Contra Dawkins, Part 6

Part VI: Tolle, lege

Finally, we come to the ‘argument from scripture’.  Here, Dawkins starts of by citing C.S. Lewis’ ‘Mad, Bad or God’ trilemma regarding Jesus’ alleged claim to be divine. Of course, this trilemma leaves out a possible (indeed, probable) alternative: legend. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be the son of God, or perhaps, if he did, his claim to be the son of God was not intended as a claim to actual divinity. He might, instead, have been referring to a general sense in which humans could be said to be children of God. So, we are left with four possible options: Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend. Dawkins’ ‘honest mistake’ alternative is actually the very option that Lewis was arguing against. Lewis’ point was that a man who claimed to be God, couldn’t just be honestly mistaken. Such a delusion (if it were a delusion) would be far greater than just a belief in God or miracles – which Dawkins himself believes is certifiable. A person might be honestly mistaken about the existence of God, but to be ‘honestly mistaken’ about being God – that’s something else entirely. That was Lewis’ argument, anyway, which Dawkins (again) misrepresents. Proper research matters, Dawkins’ fans. Remember that.

With this unpromising beginning, Dawkins goes on the make a variety of contentious claims, most of which he fails to adequately defend, e.g.:

1. “Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world” (pp. 92-3). Actually, you will find that in the nineteenth century this view was prominent; but, ever since that century ended, scholars have taken a much more nuanced perspective of the reliability of the Canonical gospels. It would be more accurate to say that general scholarly consensus today is that the gospels are partially reliable texts. How much, and which parts, of these texts is/are reliable can be hotly debated, but the reality of New Testament scholarship is not as pessimistic as Dawkins presents it. Unfortunately, atheist anti-Christian polemic seems to be largely stuck in the nineteenth century. For example, many atheists claim, in direct contradiction to the best scholarship, that most of the early Christian traditions about Jesus' life were ripped off of 'mystery religions', such as Mithraism. This idea was popular among scholars in the nineteenth century, when the discipline of comparative religion was in its infancy, but was refuted in the twentieth century, when Mithraism became better understood.

2. “All [Canonical gospels] were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of Jesus' life” (p. 93). If by ‘long after’, you mean ‘within seventy years of Jesus’ crucifixion’, then you would be correct. However, by ancient historical standards, 30-70 years is remarkably short. That is (roughly) the range of dates given by biblical scholars. Conservatives typically date Mark (the first gospel) to around 60 C.E., while sceptical scholars tend to prefer a date closer to 70 C.E. Sceptics tend to date John (the last of the Canonical gospels) to around 95-100 C.E., while conservatives may date it as early as 85 C.E. Solid arguments can be made for each of these dates, but whatever dates scholars argue for, to have four biographical sketches of Jesus within seventy years of his death is remarkable.

Also, Dawkins is wrong about Paul. Paul’s writings include references to such crucial historical claims as: (1) Jesus actually existed (nothing in Paul's writings suggests otherwise, everything he writes about Jesus confirms that this is true), (2) Jesus was crucified, died and was buried [1 Corinthians 15: 3-4] (3) Jesus rose from the dead 'the third day' and his resurrection was witnessed by around 500 people, some of whom Paul mentions specifically, e.g., Peter, James, the apostles [1 Corinthians 15: 5-7]; (3) Paul himself saw Jesus alive after Jesus' death [1 Corinthians 15: 8], (3) Jesus handed down the Christian ritual commonly known today as ‘the Lord’s Supper’ to his followers prior to his crucifixion [1 Corinthinas 11:23-26], (4) Jesus had a brother named James, who became a leader of the Jerusalem church and confirmed to Paul that what Paul was teaching was consistent with the teachings of the other apostles [Galatians 1: 18-19; 2: 7-10] (5) Jesus had disciples, including John and Peter, whom he taught personally, and who claimed to have witnessed Jesus’ resurrection. Other facts might be garnered through a closer look at Paul’s writings, but these are claims Paul made explicitly. Dawkins is clearly a careless reader, though we did not need any more evidence of that.

