Robert M. Price. The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition? Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 2003. See here to buy the book.
Robert M. Price is often characterized as an atheist biblical scholar
and a Christ myther, one who does not believe that Jesus historically
existed. In The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Price goes
from Jesus’ birth to his resurrection and essentially argues that there
is not a whole lot—-if anything—-that we can know about the historical
Jesus, from the Gospels or any other source. This book is 354 pages,
which is not particularly massive, and yet there is so much in it. I
will list some of my reactions to the book in this post, but I can
guarantee that, after writing and publishing this post, I will think of
some topic in the book that I should have addressed. I do not want to
keep editing and re-editing this post, nor do I want to do a series on
this book (though I may refer to items in it in future posts), so this
post will have to suffice, at least for me.
That said, here are some items:
1. Let me start by saying that I often feel uncomfortable reading
Christian apologetic and atheist books. When I read Christian
apologetic books, I feel as if my free will is being restrained, and
that I absolutely have to deal with a biblical God whom I do not find
overly appealing. When I read atheist books, I feel as if whatever
faith and hope I have are being shown to have no basis in fact
whatsoever. Contrary to what many might think, I am not some wide-eyed
Christian who gets bent out of shape and thrown into an existential
crisis any time someone shows me an error in the Bible. I have read my
share of biblical criticism, from both maximalists and also minimalists;
some of what Price said was stuff that I had heard or read before, and
some of it was completely new to me. For some reason, though, reading
this book by Price was a rather exhausting and disturbing process for
me, and I wonder why. Maybe it was because I thought that, even if the
Bible has errors, there are still things that we can historically take
for granted about Jesus, things that are edifying to my faith, and Price
was dismantling (or trying to dismantle) this view, page after page
after page. Perhaps my reaction was due to all of the Christian books I
have been reading lately! I still have faith, on some level, for I
believe in certain values, and I regularly call out to a higher power to
help me. This book, however, is still a challenge to me.
2. I am often reluctant to read and blog about books that promote
Christ-mythicism, even though I have written blog posts in the past that
are relevant to that debate (i.e., Was Christianity influenced by the
mystery religions or the belief in a dying and rising god? Was the
reference to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities 18.3.3 authentic?). Why
have I been reluctant? It is because I am afraid that I will not know
enough to refute the Christ-mythicist arguments, and thus I will look
bad to other biblical scholars or budding biblical scholars, many of
whom see Christ-mythicism as the equivalent to young earth creationism.
I am just being honest and vulnerable here!
3. Did I know enough to refute any of Price’s arguments?
Well, Price’s book would take a lot of time for me to try to refute or
critique. Price referred to so many primary sources, from Hellenistic,
classical, Jewish, Buddhist, and ancient Christian literature, and it
would take me a long time to look at each reference that he cited, to
find the sources that he mentioned but did not explicitly cite, to find
the dates for the references and sources for which he did not provide a
date (we’ll see later why that is important), and then to determine if
Price is interacting with those sources fairly and accurately. Then
there are some of the secondary sources that Price mentions, for which
Price tells us their conclusion but not the arguments that led to the
conclusion. Price referred to a scholar, for example, who argued that
Mark 13 reflects the destruction of Jerusalem in the second century C.E.
rather than the first century C.E., and Price mentioned a scholar who
made a case that Slavonic Josephus (which many date to the sixteenth
century) may contain material going back to Josephus himself. Trying to
evaluate Price’s argument would take a lot of work!
But back to my original question: Was I able to refute any of Price’s
arguments? Well, there were cases in which I knew enough to realize
that there was another side to the debate. Price said more than once
that there were no Galilean synagogues during the time that Jesus
allegedly lived, and I did a research paper on synagogues for a graduate
level class some years ago. There are scholars, such as Lee Levine,
who posit that there were pre-70 synagogues, and they appeal to scant
archeology and references in Josephus. Some have argued that the pre-70
synagogues did not necessarily meet in a building, and that the
synagogue was the meeting itself, not the building.
There were also times when I identified (or believed that I
identified) possible contradictions among some of Price’s arguments.
Price argued, on the one hand, that Jesus was not originally believed to
have performed miracles, and one piece of supporting evidence (among
others) that Price adduces is Paul’s implication in I Corinthians 1 that
Jews look for a sign, and that they reject Jesus because Jesus did not
give them one. Paul upholds the crucified Christ, not miracles. On the
other hand, Price seems to argue that the super-apostles who were
emphasizing Jesus’ miracles, against whom Paul contended in II
Corinthians, may have had the earlier tradition about Jesus. Price
explores the possibility that maybe earlier traditions about Jesus did
not even hold that Jesus was crucified, and that Paul was responding to
this view by emphasizing the importance of Jesus’ crucifixion. Is Price
contradicting himself? Did the super-apostles believe in an earlier
view of Jesus, or is the contrary view that Paul embraces earlier?
And have I effectively presented a “Gotcha!”? Price is not always
being dogmatic about his arguments; sometimes, he simply seems to be
exploring possibilities and pointing out anomalies. Moreover, noting a
contradiction in Price’s book does not overthrow everything Price says.
