An acquaintance and I engaged in polite conversation some time ago, discussing the nature of historical evidence and sources, and the discussion happened to go on to the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. Both of us being students of history, we know how important sources are; sources are what we base the study of history upon. The acquaintance offered to loan me Josh McDowell's Evidence for the Historical Jesus: A Compelling Case for His Life and His Claims. I was reluctant to do so, but being polite I agreed to borrow and read it. The name of McDowell was familiar to me before the fact, but I admit that I didn't know much about him or his work. Now having read the book from beginning to end, paying close attention to the nature of the argument and the sources McDowell uses, I can say without a doubt that this is the finest piece of pseudoscholarship I have encountered since it was my misfortune to read Lee Stobel's The Case for a Creator.
The numerous problems in logic and scholarship that plague this book all stem from a single failure, the greatest crime that any work of scholarship can commit. McDowell starts with his conclusion in mind and carefully selects his sources to prove it, ignoring much of the scholarship that would disagree with his assertions. When he does acknowledge that an opposing view exists he creates a straw man; he picks out the arguments about the historical Jesus that are most diametrically opposed to his own, including some truly fringe notions like the arguments from the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail while ignoring the moderate, mainstream opinions of modern scholarship on the New Testament. The sources he uses almost invariably fall into one of two classes. Either the source is from a friendly publishing house or institution or the source is quite old, dating from the 1950's and often even earlier.
What do I mean specifically by my criticisms of McDowell's sources? Often, the source is from a known friendly (read fundamentalist Christian) publishing house; many of his sources are published through Zondervan, InterVarsity Press, Moody, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, Baker Book House and Tyndale House Press. Make no mistake, it is not a crime to use friendly sources when making an academic argument, but to cherry pick sources as McDowell does is terribly shoddy scholarship. Once I realized, two chapters in, that this was to be the case, I lost all respect for McDowell's work. If one has to distort the current body of scholarship to make one's case it speaks poorly of the author as scholar.
Further, many of the sources used are hopelessly out of date. Take for instance the sources used in arguing that archaeology has proven the stories of the Bible. One of his main sources is Joseph Free, author of Archaeology and Bible History whom he quotes in support of the notion that archaeological finds are confirming the biblical accounts. What is the nature of this source? A quick look at the reference in the bibliography reveals Free's book to not only be from a friendly press (Scripture Press Publications) but also from 1969. Unfortunately, in a field that is constantly changing in light of new discoveries, a publication that is over forty years old would be unacceptable even had it been an academic source, which it most assuredly is not. He also cites Sir William Ramsay in discussing archaeology, but Ramsay's works are from the period of 1898-1916, vastly out of date. His sources for history of the time, friendly to his case, are from the 19th Century.
The problems don't stop there, though the questionable nature of his sources is enough to disqualify his argument as it is. He engages in a number of logical fallacies such as circular reasoning and the false dilemma. For instance, he cites the number of eyewitnesses for the resurrection of Jesus as proof that it really happened. The only problem is that these eyewitnesses are recorded in the very Gospels that make the claim of the resurrection itself; he uses evidence in the Gospels to prove a claim made in the Gospels. This is classic circular reasoning, akin to me claiming that I once saved a dog from a burning barn. If you ask me to prove the claim, I tell you that lots of people were there to see it, not offering to name any of them or give you any means of verifying that these unnamed people really did see me save a dog from a burning building. You would likely be skeptical of my claim, and you would be right. In a case like this, the evidence supporting the claim must be able to be verified outside of the source making the claim. I have already noted McDowell's use of the straw-man fallacy, but his use of the false dilemma is nearly as egregious. One of his evidences for the reality of the resurrection is that the early apostles were martyred. "Who would die for a lie?" he asks. Who indeed? But martyrdom is not evidence that the claim is true, it is merely evidence that the people believed it to be true. If the fact that people died for an idea was enough to make it true, then by that reasoning every belief from Islam to the Heaven's Gate cult would have to be admitted to be true, and no one would accept that idea. Further, the evidence that the apostles were martyred according to Christian tradition is sketchy at best.
To go through the book and thoroughly take apart the fallacies and bad scholarship that props up McDowell's arguments would require a book in and of itself and is beyond my patience. The true problem is that it isn't enough for McDowell to accept the current consensus of modern scholarship. Most modern scholars would agree with the statement that there is enough evidence to say that a man named Jesus lived in Palestine during the first century A.D., and many would even agree that there is enough evidence to say that he was a teacher who was executed by the Roman government under Pontius Pilate. They would further note that there is no evidence for the supernatural claims of the Gospels, but that these are matters of faith. That is not good enough for McDowell, who asserts that we can use the evidence of history to conclusively prove the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus. That is something we cannot do, not based on the documents or the archaeological evidence that is available. It is and remains a matter of faith, neither proven nor disproven by the surviving literature. The case is compelling only to those who are already convinced or who have no historical training in the methods of the discipline.
