The next 11 pages of the chapter are spent offering a summary of Wells' case. Since I have dealt with Wells elsewhere and with his ideas in a number of places, I shall simply address Martin's summary in a counter-summary fashion. To begin:

Wells stresses that his skepticism concerning the historicity of Jesus is based in large part on the views of Christian theologians and biblical scholars who admit that the canonical Gospels were written by unknown authors not personally acquainted with Jesus, between forty and eighty years after Jesus' supposed lifetime. According to Wells they also admit that there is much in these accounts that is legend and that the Gospel stories are shaped by writers' theological motives. Furthermore, the evidence provided by the Gospels is exclusively Christian.

Each of the issues above we have dealt with here on Gospel dates, authorship, and composition; and the matter of the last sentence is dealt with by Glenn Miller's article on bias in the NT. We may therefore suffice here by saying that Wells' own approach is merely to cite uncritically the works of those who agree with him, though with some exceptions that we have noted in our responses to Earl Doherty. We need not pursue the matter further.

After this, Martin notes Wells' explanation for the idea that Jewish wisdom literature, and its use of a "personified wisdom", was the ultimate source for a belief in a historical Jesus. Of course this is simply an explanation, not a proof, and we have to ask why it is not easier to suppose that Jesus was simply identified as the one who was a personified wisdom (with which I agree)...other than that it fits Wells' thesis better to opt for the more difficult explanation. A couple of things worth noting here, though, are:

1. Wells' appeal to Jewish wisdom literature represents a change from his original thesis that pagan mythology was the main source of Christian belief. (However, he records this change of tune in his later work, which obviously, Martin, writing much earlier, could not have been aware of.)
2. Martin, in support of the idea of a "tradition of crucifixion of holy men in Palestine in the first and second centuries B.C." [40], refers to such things allegedly recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and the Talmud, which has Jesus "living somewhere in the second century B.C." The reader will recognize the latter as an appeal to the Toledeth Yeshu, a document that is completely worthless historically, as we have shown in our reply to Revilo P. Oliver. As for the rest, Martin has not been specific, but my guess is that the "Dead Sea Scrolls" bit refers to the discreditable idea that the Teacher of Righteousness was crucified (see our note in the section on Mara Bar-Serapion). As for Josephus, it would be no surprise if there were some "holy men" crucified in Palestine other than Jesus, because religious leaders in Judaism might well be at the forefront of any acts of rebellion against Rome, and crucifixion was the traditional punishment for rebels, but even so Martin offers no specifics. This appeal proves nothing in terms of refuting the historical Jesus.
3. Martin cites Wells' claim that 70 AD was a pivotal point for the "historicization" of Jesus, in that the dispersion of Palestinian Christianity at that time would have resulted in a break in continuity and an inability to "have reliable information" about Palestinian Christianity back in the 30s. From here, a number of other conclusions are drawn, but as this foundation is rotten, we need not pursue the matter further than this: a) There is no reason, other than the need to support Wells' thesis, to think that "Palestinian Christianity" was in any way less adherent to the concept of a historical Jesus than "non-Palestinian"; b) Wells here, as in many places, conveniently follows the "Ancient People are Stupid" principle, and assumes that there was no one who would or could object to the historicization of a non-historical being, when in fact there were literally thousands of Diaspora Jews who would have been present during the Crucifixion Passover and would have known better, and this was in a society where social control was pre-eminent; c) there is no reason to assume, other than the need to support Wells' thesis, that "Palestinian Christianity" died out completely or was waylaid with terminal stupidity and/or silence following the destruction of Jerusalem, while the Diaspora/Gentile church fell ill with an exactly concurrent case of apathy and uncritical acceptance of the sort required to accept Wells' fanciful reconstruction of how later Christians "deduced" when and where Jesus lived as a person without even trying to confirm the details; and, d) one wonders, if there was a "lack of reliable information" on events prior to 70, how Josephus and Tacitus managed to get so much of it, in such detail and to such an accurate degree, on other subjects. If Josephus could track down things, so could anyone else of sufficient intelligence, and there were plenty of intelligent people in the first century, the APAS principle preferred by skeptics notwithstanding.

Martin then offers a brief, general defense of Wells' thesis which he summarizes as follows:

The primary historical sources for an existence claim about an individual become doubtful if they are contradictory, report events that are intrinsically improbable, and are based on clearly biased writers who wrote long after the individual was supposed to have died and this claim is not independently confirmed either by other writers both biased and unbiased who wrote earlier than the primary source.