4. I want to explore another possible contradiction, and that
concerns whether Price is truly a mythicist, at least in this book. He
does believe that there are earlier and later traditions about Jesus,
but he backs away from saying that the earlier traditions were
necessarily authentic to the historical Jesus. They could have just
been earlier traditions, reflecting the views of certain Christians
(e.g., that the Messiah would not be a son of David, that Jesus was a
sinner who needed to be baptized), as far as he is concerned. Price
also makes certain arguments that other mythicists have made: that there
are traditions about Jesus being crucified by the supernatural archons
(I Corinthians 2:8; Colossians 2:14; cp. Galatians 3:19-20) and that
these were later historicized, and that Jesus’ brothers do not
necessarily refer to his family but could refer to missionaries who
proclaimed Christ (Matthew 25:40). (I am not convinced by the former
argument because I think that early Christians could have believed that
Jesus was crucified by archons, and also by the flesh and blood people
who crucified him: that, for Paul, there were supernatural realities
behind what was occurring on earth.) In the conclusion, Price appeals
to the hymn in Philippians 2 and says that the hymn may be saying that
the figure became known as Jesus after his exaltation to heaven, and
thus that stories about a man named Jesus living before that are just
that—-stories.
While some of the things that Price says sound mythicist or
consistent with mythicism, however, Price does compare the Jesus
movement with historical figures who led religious movements; would this
be appropriate, if Jesus were not a historical figure? Price also
seems to lean in the direction of saying that John the Baptist was
historical, but that John the Baptist and his followers did not believe
that they were setting the stage for Jesus.
And yet, again, Price may just be exploring different options.
5. There were times when Price provided references for his primary
sources, and sometimes even quotations of them, and there were times
when he did not. In the latter cases, I wish that he did. For example,
Price refers to rabbis who believed that one could nullify a vow to
honor one’s parents, which is different from how Jesus characterized the
Pharisees’ position in Mark 7:10-12. Price may be right on this, but I
wish that he said where specifically I can find those statements in
rabbinic literature.
6. There were times when Price provided the date for primary
sources, and times when he did not. In the latter cases, I wish that he
had. This is particularly the case with Price’s argument about
miracles, as Price noted similarities between the miracles of Jesus and
miracles performed by other figures. But Christian apologists, and even
some mainstream scholars such as John Meier, argue that Christianity
was not ripping off other religious figures’ miracle stories, but that
some of the other religious figures’ miracles stories came later and
could have been influenced by the Christian stories. I doubt that was
always the case—-Price is probably correct that there have been
non-Christian miracle stories (i.e., perhaps the Ascepius ones) before
and during the time that Jesus allegedly lived. Still, Price should
have provided the date for some of his primary sources, for that is
relevant to the question of who influenced whom: did Christianity borrow
from non-Christian stories, as Price usually seems to argue in the
book, or did the influence go in the other direction? It was probably
both.
7. I may someday buy Price’s book, and the reason is that it is
practically an encyclopedia of ancient Christian lore, and stories from
other traditions (i.e., Judaism, Buddhism, Hellenism, etc.). Price
mentions Latin versions of the New Testament that ascribe Mary’s
Magnificat to her cousin, Elizabeth. He refers to Slavonic Josephus’
portrayal of John the Baptist as an insurrectionist (yet, Price does not
explore Arabic and Syriac versions of Josephus’ milder, low-key references to Jesus, which
some believe are authentic to Josephus). He mentions pagan stories about
an empty tomb and a philosopher who tries to assure his disciples that
he is not a ghost (cp. Luke 24:39). And that is only scratching the
surface.
8. Related to item 7, Price highlights that there are odd traditions
about Jesus, traditions that seem to go against what is in the
Gospels. While Price says that the church father Irenaeus talked about
the Gospels that are in the Bible, for example, Price wonders why
Irenaeus presents Jesus as dying around the age of fifty. Why, Price
inquires, is there a Jewish tradition that places Jesus a century
earlier than when the Gospels say that Jesus lived? I am not entirely
sure what to do with this. Perhaps people just made mistakes because
they did not have their own copy of the Gospels, or because they knew of
Christian tradition indirectly. (That may not work with Irenaeus,
though.)
(UPDATE: Steve of Triablogue states in the comments: "Regarding point #8, I assume that's simply an Irenaean gloss on Jn 8:57.
That's not an independent tradition. Rather, that's how Irenaeus
(mis-)interprets the Johannine reference." In John 8:57, the Jews tell Jesus that he is not yet fifty years old. I vaguely recall Price addressing that verse, saying that, if Jesus were in his thirties (Luke 3:23 says Jesus was about thirty when he began his ministry), why wouldn't the Jews tell him he is not yet FORTY years old. Price's point may have been that there were different traditions. At the same time, Price at one point does wonder if Irenaeus knew the Gospels, and part of that (if I recall correctly) is that Irenaeus misidentifies the emperor during Jesus' death. I returned the book to the library, so I can't check out what exactly Price said, but I do plan to buy the book sometime.)
