified, corroborated, or authenticated by what it avers of itself. Additionally, the Holy Spirit authenticates our sense that this is the word of God. However, these views are unpersuasive to those who do not share the Christian world view. As a result, a more intellectual, academic study seems to be necessary. As such, the locus of my inquest will center squarely on the Gospel of Mark. Not so much the language of the text itself, but more specifically on the criteria that has been agreed upon by historians who examine ancient documents and test their reliability, whether they themselves be scholars of the Christian persuasion or not. My thesis is namely this, that my English translation of the gospel of Mark is a historically reliable account of selected events surrounding the life, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have employed the adjective “selected” to indicate that while Marks’ gospel does not divulge every detail concerning the life of Jesus of Nazareth, nevertheless, what he does relay is ipso facto, historically reliable.

     No other name has been put forward by any other church historian or church father regarding the unanimous designation of John – Mark as the author of the gospel that bears his name. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Jerome et al were all in agreement on this point. The most ancient reference we have of Mark as its author is that of Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 60 – 130), who was most active in his written compositions during A.D. 90 – 110. It is believed by some that Papias was a companion of John and acquainted with Polycarp of Smyrna, (A.D. 69 – 155), also a disciple of John, therefore closest to the time of Mark’s autograph. Church historian Eusebius, quoting Papias, has stated:

And John the Presbyter also said this, Mark being the interpreter of Peter whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy but not however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter, who gave him such instruction as was necessary, but not to give a history of our Lord’s discourses: wherefore Mark has not erred in anything, by writing some things as he has recorded them; for he was carefully attentive to one thing, not to pass by anything that he heard, or to state anything falsely in these accounts. (Emphasis added)[1]

So, John the disciple, or John the elder, affirmed to Papias who spoke with him that Mark was the author of the gospel attributed to him.

     The question invariably arises, why is Marks’ gospel central to this particular study? Two reasons, first, the gospel of Mark is reasoned to be the first of the four gospels written, and second, it appears to be the source for the gospels of Mathew and Luke. Utilizing the gospel of Mark as a test case for the veracity of the gospels, we need to cross three bridges. First, we need to get from Jesus to John-Mark. John-Mark must offer reliable testimony to inform us of the truth regarding Jesus of Nazareth and be close enough to the events in question, so as not to embellish the accounts that he offers. Bridge two, the original document which Mark wrote, his autograph, is no longer available, but Greek copies of his work do exist. So, we must determine if extant Greek manuscripts of Mark’s original autograph have been faithfully transmitted. Incidentally it is worth noting that there exist no autographs for any other ancient document for any other figure or event of antiquity, only copies. Bridge three will address the discipline of translation. Have the translators of those ancient Greek manuscripts faithfully transcribed what the text states? I am going to accomplish this by looking at three objections that correspond to the three bridges I just mentioned. First, biased translation – this is the view that the church historically has messed with the translation and therefore our English Bibles are unreliable. Second, tainted transmission – this is the view that Mark may have been trustworthy to the original autograph he wrote, but can we trust the current, extant Greek MSS, the copies of Mark’s autograph? Third, unreliable testimony – this is the view that early Christians were unable, or unwilling, to tell the truth about who Jesus was. Believing that Jesus was merely a Jewish peasant who they aggrandized into some demi-god.

1.      The Objection of Inaccurate Translation

     At issue here is the belief that the church has somehow biased the translation. Among scholars however this belief is nothing more than mere posturing. But among the general populace this view holds significant sway. Hermeneutics is the science and art of biblical interpretation. It is considered a science because it has rules, and these rules can be classified into an orderly system. It is considered an art because communication is flexible, and therefore a mechanical and rigid application of rules will sometimes distort the true meaning of a communication.[2] But in what sense is hermeneutics a science? Hermeneutics is considered a science because it deals with what the "rules of interpretation" are. For example, the golden rule, the law of first mention, the law of double reference, the law of recurrence, and the law of context. In what sense then is hermeneutics an art?  The art of hermeneutics deals with how those rules of interpretation should be applied. In other words, when translating from the source language, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, into the receptor language, in our case English, translation can employ the functional, thought-for-thought approach known as dynamic equivalency, or a more literal, word-for-word approach known as formal equivalency. The dynamic equivalency approach to translation attempts to convey what the original text means. The formal equivalency approach to translation attempts to convey what the original text says, leaving its meaning up to the reader to determine.

     With the golden rule of interpretation, when the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word, at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, which is another of the rules of interpretation, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. Another of the rules of interpretation is the law of first mention. This rule of interpretation states that the first occurrence in scripture of a particular Christian doctrine provides the simplest most fundamental, inherent meaning of that doctrine with the understanding that additional scriptural references to it will expand our understanding of that particular doctrine. A third rule of interpretation is the law of double reference which is closely associated with the fourth rule of interpretation, the law of recurrence. In the law of double reference, a passage of scripture speaks of two different persons or events that are separated by a lengthy period of time. The fact that a gap of time exists is known because of other scriptures. In the law of recurrence, two blocks of scripture record the same event; the second block adds more information and provides additional details to the first. The final rule of interpretation is the rule of context. In this law any passage apart from its context, is pretext. A pretext is a purpose or motive alleged or an appearance assumed in order to cloak the real intention or state of affairs.[3] In the rule of context, passages of scripture are not interpreted in isolation. In other words, surrounding words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, passages, chapters, genera, and testaments are all taken into consideration. 