3. “All [gospels] were then copied and recopied, through many different 'Chinese Whispers generations'…by fallible scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas” (p. 93). The reference to ‘Chinese whispers’, again, exposes Dawkins’ lack of understanding. Chinese Whispers is a game rigged to ensure that the final resulting phrase will be significantly different from the original phrase. Participants cannot double-check, to ensure they hear right, cannot ask anyone else if they are unsure, cannot go back to someone who had repeated the phrase earlier to ensure that they both said the same thing, etc. By contrast, scribal copying of biblical documents was a discipline ‘rigged’ to minimalise copying errors. They could double-check what they had copied. They could sometimes go back to earlier extant copies to ensure continuity. They were typically meticulous, and generally took the time to make sure they got it right. Were they infallible? Of course, not. However, general accuracy does not require infallibility. Anyway, solid historical scholarship does not require that ancient texts be completely accurate copies. If it did, we would know very little about ancient or medieval history, as most copies of primary texts used throughout the centuries have gone through similar processes of scribal copying. The most significant difference between these 'secular' texts and the New Testament ones is that the copying of the New Testament documents was often more meticulous than the copying of non-religious texts. As to the biases or agendas of the scribes, while there were some who had their own agendas, the general attitude of the scribes would most likely have been a strong desire to accurately copy what they believed to be the word of God. Significant alterations of (or additions to) the text of the New Testament gospels is the exception, not the rule. Dawkins is shamelessly repeating popular claims without bothering to study scholarly opinions to find out the truth.

4. “The four gospels that made it into the official canon were chosen, more or less arbitrarily, out of a larger sample of at least a dozen including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Philip, Bartholomew and Mary Magdalen” (p. 95). There were other gospels, it is true. Some other accounts of Jesus' life may even have been written during the first century C.E. (Luke 1:1), though none of these survive, and we have no knowledge of their content. Consequently, we cannot say whether they would have agreed or disagreed with the portrayal of Jesus found in the New Testament gospels. Though Luke's reference may indicate some degree of disagreement in the early church, it is unclear as to what these disagreements were, exactly. A minority of New Testament scholars argue that there are one or two extant non-Canonical gospels that might have been written as early as a decade after the Gospel of John - the last of the Canonical gospels, composed around the late ’80s or ’90s C.E. Of these Apocryphal gospels, as they are called, Thomas was probably the earliest. Some argue that it was composed as early as the first decade of the second century C.E. A few even claim that certain excerpts from the text may even predate the Synoptic Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark and Luke). This is possible, but excising the ‘early’ material from the ‘late’ material successfully is, it seems to me, unfeasible. At best, it is informed guesswork; at worst it amounts to little more than cherry-picking quotes – a practice that Dawkins is intimately familiar with, and yet one that is not typically considered a scholarly approach. Dawkins' accusation of the ‘arbitrariness’ of the process of selecting the Canonical gospels is unfair to the early Christians. Yes, there were debates over doctrine and they sometimes got quite heated. However, despite the claims of a minority of scholars, the extant non-Canonical gospels were almost certainly written long after the New Testament works were completed. So there was one non-arbitrary criterion that the early church did use, albeit indirectly: they chose the gospels that were written earlier. Of course, they believed that these gospels were written by apostles or those who knew them – a belief which led them to select those gospels that were (1) written earlier and (2) had long been ascribed to New Testament figures. Today, it is, frankly, difficult to confirm the belief that at least some of the gospels were written by individuals who knew Jesus. Nevertheless, the early church leaders had strong reason to believe that the gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, etc. were not written by these individuals at all. They appeared too late to have been written in the first century, within the lifetime of the apostles.

5. “Most of what the four canonical gospels share is derived from a common source, either Mark's gospel or a lost work of which Mark is the earliest extant descendant” (p. 96). It may be that most of what the Synoptic Gospels share did come from a common source. Luke was certainly aware of other 'gospels' and probably drew from them. However, there are problems with this idea. Luke mentions facts about events described by Mark that Mark does not mention. Therefore, Luke could not have been drawing from Mark when he included these facts. Ditto for Matthew. So, both may have drawn from Mark, but they clearly drew on other sources, as well. The ‘lost work’ to which Dawkins refers, named ‘Q’ by modern scholars, may have existed, but as we don’t know the content of this hypothetical text, we can’t know to what extent the Synoptic gospels drew from it, if at all. More importantly, the existence of an earlier text would undermine Dawkins claim about the ‘lateness’ of the evidence for Jesus life and teachings. This does not help the sceptic’s case. As a sceptic of Christianity myself, I would advise Dawkins to stop making the case for the historical reliability of the Canonical gospels. As someone who loves a good argument, I would point out that trying to argue against the reliability of the gospels by using evidence that supports the reliability of the gospels is not a good strategy. As someone who studied history, I would suggest that Dawkins keeps him mouth closed the next time he hears the Canonical gospels mentioned.