9. There were many times when I was not persuaded by Price’s
argument yet was intrigued. Price raises the possibility, for example,
that Josephus’ reference to John the Baptist was a Christian
interpolation, one that disagreed with the Gospel of Mark. Whereas
Mark’s Gospel presents baptism as an atoning ritual and downplays Herod
Antipas’ role in John the Baptist’s execution, Price argues, the
Josephus reference stresses that the repentance is what atones for sin
as well as blames Herod Antipas for John’s death. I was not convinced
by this argument, but it did intrigue me, since Josephus’ portrayal of
John’s baptism has long stood out to me.
10. Price frequently uses the scholarly criterion of dissimilarity,
which states that the things about Jesus that are dissimilar from
Judaism and Christianity are more likely to be historically authentic.
While I have seen scholars use this criterion, Price provided a
rationale for it. Christians could have put their own ideas into the
mouth of Jesus, Price argues, so that is why we should evaluate if a
tradition is similar to Christianity and dismiss it if it is. Why
evaluate if a tradition is dissimilar from Judaism, which was Jesus’ own
context? Appealing to Bultmann, Price argues that the early Christians
probably would not have remembered the sayings of Jesus that were
similar to what other Jews were saying—-those sayings would not have
stood out to them as unique, and thus they would not have remembered and
recorded them. I am not entirely persuaded by that argument, for
people record all sorts of things that are not original or fresh. Why
couldn’t early Christians have done that with Jesus?
11. Price often argues that Gospel stories that are similar to Old
Testament stories are most likely not historical. Many mainstream
scholars believe this, too, even if they may conclude that some of
Price’s connection of Gospel stories with Old Testament stories are a
bit of a stretch. (That is for the reader to decide—-see here
for a blog post that extensively critiques Price on this.) Personally,
I do not dismiss the historicity of Gospel stories just because they
are similar to Old Testament stories, for Jesus could have decided to do
things that Old Testament figures did, such as multiply loaves; when
other characters, however, unintentionally imitate Old Testament
characters, then perhaps Price has a point that the story is made-up and
modeled after the Old Testament stories, unless one wants to say that
history can repeat itself, or that God is writing the course of the
events and causing similar things to occur. Price also says that Gospel
passages in which Jesus has a far-reaching perspective on his life and
mission are probably not authentic to Jesus but were written later by
Christians. That is understandable, yet I wonder if that approach
should be automatic: maybe Jesus could have had a far-reaching
perspective on his mission.
12. I Corinthians 15:3-9 is a popular passage among Christian
apologists. It presents Jesus appearing to his disciples and eventually
to five hundred witnesses, some of whom are still alive when the
passage is written. Moreover, Christian apologists, and even many
mainstream scholars, hold that it is an early tradition, since Paul says
that it was passed down to him. Price, however, deems it to be a later
interpolation, and he offers some reasons. He asks why the Gospel
writers did not refer to the five hundred witnesses, if that was an
earlier tradition. Moreover, Price believes that the statement in v 8
that Paul was born out of due time reflects a later Gnostic story.
Someone referred me to an article Price wrote that argued that I
Corinthians 15:3-9 was an interpolation, but I never found the time to
read it; I was glad, therefore, to read a succinct version of this
argument in Price’s book. Am I convinced? Well, not really, but I
cannot disprove that the passage is an interpolation, and, that being
the case, I wonder how much weight it should have in Christian attempts
to prove the truth of Christianity.
13. Price was most convincing to me when he was highlighting the
diversity of thought within the Gospels and early Christianity. Did
Jesus perform signs or not? Did Jesus believe that the Kingdom of God
comes with observation or not? Did Jesus believe that the Messiah would
be the son of David or not? As Price astutely notes, there are
different ideas within the Gospels. Some try to harmonize them, and
maybe they do well to look at context and possible intention behind the
statements. Perhaps they would have a point to contend that Price is
being too wooden, literal, or absolutist in his interpretation of the
passages. Whether one finds them convincing is a personal judgment.
14. In reading Price’s book, I wondered how exactly he would account
for the origin of Christianity. Suppose he is right that we cannot
know anything about the historical Jesus. Suppose that virtually
everything about Jesus is from the hands of later Christians with
different ideas. Why would people start a movement around a figure
named Jesus? Was there anything about Jesus that inspired them to do
so? Price talks a little about his own ideas on this in the conclusion,
speculating that mystery religions may play a role. My impression is
that another book of his, Deconstructing Jesus, may offer a fuller explanation of his views on the origin of Christianity. I do plan to read that, at some point, and also his book on Paul.
15. Was there anything in this book that I found religiously
edifying? Yes. Price’s statement that people feel good after praying,
even if their prayers are not answered, resonated with me. I also
enjoyed his comparison of Christianity with Buddhism, specifically his
argument that, within early Christianity, there were exemplary
Christians who gave up all of their possessions, and there were regular
Christians who lived normal lives and tried to follow ethical
guidelines. I agree with Price that we see this within the Gospels,
even though I would also say that there are some cases in which Jesus
seems to suggest that all Christians should be of the exemplary
variety—-that their entrance into the Kingdom depends on it. Yet, the
New Testament does recognize, and often seems to approve of, the
existence of regular Christians, and that takes a load off my mind
(though I believe that I should still be challenged by the exemplary
passages, and learn from them).