Review - The Christ Myth Theory and its Problems by
Robert M. Price
Jesus at the Vanishing Point – part 1
Jesus at the Vanishing Point is an article originally
published in the collaborative book, The Historical Jesus: Five Views.
I think the idea of that book was to get five biblical scholars to write
articles in defense of vastly different theories of who they think Jesus was,
then scribble more ink critiquing each other's articles. Price wrote the
essay which defended his radical view that there is no such thing as a
historical Jesus. I have never read the entire book, so I have no idea
what critiques or opinions the other scholars gave to Price's article.
Since I currently have no intention of purchasing this book, I guess this
pathetic critique of my own will have to suffice.
Dr. Price begins the article by explaining a few of the
basic tools for the historian. He asks, “What
is the greatest commandment for historians?” (p25)
Whoa there, hold the phone for just a second. Something about Price’s article has been
bugging me since I first read it a couple of years ago, and I could only figure
out why after thinking about it carefully.
In the previous article in this series, I discussed how Dr. Price
prefers to approach the Gospels as a literary critic as opposed to a
historian. Now in Jesus at the
Vanishing Point, Dr. Price is going to switch to the same role of historian
that is followed by the majority of his scholarly contemporaries. Before I discuss his method in any detail,
let me quickly list what Dr. Price considers to be the greatest commandments of
the historian:
1) The principle of analogy
2) The criterion of dissimilarity
3) The ideal type
4) Consensus is no criterion
6) Conclusions must be tentative
(There appears to be no number 5)
I have consulted a couple references on accepted best
practices for the historical method, but try as I might, I cannot find anything
regarding the ‘greatest commandments’, and I sure cannot find these criteria,
particularly the first three, listed outside of the narrow discipline of Historical
Jesus studies. I am certainly no
historian, and I fully admit that I am missing a lot of information regarding
historical methodology, but in the few that I have read in this genre, I have
not seen anything like these ‘greatest commandments’ listed. True, I have seen the principle of analogy,
the criterion of embarrassment, multiple independent attestation, and those
kinds of things, but to this suspicious reader, Dr. Price’s particular
‘Greatest Commandments’ seem especially chosen to remove anything that can be
possibly known of any historical Jesus.
Even those criteria that Dr. Price shares with his scholarly buddies
seem to be deliberately and uniquely formulated by him to whittle Jesus away
into nonexistence. It seems to me to be
deliberate. I do not mind radical
reinterpretations of existing data, but to call them ‘greatest commandments’ of
a methodology seems to me like a subtle charge against his contemporaries. Hey, if Dr. Price is using the greatest commandments
of historical research and coming to the conclusion that Jesus never existed,
why isn’t everybody else coming to the same conclusion as he? It is so subtle, I doubt Dr. Price even knows
that he is doing it.
With that out of the way, let’s look at Dr. Price’s
historical ‘Greatest Commandments’ in a little more detail.
The Principle of Analogy
Robert Price asks, “What is the greatest commandment for
historians? The first and greatest is
the Principle of Analogy.” (p25) I am
not sure what he means by this principle, because he immediately launches into
a discussion of methodological atheism. “...we
weren't there and thus do not know that
natural law always operated as it does now ... but there is no particular
reason not to think so, and unless we do, we have no criterion at all. We
will be at the mercy of old stories of people turning lead into gold, turning
into werewolves, using magic to win battles…the historian must ask if an old
account that does not fit the analogy of present-day experience does happen to
match the analogy of legend or myth.” (p26)
Price seems to be mixing two ideas together under category
of ‘Principle of Analogy”. Basically,
Price is telling us that if it walks and talks like a duck, it is likely a
duck. If the Gospel stories sound like
they have the elements of countless myths from the ancient world, then more
than likely, those Gospel stories too are myth.
I do think that this principle, as defined by Dr Price, can be too
far-reaching. We must remember that when
dealing with the Gospels, or any other ancient writing, we are reading the
words and thoughts from an unknown person, from an uncertain location, written
with dubious motives, in an alien and forgotten culture. The speculation surrounding the origin of many
of these ancient myths should convince us that the Principle of Analogy does
not apply in many cases. These ancient
people simply thought differently than modern people do. For instance, why was the collection of
mystical discourses and semi-gnostic cosmology, otherwise known to us as the
Gospel of John, written? The Principle
of Analogy will be of no use in answering this question, at lease not when it
is used in the way that Dr Price describes.
But I think I understand what Dr Price is trying to get
at. Because modern people agree that our
common experience is governed by natural laws, and since there are apparently
no observable miracles, we can only establish historical criteria based on what
we have experienced. Miracle has never
been observed, thus according to the Principle of Analogy, what may seem to be
a miracle on first glance, likely is explained by something more mundane. History must be studied as a strictly secular
discipline, and the study of history must proceed without considerations to the
miraculous. When this subject came up
during my physics studies, we sometimes called this methodological atheism. Even very religious scientists must practice
their scientific discipline without recourse to their favorite deity. Invoking a miracle to solve a challenging
engineering problem is no solution at all – and everybody knows it. The scientific study of history must be
conducted in the same way.