6. “Nobody knows who the four evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally” (p. 96). Now, if Dawkins had only written the first part of that sentence, and omitted the second part, he would have been right. We cannot know who wrote the gospels – not with certainty. However, then Dawkins contradicts himself. How can he claim to know that the authors of the four gospels ‘almost certainly never met Jesus’, unless he knows who wrote these gospels? If the Canonical gospels had been written in the second or third centuries C.E., you could conclude with certainty that the authors didn’t know Jesus personally. But the Canonical gospels were written in the first century C.E. So the authors of these texts could have known Jesus or have interviewed people who knew Jesus in preparing their accounts. The author of the Gospel of Luke, probably Luke himself, states that he did some considerable research in preparation for his work (Luke 1:1). Now one might argue that Luke could have said he prepared carefully, but didn’t really prepare. (The God Delusion is an exemplar of this approach.) However, unlike with The God Delusion, there is no evidence that the Gospel of Luke is a deliberate fabrication or the product of incompetence. Indeed, of all the gospels, Canonical or non-Canonical, Luke’s is generally regarded by scholars to be the most reliable and valuable source.

7. “Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt at history but was simply rehashed from the Old Testament, because the gospel-makers were devoutly convinced that the life of Jesus must fulfil [sic] Old Testament prophecies” (p. 96-7). Again, Dawkins is intimately acquainted with the unfortunate human tendency to allow ideology to distort one’s perspective. However, despite his personal experience in this area (or perhaps because of it), he seems to be getting things backward. The most important question here is: Why were the ‘gospel-makers’ so convinced that Jesus’ life fulfills Old Testament prophecies? Did they just pull this idea out of thin air? And why would they make up ideas about Jesus' ‘resurrection’, when the idea that an individual would be resurrected prior to the ‘end of days’ was not believed by conservative Old Testament-believing Jews in the first century C.E.? As for the gospels not being an ‘honest attempt’ at history, I didn’t realise Dawkins has access to the gospel-makers’ psychological profiles so that he can so incisively assess their motivations. He really should share this evidence with historians. Finally, what Dawkins is basically saying is that the evangelists just made up a whole lot of stuff to fit their beliefs. This seems implausible. I mean, it’s one thing to for the gospel-writers to imply that Jesus’ reference to himself as the ‘son of man’, was an obvious reference to Daniel’s ‘Son of Man’ coming in judgement (Daniel 7:13), an Old Testament prophecy. It’s an entirely different thing to claim to have seen Jesus risen from the dead, if you know it didn’t happen. The former is an interpretation; the latter would be a lie. The ‘they misunderstood Jesus’ thesis is potentially defensible, though it would also require an explanation of how the resurrection story got started. The ‘they made it all up’ thesis has serious, potentially fatal, problems. Additionally, if the evangelists were just borrowing from the Old Testament, they most probably would not have come up with the idea of Jesus' resurrection, as the idea of the Messiah dying and being resurrected is never stated explicitly in any Old Testament text, rather such texts are interpreted by Christians retroactively to conclude that that is what they were saying. I know that Dawkins is driven by a need to find no meaning in the life of Jesus apart from that of an ordinary first-century Jewish lay-preacher, but his ideology is driving him in the wrong direction. In fact, Dawkins next comment takes him right off the deep end...

8. “It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist?” (p. 97). It is also possible to mount an equally 'serious', though not widely supported, historical case that Dawkins never lived at all. I might write that book myself. (Spoilers: It would probably include some zombie theory.) However, both Dawkins and my ‘strong cases’ would be motivated by the same impulse – not a desire for the truth, but rather the desire to remove an irritant. If Jesus didn't exist, it would make Dawkins' life so much easier. If Dawkins didn't exist, it would make everyone else's lives so much easier. Also, Dawkins’ reference to ‘Professor G.A. Wells of the University of London’ is grossly misleading, to the point of outright dishonesty. Wells is a professor – of German. He has no expertise in first-century Palestinian history, or New Testament scholarship. He doesn’t even have expertise in ancient history, generally. The claim that Jesus never existed must deny out of hand all the ancient evidence we have of Jesus' life: from the gospels, the writings of Paul and other New Testament writers and extant non-Christian writers, as well. The evidence is too strong to just dismiss or explain away. Even someone as skilled as a professor of German  or a professor of the public understanding of science couldn't do it.

