This is the first of a series of blog posts that I am doing in response to a post called Jesus Myth – The Case Against Historical Christ that was written by R.G. Price.
I am aware that this was written in 2007 and it is possible that some of the views presented in that post may not represent Price’s current positions. The goal of this series is simply to respond to that particular presentation of the Jesus Myth Theory as a good example of some of what is out there.
The Gospel of Mark is the first story of Jesus that was written, and all others are dependent on it
The first part of Price’s case against the historical Christ is to give some background on the Gospel of Mark. Most of what he says here is not controversial at all.
It seems he is looking to shock naive laypeople who assume that the Gospels were written in the order that they are found in the New Testament and that they are completely independent witnesses of each other. The expectation is that learning their relationship will shake confidence in their historical value.
What Price presents here is basically what is called the Synoptic Problem. There are both similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) that can’t be explained just by witnesses recording their memories of what they saw. There is some sort of literary dependence.
Price is correct that for a long time, many Christians saw Matthew as the first Gospel written. More recently, there has risen a general consensus (with a few disagreements) that Mark was written first. This is called the priority of Mark.
Most scholars (including evangelicals) also accept that Matthew and Luke used Mark in the writing of their Gospels. Nothing in this takes away from the historical value of the Gospels.
And yet Price says:
The fact that all three of the other narrative Gospels in the Bible are based directly or indirectly on the Gospel of Mark demonstrates the lack of other narrative information about Jesus. The Gospel of Mark became the root of the other Gospels because it was the only writing that provided narrative details about Jesus. The additions that the authors of Matthew and Luke made to the Gospel of Mark are primarily just the virgin birth narratives and some additional post-resurrection narratives.
I am assuming that Price knows that what he is saying is not true and that he is just trying to make a point. Because there is quite a bit of other traditions found in Matthew and Luke. Price even mentions them. They include Q (material in common between Matthew and Luke but not in Mark) and M (material unique to Matthew) and L (material unique to Luke).
As some examples of what is found outside of Mark, we have the Sermon on the Mount, the Parable of the Good Samaritan and the Parable of the Prodigal Son. And those are just the most well known passages, there is much more.
Perhaps for those who have never considered the literary interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels, what Price says might be concerning. But this relationship has not been hidden and there is nothing in it that should make us doubt the historical value of the Gospels.
For more information on the Synoptic Problem, listen to this episode of my History of Christianity Podcast.
In “Against Modern Heresies” and “Gospel Manuscripts of the 1st Millennium: Volume 1” the late, great, NT scholar Mark A. Dumdei makes a highly persuasive case that Mark was the 3rd Gospel, originally written in Latin for the benefit of Gentiles, and guided by Matthew and Luke. Dumdei observes Mark’s conspicuous omissions of people, prophecies, and history important to Jews but not Gentiles, e.g., Jesus’ royal lineage, and his omission of phrases likely to upset Roman authorities, e.g., references to Jesus as a king. No one who has not read Dumdei can speak authoritatively on this subject.
A couple problems with Dumdei’s argument:
(1) Nowhere in Papias’ statements quoted in Eusebius’ “Historia” do I find ANY statement that St. Mark wrote in Latin.
(2) Our earliest evidence for ALL the New Testament writings (i.e., the papyri) comes to us in Greek. The earliest we have in Latin is the Codex Bobbiensis in the mid-300’s A.D. — about a century or so later.