Price lays out his standard of methodological atheism: “...we
weren't there and thus do not know that natural law always operated as it does
now ... but there is no particular reason not to think so, and unless we do, we
have no criterion at all. We will be at the mercy of old stories of
people turning lead into gold, turning into werewolves, using magic to win
battles.” (p26)
“If it looks more like a legend than like any verifiable
modern experience, what are we to conclude? If the story of Jesus walking
on the water bears a strong resemblance to old stories in which Hermes,
Pythagoras, the Buddha and others walk on water, mustn't we conclude we are
probably dealing with a legend in the case of Jesus , too?” (p26)
I think Price is essentially correct here, but he is arguing
with the wrong audience. Much like the process detailed in the scientific
method, the process of discovering the truth of history must assume a natural
order. If the existence of miracles can be included in historical
analysis, then there are no boundaries to natural law, and all rules and
methodology can be thrown out. This 'Principle of Analogy' does make sense,
but it is an argument against belief in literal miracles, not against a
historical Jesus. Most secular historians will admit that Jesus existed
despite the obviously legendary miracles that are attached to his name.
Secular historians are not likely to believe that Jesus historically
walked on water, multiplied food, or turned water to wine. But these same
historians will still believe that a historical Jesus did exist, and will
likely look for some kind of historical kernel that underlay the embellished,
miraculous legends. Historically speaking, legend is not an 'all or
nothing' proposition.
Price compares the accumulation of sayings attributed to
Jesus with the number of Hadith attributed to Muhammed. ”...early Muslim
savants simply had no problem with fabricating Hadith if they thought the
content was valid.” (p28) Compare this with the attribution of quotes to Jesus from
church signs. But again - is this an argument against the existence of
the historical Jesus? Disciples of the
Great Man would hear a profound saying.
It was so profound, in fact, that surely it must have come from the lips
of the Great Man himself! Because of this common practice, we may not be
able to accurately determine what exactly the Great Man said, and even admit
that popular apothegms were regularly attributed to him. Albert Einstein has
not yet been dead for 60 years, and even with detailed records of his works,
even with the Internet, spurious quotes are commonly attributed to him. Yet, there is no doubt that Albert Einstein
was a real person.
Criterion of Dissimilarity
Price then outlines the remaining “historiographical
commandments”. “The second, the Criterion of Dissimilarity, is like unto
[the Principle of Analogy]...The idea is that no saying ascribed to Jesus may
be counted as probably authentic if it has parallels in Jewish or early
Christian sayings.” (p28) Price gives an example. “...as for the early
church, the contradictions between gospel sayings on eschatology, divorce,
fasting, preaching to Gentiles and Samaritans, etc., are most easily explained
as the church ascribing their views to Jesus because they thought them valid
inferences (or revelations from the Risen Lord). If the Criterion of
Dissimilarity leaves little left of the sayings of Jesus as potentially
authentic, Price removes these too. “...the Criterion of Dissimilarity
must be all-devouring because of the central tenet of form-criticism, which is
that in order to be transmitted, every gospel pericope must have had some
pragmatic use.” (p29)
Immediately, something smells fishy to me. Price
claims that “no saying ascribed to Jesus may be counted as probably authentic
if it has parallels in Jewish or early Christian sayings.” This argument
seems to have too broad of a sweep. I try to imagine a historian in the
distant future who is trying to determine if the abundance of quotes attributed
to, let’s say Maya Angelou since she recently died. If we use Robert Price’s definition of
Criterion of Dissimilarity, is there any way for a future historian to
attribute any popular and inspirational sayings to Ms. Angelou? Not a chance.
It is easy to see from a casual glance at her most popular quotes that
none of them are hardly unique. The uniqueness
comes from her works as a whole, not from the individual aphorisms that a common,
mass audience will find inspirational.
Price’s definition of the Criterion of Dissimilarity seems
like it could be used to remove any familiar saying or any attribution to any person. Truly unique sayings are indeed rare,
especially sayings that appeal to a general population of listeners. And Price’s unique description of the
Criterion of Dissimilarity does not fit any description that I have ever
heard. Since Price attributes the
Criterion of Dissimilarity to Norman Perrin, I will look Perrin up to see for
myself what he has to say about it.
