Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels
Book Review • Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006). 290 pp. $18.
Read time: 14 min
As an undisputed scholar in both Old and New Testament Biblical Studies, Craig A. Evans is a fitting candidate to critique modern distortions of the historical Jesus. His educational background includes a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, a Master of Divinity, and both a Master of Arts and Ph.D in Biblical studies. His excellence in the field has been recognized as he currently serves as Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. His past work with Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, and with the Dead Sea Scrolls, has equipped him to recognize the shortcomings of many modern New Testament scholars’ works and conclusions (12).
The basic outline of Fabricating Jesus involves Evan’s descriptions and responses to nine specific fabrications that his academic contemporaries wrongly assert or assume about the canonical gospels and about the person of Jesus Christ.
1. Misplaced Faith and Misguided Suspicions
He begins by addressing what he calls misplaced faith and misguided suspicions (19). His personal story illustrates that “brittle fundamentalism” with its unwarrantedly strict view of verbal and plenary inerrancy has led a number of well-known Bible scholars away from the Christian faith of their youth (31). New Testament Studies invariably reveals that such strict views are not only unwarranted but also largely incompatible with honest scholarship. Evans argues that many outspoken critics of the Bible and the Evangelical understanding of Jesus began originally with a “misplaced faith” in a Jesus of the Fundamentals. Directing much of their opposition toward Christian Fundamentalism’s view of Scripture and Jesus, modern scholars consequently begin with straw-men and unnecessary suspicions concerning the veracity of the Gospels and of Jesus.
2. Cramped Starting Points and Overly Strict Critical Methods
Evans then addresses the errors of cramped starting points and overly strict critical methods (33). A prime example of cramped starting points is seen in the ideas of John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. Evans calls the Seminar out for essentially beginning with its conclusions, then working off of those unsubstantiated conclusions toward even more unfounded findings. An example of this is that the Seminar begins by assuming a Hellenistic Jesus who was illiterate, uninterested in Scripture, uninterested in eschatology, and who did not understand himself to be the Jewish Messiah. Evans offers various reasons why these operating assumptions overlook substantial evidence to the contrary. In these presuppositions, the Seminar doesn’t represent mainstream scholarship (Christian and non-Christian alike), despite the fact that they attract much media attention and propound their work as scholarly and critical. In addition, many scholars use inordinately rigorous criteria to establish historical validity: “I have seen hair-splitting studies that list as many as twenty-five criteria” in order for a text to be counted as legitimate (48). That said, Evans lays out several mainstream, reasonable and normative criteria by which even secular documents of antiquity are normally judged. It seems that much historical investigation of the New Testament gospels today is not really critical scholarship but biased, prejudicial skepticism.
3. Questionable Texts from Later Centuries
In his third chapter, Evans speaks of questionable texts from later centuries (52). He devotes the entire chapter to the consideration of the extracanonical Gospel of Thomas. In modern Biblical criticism, there have been those (chiefly the Jesus Seminar) who find it convenient and even pivotal to date the Gospel of Thomas impossibly early. The agenda is clear: if this gospel is as early or earlier than the canonical gospels then it is at least if not more authoritative and accurate in its description of the Jesus of history. Evans strips this faulty dating bare (as will be considered later in this book review). Likewise, he takes a look four additional extra-canonical gospels: the Gospel of Peter, the Egerton Gospel, the Gospel of Mary and the Secret Gospel of Mark. Could some of these gospels have been written around the time of Mark, Matthew and Luke? Evans shows one-by-one that each of these gospels borrow from the canonical gospels and often embellish their stories, are insensitive, if not ignorant, of Jewish life and customs, and follow portions of Matthew and Luke that are known to contain editorial changes. Among other evidences, these reveal that such “gospels” came long after the four New Testament gospels and specifically the death of the apostles, thus falling short of the Apostolicity criterion.
4. Appeals to Contexts Alien to Jesus’ Actual Environment
Regarding the claim that Jesus was little more than a social cynic, Evans argues against appeals to contexts alien to Jesus’ actual environment (100). The depth of dishonesty in some making this claim may be seen by how they use (or misuse) various gospel passages to suggest that Jesus actually advocated the “cynic” lifestyle: with his supposed lack of hygiene (not washing hands before eating), his disregard for authority (rebuking the respected Jewish leaders), and even his style of dress. For example, in Matthew 10:9–10, Jesus sends his twelve apostles out. He instructs them to pack nothing for their journey; to take only the coat on their back and no provisions. This Spartan-like dress is used as an example of Jesus’ “cynic” lifestyle. The very text, however, rather rules out this interpretation. Jesus also tells the twelve to not take a staff or a pack (that was often tied to the staff and carried over the shoulder) which were classic trademarks of the 1st-century cynic’s wardrobe. Evans documents that historically the “cynics” were known for their barefoot, rugged appearance, and for their use of a staff and satchel. Jesus literally told his disciples to not take such things.
5. Skeletal Sayings Devoid of Context Altogether
Perhaps the most common misconceptions of Jesus arise from people basing their entire understanding of him on skeletal sayings devoid of context altogether (122). The failure here is that scholars often consider the logia of Jesus (snippet sayings: e.g. “the meek shall inherit the earth”) while overlooking the basic, nearly indisputable facts of Jesus’ life: such as Jesus’ baptism by John, his preaching and healing ministry in Galilee, his calling of twelve apostles, his controversial actions in the temple, his intentions in going to Jerusalem to die, and more.