9. “Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity” (p. 97). See below for a discussion of Dawkins arbitrary use of the term ‘scholar’. I would simply point out that ‘reputable biblical scholars’ differ, sometimes dramatically, in their views on the reliability of the New Testament. Dawkins might suggest that those who argue for the reliability of the New Testament are biased by their religious beliefs, and should be discounted. Other atheist polemicists have said the same. Certainly, Dawkins' arbitrary use of the term ‘scholar’ reveals his sympathy for such a conclusion. However, this would, again, reveal just how blind Dawkins is to his own biases. He assumes that those who agree with him are ‘scholarly’, ‘sceptical’ and ‘unbiased’, in contrast to those who disagree with him. This blinkered attitude pervades The God Delusion. However, ‘sceptical’ biblical scholars also have their own biases. Many are agnostics or atheists or theological liberals and their ideology colours their scholarship, as much as any conservative scholar's beliefs do. This is inevitable. If Dawkins is to refute the arguments of conservative biblical scholars, he cannot simply cite the opinions of sceptical scholars and then choose to regard them as the ‘reputable’ ones, as though that settles the matter. He needs to engage with the actual arguments of these conservative scholars, which means reading their scholarly (yes, scholarly) works. Anything less is pseudo-intellectual bluster – though, by now, if we have learned anything at all, it is that pseudo-intellectual bluster is what Dawkins does best. Finally, I would point out that most Christian scholars do not defend the New Testament in order to prove the existence of God. Some (e.g., Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, Timothy and Lydia McGrew), have attempted to defend an 'argument from miracles', specifically the miracle of the resurrection. Most Christian scholars would adopt a two-step approach: (1) defend the existence of God, (2) defend specifically Christian beliefs, like the resurrection. This, it seems to me, is a more plausible approach, if you must defend Christianity. The argument from miracles sets itself too great a task: to convince the reader both that miracles are plausible and that they are evidence for God's existence. It seems to me that miracles are only possible, let alone plausible, if you accept that God exists first. The argument from miracles has it ass-backwards.

Notice, in the first quote above, the shift in the use of the label ‘theologians’. Throughout most of his writings, Dawkins uses the term ‘theologian’ as a term of abuse or dismissal. He repeatedly dismisses philosopher Richard Swinburne as a ‘theologian’. When philosopher Keith Ward was appointed to the position of Regis Professor of Divinity at Oxford in 1991, Dawkins demanded that Ward resign, because theology is 'not a real subject' (Keith Ward, Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins, Lion Books, 2008, pp. 6-7). When, upon the publication of The God Delusion, he was criticised for his lack of theological knowledge, Dawkins dismissed theology as comparable to ‘fairyology’. Yet, here we have this curious reference to ‘scholarly theologians’. Are not Richard Swinburne and Keith Ward ‘scholars’? By any reasonable definition of the term, they are. Each has held professorships at major universities, including Oxford, and written numerous academic books and articles. So why, in Dawkins’ eyes, are the theologians mentioned above ‘scholarly’, and Swinburne and Ward not so? All this provides an interesting insight into the workings of what we shall now call ‘the Dawkinsian mind’. Dawkins regards as ‘scholarly’ anyone who agrees substantially with his views and dismisses as mere ‘theologians’ or 'apologists' anyone who disagrees with him. This is a convenient, if completely ego-centric and artificial, standard of 'scholarliness'.

Now we come to the part where I talk about what books Dawkins should have read by conservative New Testament scholars. There are many. Here are a few.

Firstly, on the question of general historical reliability of the New Testament documents:

1. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006).
2. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament (InterVarsity Press, 1987; 2^nd ed., 2007).
3. Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, 2^nd edition (InterVarsity Press, 2005).

On the subject of the formation of the New Testament Canon:

4. Bruce M. Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance (Clarendon Press, 1987). 

On the textual integrity of the New Testament:

5. Bruce M. Metzger & Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, 4^th edition (Oxford University Press, 2005).

On the historical evidence for the existence and life of Jesus:

6. James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Westminster Press, 1985).
7. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000).
8. Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press, 1996).

On evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

9. N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press, 2003).
10. Richard Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Clarendon Press, 2003).

Dawkins makes numerous historical claims that he doesn’t back up with evidence. Worse, he fails totally to engage with the vast array of conservative and semi-conservative scholarship that is available. In fact, he doesn’t even engage with liberal or sceptical scholarship – the books he cites are all popular works! – despite making numerous references to ‘scholarly’ opinion. Again, this is Dawkins doing what Dawkins does.