Luckily, Perrin’s book which is cited by Dr. Price is online (LINK):
Here is what Perrin says:
Thus we reach the fundamental criterion for authenticity upon which all reconstructions of the teaching of Jesus must he built, which we propose to call the ‘criterion of dissimilarity’. Recognizing that it follows an attempt to write a history of the tradition concerned, we may formulate it as follows: the earliest form of a saying we can reach may be regarded as authentic if it can be shown to be dissimilar to characteristic emphases both of ancient Judaism and of the early Church, and this will particularly be the case where Christian tradition oriented towards Judaism can be shown to have modified the saying away from its original emphasis. (From Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, p39)
Wait a second; do you see the difference in emphasis between
how Perrin defines the Criterion of Dissimilarity and how Price applies
it? Price has cited Perrin in his
formulation of the criterion of dissimilarity, but then applied it with reverse
polarity! It is a subtle difference, but Price is using the Criterion of
Dissimilarity in the opposite sense from that intended by Perrin. Where
Perrin used the criterion in an attempt to determine sayings attributed to
Jesus may be authentic, Price is using it do discard inauthentic sayings. Paula Fredriksen describes it in even simpler
terms:
“The criterion of dissimilarity holds that if the earliest
form of a saying or story differs in emphasis from a characteristic teaching or
concern both of contemporary Judaism and of the early church, then it may
be authentic” (From Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, p5. The emphasis is in the original.)
Perrin and Fredriksen are saying that if a saying of Jesus
seems radically different from anything expected in their culture, then that
lends it greater probability of being authentic. I am not so sure that is a well- founded
assumption, but it does seem like a cautious methodology for determining what
we can know about Jesus. More
importantly, this description of the Criterion of Dissimilarity does not discount
any sayings of Jesus that do not fit the description. Notice how different this is from Dr.
Price. He is saying, in contrast, that
any saying of Jesus that appears similar must be inauthentic. It is a re-definition of the criterion that
he cites from Perrin, and it is much broader sweeping in its negative results
than anything implied by Perrin’s description of the Criterion of
Dissimilarity. It is a method that seems
designed to show what we cannot know, not what we can know, and to emphasize that
since nothing Jesus says appears to be truly unique, he must never had said
anything.
But what about those sayings of Jesus that do appear to be
unique among his society? How can Dr.
Price discard even these with his own mis-application of the Criterion of
Dissimilarity? I have certainly not read
all there is among ancient literature, but I have never seen anything in
contemporary literature that is even close to some of Jesus’ most famous
aphorisms in the Sermon on the Mount.
Love your enemy? Salt and
light? The fulfillment of the Law? These appear to me to be unique enough to
plausibly be considered authentic sayings of Jesus. But this attempt at determining the authentic
sayings of Jesus via the Criterion of Dissimilarity is invalid with Dr. Price’s
application of the same criterion. In
fact, he takes it one step further by pulling out another bit of arcane
historical methodology. “…the Criterion
of dissimilarity must be all-devouring because of the central tenet of
form-criticism, which is that in order to be transmitted, every gospel pericope
must have had some pragmatic use” (p29).
Central tenet of form-criticism? Says who?
Well, let’s not go down that rabbit hole. Let me instead outline Dr. Price’s
methodology that leads to his conclusion that every saying and deed of Jesus
that is recorded in the Gospels is inauthentic:
1)
Anything that Jesus is recorded as
saying or doing can be considered inauthentic if it has parallels among his
contemporaries.
2)
The early church had doctrinal
reasons for transmitting and preserving their favorite, thus canonical, sayings
of Jesus.
3)
The motives of the early church
are apparently close enough to parallels in sayings among Jesus
contemporaries. Therefore everything in
the Gospels that relates to Jesus must be inauthentic.
Sorry Dr. Price, but this just seems too easy to me. The misapplication of these historical
criteria seems designed to intentionally rid ourselves of everything we can
possibly know about Jesus. It may be
true that Jesus never existed, but I think I understand the suspicion of
Biblical scholars when they see methodology like this. What is the point of years of scholarship,
education and training when it can all be discarded with three simple bullet
points? After thinking about Dr. Price’s
methodology, I am suspicious too.
The Remaining Commandments
I do not have a detailed commentary on the remaining
historical commandments as outlined by Dr. Price, except that I again do not see how they are
commandments of historical methodology.
In fact, they too, do not seem to be designed by an impartial historian,
but by a person who is accustomed to arguing fringe opinions to more mainstream
peers. Dr. Price asks the reader to
remember the definition of an ‘Ideal Type’.
The importance of mystery religions, Gnosticism and Pagan Saviors who
were contemporary to Jesus must be considered as part of prevailing culture,
and I agree with this. The facts that
consensus is no criterion of truth and that all scholarly opinion must be held
as tentative are not so much greatest commandments of the historian, but
general principles of any scientific investigation. Again, I have no disagreement with any of
this, but it does seem to be suspiciously applied, not on what we can determine
about a historical Jesus, but about why mainstream scholars really need to take
Dr. Price seriously.
Wow, I am really giving it to Robert Price in this
critique. But I have to call it like I
see it. So far in this article, his
approach is like a bulldozer making quick work of a delicate archaeological
dig. And I am only seven pages in.
Next: Jesus at the
Vanishing Point - part 2
