I first just want to start off saying that I really enjoy most things Steven puts out. But I think he should stay in fields he actually knows, and I don’t think this is one. While he calls the piece he’s responding to as poorly informed, his response really isn’t any better. (To see Steven’s article, click here)
We will skip the issue of the historicity of Jesus for now, but what we largely get from all of this is clear unfamiliarity with the source material here or the historical context this all exists in.
Like many, Steven places too much emphasis on the written record. The issue though is that in Palestine, at this time, we are talking about a literacy rate of maybe 1%. When talking about this place and time, we have virtually no written records. Instead, what we are dealing with is an oral society. And studies have shown that oral tradition is remarkably accurate.
We also have to remember that we don’t have every record that was produced. Paul references letters that he has written that we don’t have. We also don’t have the letters written to him. The author of Luke/Acts tells us that he’s using other records that preceded his. We have hints of other works, that are quoted from later writers, that we don’t have. That’s incredibly important here.
Steven also claims that all disagreement was purged as heresy. But anyone who has read the New Testament knows that there are disagreements between the Gospels. There are disagreements between Paul and the Apostle Peter, and the brother of Jesus, James. We have disagreements between some of the letters in the NT. Not to mention that we have signs of other disagreements that are captured in these works. Most of Paul’s works are discussing disagreements that have come up.
Going beyond the New Testament, we have many works that were preserved either in part or in whole. If we look at the early church fathers, we even see them disagreeing as to what works should be read and which ones shouldn’t. There was no real agreement until centuries later. And going back to the church fathers, we have them preserving many disagreements by simply citing them and arguing against them. To say that disagreements were simply purged shows a clear lack of understanding of what was preserved.
The biggest clue suggesting that Steven is out of his depth though is his discussion on the Messiah. First, he could have made a great point here in showing that no, there weren’t a bunch of people claiming to be the son of God. That’s simply a false statement. Second, the Messiah was not someone with some kind of divinity, who had to make a personal sacrifice to save us. That is not part of the standard myth. Even having a special message for humanity wasn’t part of the myth. Steven shows here that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Messianic prophecy, at it’s heart, was simple. The Messiah, the anointed one, would free the Jews from their subjugation. There was no divinity. And if the Messiah died, as in made a personal sacrifice, they clearly couldn’t be the Messiah. This wasn’t even for all of humanity. It was for the Jews. It was someone who would deliver the Jews.
So the fact that Jesus was continued to be seen as the Messiah after his death was surprising. It’s surprising because he failed. And we see with every other Messianic claimant, once they were defeated, their followers left. In order for Jesus to be seen as the Messiah, Messianic prophecy had to be reimagined. So it is rather surprising. It’s also the reason why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, and why they have had other potential Messiahs after Jesus. It’s also why they are still awaiting the Messiah, those who still hold onto the Messianic ideology.
A Messiah did not have to actually emerge though, and for Jews, they are still waiting for the Messiah. Also, we have to talk about why Christianity became a world religion. It wasn’t because Theodosius made it the official religion of Rome. By that time, Christianity had already become a massive force, and had spread across the western world. The only reason Constantine, and later Theodosises even recognized it was because it was growing quickly, and was rapidly making up a good portion of the Roman population.
In the end, it’s clear that Steven didn’t take a neutral historical perspective here. He took an uniformed perspective that is slanted by misinformation.