Aside from the "bias" charge, which we have alluded to above, each of these aspects may be dealt with in turn:

• Re "contradictory" - Martin offers little in the way of specifics in this chapter re alleged "contradictions" (alluding only to the genealogies, the resurrection narratives, and a later chapter), but before what he says can be accepted, it must be critically evaluated. Are these "contradictions" the result of changes within the acceptable pale of oral tradition? Do the differences have a rhetorical or polemical purpose? Are they within acceptable parameters for differences accountable by point-of-view reportage? Are they truly sufficient, from the perspective of a historian, to dismiss the accounts as a whole? I very much doubt that Martin or even Wells has bothered to consider the matter from any of these vantage points, and thus we are warranted in dismissing their claims in this regard.
• Re "intrinsically improbable" - as has been noted elsewhere by Gregory Boyd, it is not our place to judge in historical terms whether an event is "improbable" based on our own presuppositions. It is only our place to ask whether there is a history behind the report, and suggest how that event may have occurred. This is NOT a place for imposing our view of the possibility of the miraculous, in either direction.
• Re "long after" - this of course relates to the dates and authorship of the Gospels, and we have provided our link previously. Martin here uncritically agrees with assessments that the Gospels should be dated no earlier than 80 for Mark, 90 for Matthew, 100 for Luke, and a final form of John in 110.

Interestingly, one of the reasons Martin cites as a late date for John is that its theology is "more advanced and sophisticated than that of the other Gospels." [44] By this accounting Paul's letters should be dated to around 120 or 150, because their own theology is far more complex than anything found in the Gospels; at the same time, it seems that Martin (Wells?) is unaware that the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that John is hardly "advanced and sophisticated" at all, and may indeed be the most primitive of the Gospels theologically.

Also interestingly, the only reason Martin cites for dating Mark late is his alleged "ignorance of Palestine geography", with the old Mark 7:31 "problem" cited in the footnotes.

Wells also calls upon for support as a parallel the case of William Tell. [45ff] According to Wells/Martin, both Tell and Jesus were regarded as historical figures for many centuries; but we now know that Tell was a legendary figure, and Martin says that the parallels between the two cases are "striking". As we examine the parallels, however, it becomes obvious that the only one "struck" are Wells and Martin:

• "Some of the deeds attributed to both have been attributed to previous heroes." However, the only example cited for Jesus is the alleged "resurrection" of Osiris, which actually offers no parallel whatsoever: For one thing, it was more like a "re-animation" and a fertility rite, not a resurrection! Responsible scholarship has abandoned this sort of pagan-parallelism arguing. Moreover, is the attribution of deeds attributed to others of necessity a sign of someone's non-existence? If this is also a parallel for people who we agree existed, then it is hardly useful as a criteria for the Christ-myth; furthermore, it may prove nothing more than that history repeats itself, and that certain deeds are considered part of a standard resume' for any hero!
• "The earlier documents make no mention of many of the events connected with the life of Tell. The earliest Jewish and pagan sources make no mention of the important events connected with the life of Jesus; even Paul and other earlier writers seem ignorant of the details of his life." Actually, we have argued that Josephus, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian and Tacitus make mention of Jesus' death, and versus Earl Doherty we have argued that Jesus' birth, death, and some life events are referred to, as necessary, in the letters of Paul and the NT. Martin goes further on these issues later on; we shall reserve comment until then.
• "Later documents give more details (precise names and dates) many years after the life of Tell; the Gospels give details (precise names and dates) many years after Jesus' life." We have already shown that the demand for such "precision" on the life-dates of ancient peoples is mostly anachronistic; on the other hand, the "life" of Tell occurred well after the time when greater precision in names and dates was part of the historical-reportage paradigm. The parallel here, therefore, is itself anachronistic.
• "Once Tell's existence was accepted, some of the earlier documents that did not mention him were improved by forgeries and interpolations." And so, it is said, were the works of Josephus for Jesus, and we will get to that subject as it arises.

Bottom line, however: The "parallel" of William Tell offers no parallel at all, and is at the least worthless unless Wells/Martin can prove that their criteria have no application in regards to people whom we agree actually existed. Furthermore, we may also cite this major difference in the two: Tell was supposed to have been born in the late 1200s; fought in a major battle in 1315, and died in 1350. The earliest sources we have for Tell are from the century following, including ballads, the White Book of Sarnen of 1470, and Russ' Chronicle written in 1482. This equals from 2-4 times the distance between the primary sources and Jesus, according to "late date" Gospels theses - and beyond that are all manner of social, historiographical, and literary factors that neither Martin nor Wells even begin to consider!

|

Secular Sources Sham 2

Noting passages in the Gospels that refer to Jesus as a public figure who is known throughout the land of Judea, Martin asserts that "one would expect that (Jesus) would be mentioned by contemporary historians and referred to in the documents of the times." [48] This is not entirely true: Neither Martin nor Wells have dealt with the specific reasons why Jesus would not be mentioned in such documents, and why we are fortunate to have any references at all. At any rate, Martin again uncritically follows the path laid down by Wells, resulting in a treatment of the secular references, thusly:

