Five reasons are presented for thinking that critics
who accept the historical credibility of the gospel accounts of Jesus do
not bear a special burden of proof relative to more skeptical critics.
Then the historicity of a few specific aspects of Jesus' life are
addressed, including his radical self-concept as the divine Son of God,
his role as a miracle-worker, his trial and crucifixion, and his
resurrection from the dead.
"Rediscovering the Historical Jesus: The Evidence for Jesus."
Faith and Mission 15 (1998): 16-26.
Last time we saw that the New Testament documents are
the most important historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth. The
so-called apocryphal gospels are forgeries which came much later and are
for the most part elaborations of the four New Testament gospels.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t sources outside
the Bible which refer to Jesus. There are. He’s referred to in pagan,
Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament. The Jewish
historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works
you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and
Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the
Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James. There have also been
interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels.
For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate
was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a
dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990
the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s
trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. Indeed, the tomb beneath the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is in all probability the tomb
in which Jesus himself was laid by Joseph of Arimathea following the
crucifixion. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory
University,
Even the most critical historian can confidently
assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in
Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion
under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after
his death.{1}
Still, if we want any details about Jesus’s life and
teachings, we must turn to the New Testament. Extra-biblical sources
confirm what we read in the gospels, but they don’t really tell us
anything new. The question then must be: how historically
reliable are the New Testament documents?
Burden of Proof
Here we confront the very crucial question of the
burden of proof. Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless
they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are
unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent
until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Sceptical scholars
almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent,
that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until
they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. I’m not
exaggerating here: this really is the procedure of sceptical critics.
But I want to list five reasons why I think we ought
to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:
1. There was insufficient time for legendary
influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time
between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is
too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually
happened to be erased.
2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or
contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and
Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker"
rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous
to the gospel narratives.
3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions
was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of
first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts
of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From
the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the
synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The
disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
4. There were significant restraints on the
embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of
eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen
and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained
under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a
natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction
contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record
of historical reliability.
I don’t have enough time to talk about all of these.
So let me say something about the first and the last points.
1. There was insufficient time for legendary
influences to expunge the historical facts. No modern scholar thinks
of the gospels as bald-faced lies, the result of a massive conspiracy.
The only place you find such conspiracy theories of history is in
sensationalist, popular literature or former propaganda from behind the
Iron Curtain. When you read the pages of the New Testament, there’s no
doubt that these people sincerely believed in the truth of what they
proclaimed. Rather ever since the time of D. F. Strauss, sceptical
scholars have explained away the gospels as legends. Like the child’s
game of telephone, as the stories about Jesus were passed on over the
decades, they got muddled and exaggerated and mythologized until the
original facts were all but lost. The Jewish peasant sage was
transformed into the divine Son of God.
One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis,
however, which is almost never addressed by sceptical critics, is that
the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just
too short for this to happen. This point has been well-explained by A.
N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New
Testament.{2}
Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional
historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to
Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually
biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the
events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence
the course of Roman and Greek history. For example, the two earliest
biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch
more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical
historians still consider them to be trustworthy. The fabulous legends
about Alexander the Great did not develop until during the centuries
after these two writers. According to Sherwin-White, the writings of
Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates,
and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to
allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical
facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that
for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would
have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.
In fact, adding a time gap of two generations to
Jesus’s death lands you in the second century, just when the apocryphal
gospels begin to appear. These do contain all sorts of fabulous stories
about Jesus, trying to fill in the years between his boyhood and his
starting his ministry, for example. These are the obvious legends sought
by the critics, not the biblical gospels.
This point becomes even more devastating for
skepticism when we recall that the gospels themselves use sources that
go back even closer to the events of Jesus’s life. For example, the
story of Jesus’s suffering and death, commonly called the Passion Story,
was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source
for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must
be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says
the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years
after Jesus’s death.{3}
Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information
concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal,
crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were
written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for
example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church
about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years
after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends
in such cases.
