When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation

Some thoughts on Paula Fredriksen’s ‘When Christians Were Jews: The First Generation’.

Part 1: 

I started this with great anticipation as I had read a number of articles from Prof Fredriksen and had been impressed with some of her research and understandings.

But this book seriously disappointed me. There is no doubt that Prof Fredriksen is well-versed in the many issues that plague the New Testament as a result of many redactions and interpolations over the centuries, but instead of recognizing the challenge and offering a well-reasoned position (what ever it may be) that recognizes the many possible and nuanced solutions to these issues, she instead makes up new, seemingly fabricated, issues and appears to be totally ignorant of any of the more well-reasoned and well-researched alternative positions offered on these challenges.

Another reviewer, unconvinced by her analysis described her arguments as ‘unsophisticated and shallow. Sadly to say, I have to agree. With her undoubted years of scholarship, I expected much, much better.

Another reviewer in noting her argument that the Gospels were not written until after the fall of Jerusalem asked “Another gnawing question was why the gospel writers didn’t cash-in on the 70 CE events to support their innovative beliefs”.

While the incomparable Prof. David Flusser did argue that the Greek version of Matthew must have been composed after the horrific events of 70 CE, he also argued that a Hebrew version existed for decades beforehand.

Prof. Fredriksen argues that Matthew and Luke’s genealogy narratives are mutually exclusive. She further denigrates these accounts and argues that these Gospels writers ‘generated biographical data’ to suit their narrative as they were ‘not doing history’ but rather showing great ‘literary freedom’ and writing with a ‘purpose to persuade’.

But despite my finding her arguments unconvincing, strained, and lacking appreciation of both some historical facts and author perspectives, she does present some interesting challenges to those whose faith is grounded in logic and reason and not just a ‘blind faith’.

For example, she argues that the Roman tax and census that lead Yosef and Miriam to travel of Bethlehem was that of the Syrian Legate Quirinius which occurred in 6 CE, but this was a decade after Herod died in 4 BCE.

The site Howling Pixel details this issue. Below is an excerpt that should explain the problem:

In 6 CE the Roman Empire deposed Herod Archelaus, who ruled the largest section of Judea as a Roman client king, and converted his territory into the Roman province of Judea. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, the newly-appointed Imperial Legate(governor) of the province of Roman Syria, was assigned to carry out a tax census of the new province.[7] According to Josephus, a Jewish historian writing in the late first century CE, Jews reacted negatively to this census. Most were convinced to comply with it by the high priest, but some joined a rebellion led by Judas of Galilee.[8]

The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to the census:

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered. Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child.

— Luke 2:1–5

There are major difficulties in accepting Luke's account: the gospel links the birth of Jesus to the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5: "In the days of King Herod of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah..."), but the census took place in 6 CE, nine years after Herod's death in 4 BCE; there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus; no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors; and the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family, living in Galilee.[6] Some conservative scholars have argued that Quirinius may have had an earlier and historically unattested term as governor of Syria, or that he previously held other senior positions which may have led him to be involved in the affairs of Judea during Herod's reign, or that the passage should be interpreted in some other fashion.[9][10][11]

Such arguments have been rejected on various grounds, including that there is no time in the known career of Quirinius when he could have served as governor of Syria before 6 CE, that the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms, and that the hostile reaction of the Jews in 6 CE suggests direct taxation by Rome was new at the time.[12][13] Ralph Martin Novak says that these conservative interpretations spring from the assumption that the Bible is inerrant,[14] and Géza Vermes called such arguments "exegetical acrobatics".[15]

Most scholars have concluded that the author of Luke's gospel made an error.[6]”

- From https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/Census_of_Quirinius

I would like to hear other’s thoughts on the question of the historical accuracy of Luke’s Gospel with regard to this issue. Do you have an alternative perspective or possible solution to offer?

Part 2: 

I have still not quite finished the book for various reasons, but I wanted to comment on her arguments based on a very late date (post the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE) for the authorship of Mark's Gospel (and a consequential even later date for the other Gospels based on the common Q source argument).

These late dates lead her to argue that much of what Mark and the other Gospel writers share is made up to suit their agenda.

While her position on the dating may be a common one amongst many academics, there has been plenty of more recent evidence and argument that essentially invalidates her dating and as a result invalidates many of her questionable arguments and conjecture, and instead argues for a great deal of authenticity and accuracy.

In seeking the best evidence for the dating of the Gospel accounts (some of which I have documented in my books), one of the first places I turn to is to the work of the late Prof. David Flusser and his Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research.

The late Rev Risto Santala, a Pastor, educator and scholar is another who has studied both this question and the works of David Flusser. I highly recommend his article 'NEW LIGHT ON THE DATE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT' - see http://www.ristosantala.com/rsla/Nt/NT07.html

Here is a couple of excerpts, and the accompanying diagram is also from his article:

'… the fact that there is not even a hint in the New Testament of Nero's persecutions after AD 64 or of the execution in AD 62 of James, the Lord's brother; there is not the slightest mention of the Jewish revolt against the Romans, which began in AD 66, or of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.' [- significant factors the oppose a late date for the Gospels.]

… According to the Jerusalem school, some earlier stages of composition are dimly visible behind the gospels:

1. It would appear that by approximately five years after the death and resurrection of Christ most of his words and deeds had been committed to a simple written Hebrew form in which no attempt was made to define the chronological order of the events. Tradition attaches the name of Matthew to this compilation. It would seem to have contained preaching, parables, healing miracles and teaching concerned with the last days. The gospel we know today as "according to Matthew" may have had its main stimulus from this raw material.

2. In the second stage, about ten years later, this corpus of data was translated into a rough Greek version for the church's requirements.It may have been at this point that many variations came about, some of them being the "Q" sources.

3. Around the year 50 the original material was worked into a written Greek form and the events ordered both chronologically and by subject. Only at this stage, and in a relatively short time, were the 'synoptic' gospels composed because of the persecutions which were imminent. This was still, however, a time when details about the events could be verified with eye-witnesses.
Mark evidently knew Luke's gospel version, the Acts and some of Paul's letters, and so he would have no need to repeat Luke's account of the events surrounding Jesus' birth….'

He also argues for the Book of James to the earliest of all the NT Books (47-48 CE). I argue the same in my article on James The Just (though I argue for an even earlier date).

So I find Fredriksen's arguments, allegations and suppositions, especially around the Gospel narratives to be poorly supported and most unconvincing.

She does argue as Nanos and I do regarding how the Apostle Paul articulated the role and status of Gentile followers of Yeshua, but even here she makes a shockingly unsupported claim that the 'mutilators of the flesh' (see Phil 3) were Judaizers.

I address this in-depth in my article 'Reevaluating Philipians 3'

Part 3 - tbc