Evidence for the Historical Jesus is a case built like a house of cards, poorly constructed and easily demolished under the weight of its own fallacies. With only a minimal training in the nature of sources and basic principles of logic this not-so-compelling case falls to pieces.
The numerous problems in logic and scholarship that plague this book all stem from a single failure, the greatest crime that any work of scholarship can commit. McDowell starts with his conclusion in mind and carefully selects his sources to prove it, ignoring much of the scholarship that would disagree with his assertions. When he does acknowledge that an opposing view exists he creates a straw man; he picks out the arguments about the historical Jesus that are most diametrically opposed to his own, including some truly fringe notions like the arguments from the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail while ignoring the moderate, mainstream opinions of modern scholarship on the New Testament. The sources he uses almost invariably fall into one of two classes. Either the source is from a friendly publishing house or institution or the source is quite old, dating from the 1950's and often even earlier.
What do I mean specifically by my criticisms of McDowell's sources? Often, the source is from a known friendly (read fundamentalist Christian) publishing house; many of his sources are published through Zondervan, InterVarsity Press, Moody, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, Baker Book House and Tyndale House Press. Make no mistake, it is not a crime to use friendly sources when making an academic argument, but to cherry pick sources as McDowell does is terribly shoddy scholarship. Once I realized, two chapters in, that this was to be the case, I lost all respect for McDowell's work. If one has to distort the current body of scholarship to make one's case it speaks poorly of the author as scholar.
Further, many of the sources used are hopelessly out of date. Take for instance the sources used in arguing that archaeology has proven the stories of the Bible. One of his main sources is Joseph Free, author of Archaeology and Bible History whom he quotes in support of the notion that archaeological finds are confirming the biblical accounts. What is the nature of this source? A quick look at the reference in the bibliography reveals Free's book to not only be from a friendly press (Scripture Press Publications) but also from 1969. Unfortunately, in a field that is constantly changing in light of new discoveries, a publication that is over forty years old would be unacceptable even had it been an academic source, which it most assuredly is not. He also cites Sir William Ramsay in discussing archaeology, but Ramsay's works are from the period of 1898-1916, vastly out of date. His sources for history of the time, friendly to his case, are from the 19th Century.
The problems don't stop there, though the questionable nature of his sources is enough to disqualify his argument as it is. He engages in a number of logical fallacies such as circular reasoning and the false dilemma. For instance, he cites the number of eyewitnesses for the resurrection of Jesus as proof that it really happened. The only problem is that these eyewitnesses are recorded in the very Gospels that make the claim of the resurrection itself; he uses evidence in the Gospels to prove a claim made in the Gospels. This is classic circular reasoning, akin to me claiming that I once saved a dog from a burning barn. If you ask me to prove the claim, I tell you that lots of people were there to see it, not offering to name any of them or give you any means of verifying that these unnamed people really did see me save a dog from a burning building. You would likely be skeptical of my claim, and you would be right. In a case like this, the evidence supporting the claim must be able to be verified outside of the source making the claim. I have already noted McDowell's use of the straw-man fallacy, but his use of the false dilemma is nearly as egregious. One of his evidences for the reality of the resurrection is that the early apostles were martyred. "Who would die for a lie?" he asks. Who indeed? But martyrdom is not evidence that the claim is true, it is merely evidence that the people believed it to be true. If the fact that people died for an idea was enough to make it true, then by that reasoning every belief from Islam to the Heaven's Gate cult would have to be admitted to be true, and no one would accept that idea. Further, the evidence that the apostles were martyred according to Christian tradition is sketchy at best.
To go through the book and thoroughly take apart the fallacies and bad scholarship that props up McDowell's arguments would require a book in and of itself and is beyond my patience. The true problem is that it isn't enough for McDowell to accept the current consensus of modern scholarship. Most modern scholars would agree with the statement that there is enough evidence to say that a man named Jesus lived in Palestine during the first century A.D., and many would even agree that there is enough evidence to say that he was a teacher who was executed by the Roman government under Pontius Pilate. They would further note that there is no evidence for the supernatural claims of the Gospels, but that these are matters of faith. That is not good enough for McDowell, who asserts that we can use the evidence of history to conclusively prove the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus. That is something we cannot do, not based on the documents or the archaeological evidence that is available. It is and remains a matter of faith, neither proven nor disproven by the surviving literature. The case is compelling only to those who are already convinced or who have no historical training in the methods of the discipline.
Evidence for the Historical Jesus is a case built like a house of cards, poorly constructed and easily demolished under the weight of its own fallacies. With only a minimal training in the nature of sources and basic principles of logic this not-so-compelling case falls to pieces.
Comments
Post a Comment