5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record
of historical reliability. Again I only have time to look at one
example: Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of
Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. These are really one work and are
separated in our Bibles only because the church grouped the gospels
together in the New Testament. Luke is the gospel writer who writes most
self-consciously as an historian. In the preface to this work he writes:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a
narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as
they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also,
having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an
orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know
the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.
This preface is written in classical Greek
terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke
switches to a more common Greek. But he has put his reader on alert that
he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian. He speaks
of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures
us that it is based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the
truth.
Now who was this author we call Luke? He was clearly
not an eyewitness to Jesus’s life. But we discover an important fact
about him from the book of Acts. Beginning in the sixteenth chapter of
Acts, when Paul reaches Troas in modern-day Turkey, the author suddenly
starts using the first-person plural: "we set sail from Troas to
Samothrace," "we remained in Philippi some days," "as we were going to
the place of prayer," etc. The most obvious explanation is that
the author had joined Paul on his evangelistic tour of the Mediterranean
cities. In chapter 21 he accompanies Paul back to Palestine and finally
to Jerusalem. What this means is that the author of Luke-Acts was in
fact in first hand contact with the eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and
ministry in Jerusalem. Sceptical critics have done back-flips to try to
avoid this conclusion. They say that the use of the first-person plural
in Acts should not be taken literally; it’s just a literary device which
is common in ancient sea voyage stories. Never mind that many of the
passages in Acts are not about Paul’s sea voyage, but take place on
land! The more important point is that this theory, when you check it
out, turns out to be sheer fantasy.{4}
There just was no literary device of sea voyages in the first person
plural--the whole thing has been shown to be a scholarly fiction! There
is no avoiding the conclusion that Luke-Acts was written by a traveling
companion of Paul who had the opportunity to interview eyewitnesses to
Jesus’s life while in Jerusalem. Who were some of these eyewitnesses?
Perhaps we can get some clue by subtracting from the Gospel of Luke
everything found in the other gospels and seeing what is peculiar to
Luke. What you discover is that many of Luke’s peculiar narratives are
connected to women who followed Jesus: people like Joanna and Susanna,
and significantly, Mary, Jesus’s mother.
Was the author reliable in getting the facts
straight? The book of Acts enables us to answer that question
decisively. The book of Acts overlaps significantly with secular history
of the ancient world, and the historical accuracy of Acts is
indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin Hemer, a
classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book
The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.
{5}Hemer goes through
the book of Acts with a fine-toothed comb, pulling out a wealth of
historical knowledge, ranging from what would have been common knowledge
down to details which only a local person would know. Again and again
Luke’s accuracy is demonstrated: from the sailings of the Alexandrian
corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the Mediterranean islands to the
peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to
Professor Sherwin-White, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is
overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in
matters of detail must now appear absurd."{6}
The judgement of Sir William Ramsay, the world-famous archaeologist,
still stands: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . . This author
should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."{7}
Given Luke’s care and demonstrated reliability as well as his contact
with eyewitnesses within the first generation after the events, this
author is trustworthy.
On the basis of the five reasons I listed, we are
justified in accepting the historical reliability of what the gospels
say about Jesus unless they are proven to be wrong. At the very least,
we cannot assume they are wrong until proven right. The person who
denies the gospels’ reliability must bear the burden of proof.
Specific Aspects of Jesus’s Life
Now by the very nature of the case, it will be
impossible to say a whole lot more beyond this to prove that certain
stories in the gospels are historically true. How could you prove, for
example, the story of Jesus’s visiting Mary and Martha? You just have
here a story told by a reliable author in a position to know and no
reason to doubt the historicity of the story. There’s not much more to
say.
Nevertheless, for many of the key events in the
gospels, a great deal more can be said. What I’d like to do now is take
a few of the important aspects of Jesus in the gospels and say a word
about their historical credibility.