• Josephus - Martin rejects the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety, treating the issue as an "all or nothing" proposition and rejecting the passage on the basis of:
  1. The old and badly-dated "out of context" argument, which is so undesirable that even Earl Doherty has washed his hands of it;
  2. That "early Christian writers" like Origen seem "unaware" of it - though like Doherty, he offers no reason why any such writer should have quoted it; and
  3. It is written as though Josephus were a Christian, which again, ignores sound theories of partial interpolation. (He later alludes to a "partial" theory put forth by Vermes - a scholar of Judaism - and merely dismisses it because a) he thinks the whole thing could have been added as an interpolation anyway; b) "several well-known scholars" have argued for total interpolation on the James passage below (Actually, several quite out-of-date scholars, and this is rather a strange appeal from one who says that Wells' thesis should not be judged on how many people accept it!); and c) even if these two passages are authentic, that's only two places! Gee, how many places does Jesus need to be mentioned before Martin can be satisfied?!? (John the Baptist is only mentioned once, as are many other persons!)

  The shorter "James brother of Jesus" passage is likewise rejected. It is hinted that it may be an interpolation because 1) some scholars say so, which is no reason at all - especially since the overwhelming majority say it is not; 2) Martin thinks we would expect Josephus to mention Jesus more than once, which assumes that the TF is an interpolation. In short, there is nothing here that we have not dealt with before, and that has not been answered time and time again.

  We agree that Talmud references to Jesus are mostly worthless, and that the reference by Suetonius may not be useful. Neither Lucian nor Mara Bar-Serapion are mentioned by Martin. We will move next to my favorite in the pack:

• Tacitus - No surprises here - not a single Tacitean or Greco-Roman historian is consulted; all we have is:
  1. A hint that the Tacitus passage may be an interpolation (according to "some scholars" [51] - but actually, no respectable Taciteans or historians, and almost no one past the 19th century);
  2. The suggestion that Tacitus may have simply uncritically copied what Christians told him;
  3. The alleged prefect/procurator mixup;
  4. The use of "Christus" as though it were a proper name.

  Every single one of these objections we have already dealt with and found wanting; just follow the links to see how.

• Thallus - is simply dismissed on the usual suppositions that we do not know when Thallus wrote, whether he got his material from Christians, or whether Julius Africanus reported his material accurately; this has already been dealt with by Glenn Miller in his article on Thallus. Celsus is dismissed as a source on similar grounds.
• Pliny the Younger - is baldly dismissed as not referring to a historical figure, even though the passage is neither quoted nor critically analyzed, nor is the matter of martyrs dealt with.

In short, this is just the usual uncritical analysis of the secular references that we have come to expect from the Christ-myth crowd. Martin's treatment of the material is a profound embarrassment.

|

Son of Doherty

From here Martin goes on to cite Paul as one who "seems to be ignorant of the details of Jesus' life and teaching" [52ff] - in essence and in detail using the same reasoning used by Earl Doherty, and falling prey to the same flaws: Inability to show specific need or reason for mention of details; not distinguishing between quotation and allusion and the difference in citation methods between the two; complaint over lack of "enough" historical detail to satisfy Martin personally (Paul, he admits, mentions the Eucharist and Last Supper, but since he doesn't give "a precise historical setting" [53], that's not good enough!); the idea of Scripture-searching Christians inventing history based on the OT (this is how 1 Thess. 2:14-16 is explained away); the old 1 Cor. 2:8 "rulers of this age" = supernatural beings error; the lack of mention of Jesus' miracles; and the same old arbitrary dismissal of the reference to James as "brother" of the Lord as referring to a group called the brethren. Along with this we have a host of misinterpretations:

• Martin cites Gal. 4:3-9 and Col. 2:15, 20 as indicating that Jesus "lived an obscure life in bondage to evil spirits who did not recognize his true identity" [53], which is said to contradict the Gospel accounts of demons recognizing Jesus and Jesus expelling them. Let's look at these passages:

  Gal. 4:3-9 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God--or rather are known by God--how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

  Col. 2:15, 20 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross...Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules...

  Frankly, I am at a loss to see how any of these verses indicate what Martin asserts. There is nothing here that indicates obscurity, the bondage of Jesus, or a lack of recognition. Martin appears to be an extremely poor exegete, and this is further evidenced by his next 2 cites...

• ...first, of an alleged discrepancy between Matt. 7:1-2 (the "no judge" passage) and 1 Cor. 5:3 ---

  Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.