6. The Failure to Take into Account Jesus’ Mighty Deeds
Evans’ observation is logically followed by looking at specific examples of how scholars diminish the facts of the mighty deeds of Jesus: the failure to take into account Jesus’ mighty deeds (139). During the reign of Classic Liberalism the miracles of Jesus were often dismissed by scientific, naturalistic explanations. Today, scholars are generally more open to the possibility of the supernatural works of Jesus. This is likely due to our cultural preoccupation with the paranormal, the sensational, and even the occult. But while being more open to the supernatural acts of Jesus, many scholars focus too much on the teachings of Jesus to the ignoring of his mighty deeds. Such deeds, as the apostles tell, were recorded “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God” (John 20:31). We simply cannot disconnect the teachings of Jesus from the miraculous works that validated his teachings. The gospel writers intentionally linked both, as did Jesus (Mark 2:10–11).
7. Dubious Uses of Josephus and Other Resources of Late Antiquity
Additionally, modern scholars are guilty of dubious uses of Josephus and other resources of late antiquity (158). Secular writings (chiefly those of Josephus) are appealed to in an effort to deny the historical accuracy of the gospels. Evans is careful to provide a background for understanding Josephus’ own political and religious commitments that affected the way he spoke of Jesus, John the Baptist, Jesus’ Christian followers, Pontius Pilate, and others. Yet again, the simple lack of historical understanding of Jewish culture by scholars today—who may study deeply but not widely in terms of the ancient world—results in fabrications in their retelling of the story of Jesus.
8. Anachronisms and Exaggerated Claims
In connection to this is another popular method of denying the historicity of the canonical gospels: anachronisms and exaggerated claims (180). The accusation is made that the Christianity we know became so by power plays and censorship of numerous dissenting gospels early in the first and second centuries. In order for this to be hypothesized, it must be assumed that the social and religious development of the early church (specifically its understanding of Jesus) morphed at warp speed, in a matter of a mere twenty years. It is preposterously claimed that in those twenty years the church transitioned from knowing Jesus as a mere man to claiming that he is the risen Messiah and Son of God we read about in the Gospels and the writings of Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude. Evans argues for why this simply couldn’t (chronologically) and wouldn’t (socially, due to the concurrency of eyewitnesses, who would whistle-blow) take place in a mere twenty years, between the time of Jesus death and Paul’s earliest writings.
9. Hokum History and Bogus Findings
Lastly, Evans speaks of what he calls hokum history and bogus findings (204). Recent works like Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and Michael Baigent’s The Jesus Papers have a scholarly ring to them but are nearly pure fiction, and “utterly ludicrous,” says Evans. Did Jesus really fake his death and resurrection? Did the master have a secret romance with Mary Magdalene and father a child? Was Jesus influenced by studies in Buddhism in Egypt as a young man? Evans points out that when true scholars begin stretching evidence and proposing unfounded ideas for the sake of novelty, the floodgates for fiction and bogus findings emerge. And it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between the two. In any case, the building-block presuppositions of writers like Brown are dishonest and unscholarly (e.g. ignoring Leonardo’s era of art and his other paintings that support the obvious—that the beardless figure to the right of Jesus is not Mary Magdalene but the youthful apostle John).
On a personal note, of these nine facets of error that lead to fabrications of the historical Jesus, the most important or relevant in our day seems to be the very last one: hokum history and bogus findings. When The Da Vinci Code debuted, I saw numerous people in airports and planes devouring it. I heard coworkers talking about it. I saw the staggering statistics of its success on the New York Times’ Best Sellers list. I spoke with former Christians who could no longer follow a sham faith and became agnostic. I’ve seen the devastation that came from Brown’s hoax. Although the other eight critiques of Evans’ fellows is needful and invaluable, the information he provides showing just how bogus the claims and “facts” of several modern fictional works is priceless. In chapter ten, he meets my generation on the level of “pop culture” and the written arts, and I find this to be the most helpful part of this book.
An Evaluation of The Gospel of Thomas
Lastly, I will consider more fully the case Evans makes for a late dating of the Gospel of Thomas, thus ruling it out as a legitimate representation of the life of Jesus. After offering his evidence, Evans concludes that the Gospel of Thomas was most likely written after A.D. 175. As some of the other Gnostic gospels do, the Gospel of Thomas shows signs of knowledge of the canonical gospels’ content. In terms of source and form criticism, the work looks to have borrowed from the New Testament gospels. There is more. Some of the material in the Gospel of Thomas is similar to material in the synoptics that most Christian and non-Christian scholars agree reflect later alterations of the texts (post-first-century alterations). This would mean that not only did this gospel come after but much later than the synoptics. Nailing the coffin closed, Evans demonstrates how the Gospel of Thomas appears to have been influenced by Tatian’s Diatessaron, a second-century work that harmonized the four gospels into one continuous text. The Diatessaron was not composed until after A.D. 170. The evidence therefore is strong that the Gospel of Thomas is far from being before or even contemporary to the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. This Gnostic pseudo-gospel falls painfully short of Apostolicity by failing the test of Antiquity. Furthermore, Evans effectively shows how this gospel violates the criteria of Orthodoxy. The Gospel of Thomas depicts Jesus denying females right to eternal life, simply because they are female (94). Such a teaching obviously departs from the elevated status of women in the canonical gospels and the apostle Paul’s soteriology, where gender neither commends nor bars a person from eternal life (e.g. Galatians 3:28).
Conclusion
Fabricating Jesus proves to be a vital response to reductionistic fabrications of the Jesus of Scripture. But it is also very well researched and documented (sometimes tediously so), providing its readers with ample facts and evidence in order to meet the modern challenges made against the Evangelical understanding of Jesus. People need to hear what Evans has to say. I hope to use Fabricating Jesus in my efforts to reach those who are searching for the truth but being fed misinformation. This won’t be the last time I retrieve Evan’s book off the shelf. ❖