     When a team of translators sit down, their first task is to determine if the translation they wish to produce will be formal or dynamic equivalency. In a formal approach, translators will attempt to convey exact wording as found in ancient manuscripts. In a dynamic approach, translators will attempt to convey ideas or meanings expressed in those same ancient manuscripts. It is worth pointing out that even a formal approach to translation will require some reworking to the text for two reasons. One, Hebrew and Greek have fewer characters in their alphabet, 22 and 24 respectively, compared to the 26 found in the English language. This results in fewer words that can be formed. Secondly, sentence structure in Hebrew is verb, subject, object; while English is subject, verb, object, style language. To read Hebrew in literal English would be awkward requiring a reworking of sentence structure to improve syntax to make reading it in English easier. Although Greek does possess more characters than Hebrew in its alphabet, we have the same problem, not as many words can be formed as in English. This observation necessitates insertion to the text to improve comprehension of what is being conveyed to the reader in the passage. A number of translations exist across the spectrum, from formal to functional (dynamic). The chart below indicates this.

                                                                               


  Regardless of which approach to translation is employed, Greek scholars, Christian or non-Christian, affirm the process as accurate and unbiased.

2.      The Objection of Tainted Transmission

     As I mentioned previously, we don’t possess the original autograph of Mark; we have copies of it. We actually don’t have the original of any ancient document, only copies. As an example, Paul’s letters were passed around from church to church and in the process of time would start to decay, so copies were necessary. The question isn’t whether we have Mark’s original writing, the question is how many copies of the original do we have? How early were they written? And how closely do they date to the original autograph? Roman Historian Tacitus wrote “The Annals”, a History of the Roman Empire ca. A.D. 100. The earliest extant copy of his work indicates an almost 1,000-year span between those copies and its original writing. The same could be said of Athenian Historian Thucydides’ work, “History”. Only 20 copies exist of Tacitus’ Annals, and just 8 copies for Thucydides’ History, yet we trust them implicitly as accurate accounts. By contrast, the gospel of Mark was written, scholars estimate, between A.D. 40 – 60. The first MSS of his gospel date back to A.D. 200, a differential of 140 – 160 years and there are thousands of extant MSS of his gospel. As an example, the Chester Beatty Papyri, discovered in the 1930’s, date back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries and written in the Greek language. There are eleven manuscripts in all, seven of the Old Testament, three of the New Testament, and one of the book of Enoch. P45 was a codex of 110 leaves containing portions of all four gospels as well as the book of Acts. Two small leaves in this collection contain chapters 4:36 – 9:31 of Mark’s gospel.

     With respect to textual variants, these are sections within manuscripts where there is a measure of uncertainty about the text. One manuscript will have a word or a phrase where another manuscript will have a different word or phrase. NT textual commentators Westcott and Hort have indicated the only one sixtieth rise above “trivialities” and can be called “substantial variations”. In short, the NT is 98.33% pure. Greek scholar Ezra Abbott has stated that about 19/20 (95%) of the readings are “various” rather than “rival” readings, and about 19/20 (95%) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. NT Greek scholar John A.T. Robertson has said that the real concern is with about “a thousandth part of the entire text”. So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free of any real concern. Theologian and Church Historian Philip Schaff has estimated that of the 150,000 variants known, only 400 have affected the sense; and of those, fifty were of any real significance; and of those, not one has affected any article of faith. In fact, multiple variants can help to establish the original.

1.      Y#u have won ten million dollars.

2.      Yo# have won ten million dollars.

3.      You #ave won ten million dollars.

     In this example you have three variant readings. We can see from two and three, that one is missing the vowel “O”. We can see from one and three, that two is missing the vowel “U”; and we can see from one and two, that three is missing the consonant “H”. So, this indicates that even with mistakes occurring, 100% of the message conveyed still comes through. Biblical critic Bart Ehrman has admitted,

In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple – slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another. (Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 55; Emphasis added).  

Manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon has stated,

The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. (Kenyon, Bible and Archaeology, 288; Emphasis added).

     The gospel of Mark is the shortest of the four in the biblical canon. Among historical scholars when studying ancient documents, the shorter reading is usually the earliest, or the original. Variant readings are few and insignificant enough, and the science of textual criticism is sophisticated enough to guarantee a virtually 99% reconstruction of Mark’s original words. There is no major doctrine or article of faith that is affected by textual variants. In Mark 1:1, some MSS do not include the phrase, “the Son of God”. But this is by no means an enigma because if you look further down in the text, you will notice in v.11, God the Father refers to Jesus as the Son of God, “You are My beloved Son”. In fact, Jesus is referred to as the Son of God thirty-nine times in the NT. So, a single verse which does not contain that particular phrase in an earlier manuscript is not going to affect that doctrine adversely as the claim exists at various points throughout the NT. Furthermore, those other thirty-nine occurrences, do not exist as variants. Mark 3:14 states that Jesus appointed twelve “apostles”, yet the noun “apostle” does not appear in some earlier manuscripts. Nevertheless, they are referred to as “apostles” at other points in the NT. There are other variants in Mark’s gospel, but again, no doctrine or article of faith has been negatively affected. My English Bible has been translated from a manuscript tradition which guarantees the reliable transmission of the Greek original of Mark and all that he had asserted about the existence of Jesus and all that He said and did. If we have to throw that out as unreliable, then we better throw out every other translation of ancient document, because we have far more on Mark and the NT than any other ancient document accepted as factual.

Note: Part Two will address, The Reliability of Mark’s Testimony and the issue of, Multiple Attestation or The Presence of Independent Witnesses.  



[1] C.F. Cruse, Translator.  Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged 3.39.15, Eusebius quoting Papias (Peabody, MASS.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2018), 105.

[2] ​Henry A. Virkler and Karelynne G. Ayayo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation ed.2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1981), 16.  

 [3] “Pretext.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pretext. Accessed 25 Mar. 2023.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Of Anakin Skywalker and Jesus Christ

THE VERACITY OF THE BIBLE