  However, as we have shown elsewhere, Matthew 7:1ff is not a direction against judging, but against hypocritical judging - and there is no evidence to show that Paul is being a hypocrite here.

• Second, of alleged tension between Paul's advice on paying taxes (Rom. 13:6-7) and Jesus' (Matt. 17:25-27). Here Martin lacks knowledge of the social context of these verses: The latter refers to the temple tax of the Jews, in support of their religious obligations to the temple -- Jesus indicates that his followers need not pay THIS tax (though he DOES make a way for Peter to do so!) because of their status with him; Paul is referring to taxes paid to the Roman state for things like roads and services. Martin is picking apples and grouping them with oranges.
• Cited also is the alleged contradiction between Matt. 28:19 and 1 Cor. 1:17, and that between Matt. 10:5-6 and Rom. 15:16, which we have already covered elsewhere.

Non-Pauline and the Pastoral epistles are offered similar treatment, with the addition of following uncritically Wells' late-dates (post-90) of James, Hebrews, the Petrine epistles, etc. and a couple of the usual arguments against the Pastorals' authenticity, which we have addressed elsewhere. (Martin disposes of 1 Tim. 6:13-14 by the simple expedient of dating the Pastorals as late as 140 AD. [58]) Some notes:

• Martin claims that the author of 2 Thessalonians disagrees with Paul and the Gospels in seeing the Second Coming as being soon, though he offers no cite from any letter in support. I must say that I do not see a single place in 2 Thess. that supports Martin's assertion; rather, 2 Thess. tries to avert the idea that the Second Coming has already taken place, and that certain conditions for it are yet to be fulfilled.
• Where 2 Thess. 3:6 warns in the name of Jesus against idleness, it is said that Jesus "seems to encourage it" (Matt. 6:25-6). The latter passage does no such thing; once again Martin is simply a very poor exegete. The passage encourages the reader not to worry about things, but to trust God's provision, and has nothing to do with idleness as such. Only an extremely amateurish exegete (or a very, very lazy person!) would see this passage as an excuse for idleness: Not even the "fowls of the air" lay around waiting for food to drop into their mouths!
• Finally, here is an interesting twist. Martin notes that the letter of Polycarp (120-135 AD) does not cite details of Jesus' life in defense of the idea that Jesus came in the flesh. Martin says, "This probably does not indicate that he was ignorant of these details but only that his purpose in writing the letter was to provide ethical counsel, not to controvert heretical teaching." [59] To which we say: Give the man a cigar! This is exactly why we argue that Paul and the others have no need to mention details, either!

|

Down the Well(s)

Martin closes by looking at three criticisms of Wells' thesis, the first two of which are not really critiques as much as they are bald dismissals by professional historians who find Wells about as amusing as a natural disaster. In this respect, Michael Grant and Ian Wilson have unwittingly opened themselves up to the "Cutner cutout" response - they don't take Wells seriously, and rightfully so; and so they don't bother with more than short dismissals, and the Skeptics take this as a sign that "King George" is truly unassailable. (Rather like my Skeptic who responded to a professional historian's evaluation of Wells by asking if the fellow had even read what Wells had to say!) Martin tries to counter the arguments that some passages in the Gospels are unflattering to Jesus, and would not be therefore unhistorical, by putting "spins" on them, appealing to speculation, or begging the question: For example, the story of Jesus being rejected by his family (Mark 3:20-22) is only to be expected, since the OT literature indicates that the Messiah would be rejected [61]. There is also the standard misunderstanding of Jesus' eschatological discourses.

Martin also responds briefly to criticisms brought forward by Christian writer Gary Habermas, in the main by repeating -- several times, in fact -- arguments that we have already addressed elsewhere as they were presented by Doherty, to the effect that the epistle-writers seem "unaware of" or "ignorant" of "details" of the life of Jesus (which is to say, really detailed details -- Martin does not think that what we have is sufficient!), although neither he, nor Wells, provide us any reason why such details should have been brought up. In a side note, Martin chides Habermas for not refuting directly Wells' arguments for late-dating the Gospels and instead merely citing authorities who assign them earlier dates - which is rather a blatant piece of hypocrisy from someone who simply accepts what Wells has to say uncritically!

|

Conclusion

Martin closes by asserting that Wells' arguments are "sound" and that objections to it can be met. If this is so, one might suppose that Martin would simply end his book here and close up shop, but it is not to be: He proceeds much further, and because Wells' thesis is so "controversial" continues his work as though Jesus were a historical figure of fact. One wonders why, if Wells' thesis were so strong, Martin would need to proceed further, controversy or no controversy - but perhaps Martin is truly aware of how sandy his foundation is and wants to ensure that the edifice is not blown away before he even gets started on the walls!

---

Go Home!