1. Jesus’s Radical Self-Concept as the Divine Son
of God. Radical critics deny that the historical Jesus thought of
himself as the divine Son of God. They say that after Jesus’s death, the
early church claimed that he had said these things, even though he
hadn’t.
The big problem with this hypothesis is that it is
inexplicable how monotheistic Jews could have attributed divinity to a
man they had known, if he never claimed any such things himself.
Monotheism is the heart of the Jewish religion, and it would have been
blasphemous to say that a human being was God. Yet this is precisely
what the earliest Christians did proclaim and believe about Jesus. Such
a claim must have been rooted in Jesus’s own teaching.
And in fact, the majority of scholars do believe that
among the historically authentic words of Jesus--these are the words in
the gospels which the Jesus Seminar would print in red--among the
historically authentic words of Jesus are claims that reveal his divine
self-understanding. One could give a whole lecture on this point alone;
but let me focus on Jesus’s self-concept of being the unique, divine Son
of God.
Jesus’s radical self-understanding is revealed, for
example, in his parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard. Even
sceptical scholars admit the authenticity of this parable, since it is
also found in the Gospel of Thomas, one of their favorite sources. In
this parable, the owner of the vineyard sent servants to the tenants of
the vineyard to collect its fruit. The vineyard symbolizes Israel, the
owner is God, the tenants are the Jewish religious leaders, and the
servants are prophets send by God. The tenants beat and reject the
owner’s servants. Finally, the owner says, "I will send my only, beloved
son. They will listen to my son." But instead, the tenants kill the son
because he is the heir to the vineyard. Now what does this parable tell
us about Jesus’s self-understanding? He thought of himself as God’s
special son, distinct from all the prophets, God’s final messenger, and
even the heir to Israel. This is no mere Jewish peasant!
Jesus’s self-concept as God’s son comes to explicit
expression in Matthew 11.27: "All things have been delivered to me by my
Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the
Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."
Again there is good reason to regard this as an authentic saying of the
historical Jesus. It is drawn from an old source which was shared by
Matthew and Luke, which scholars call the Q document. Moreover, it is
unlikely the Church invented this saying because it says that the Son is
unknowable-- "no one knows the Son except the Father"--, but for the
post-Easter church we can know the Son. So this saying is not the
product of later Church theology. What does this saying tell us about
Jesus’s self-concept? He thought of himself as the exclusive and
absolute Son of God and the only revelation of God to mankind! Make no
mistake: if Jesus wasn’t who he said he was, he was crazier than David
Koresh and Jim Jones put together!
Finally, I want to consider one more saying: Jesus’s
saying on the date of his second coming in Mark 13.32: "But of that day
or that hour no man knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,
but only the Father." This is an authentic saying of the historical
Jesus because the later Church, which regarded Jesus as divine, would
never have invented a saying ascribing limited knowledge or ignorance to
Jesus. But here Jesus says he doesn’t know the time of his return. So
what do we learn from this saying? It not only reveals Jesus’s
consciousness of being the one Son of God, but it presents us
with an ascending scale from men to the angels to the Son to the Father,
a scale on which Jesus transcends any human being or angelic being. This
is really incredible stuff! Yet it is what the historical Jesus
believed. And this is only one facet of Jesus’s self-understanding. C.
S. Lewis was right when he said,
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of
things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either
be a lunatic--on the level with the man who says he is a poached
egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.
Either this man was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or
something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him
and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord
and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his
being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.{8}
2. Jesus’s Miracles.Even the most sceptical
critics cannot deny that the historical Jesus carried out a ministry of
miracle-working and exorcism. Rudolf Bultmann, one of the most sceptical
scholars this century has seen, wrote back in 1926:
Most of the miracle stories contained in the
gospels are legendary or at least are dressed up with legends. But
there can be no doubt that Jesus did such deeds, which were, in his
and his contemporaries’ understanding, miracles, that is, deeds that
were the result of supernatural, divine causality. Doubtless he healed
the sick and cast out demons.{9}
Back in Bultmann’s day the miracle stories were
thought to be influenced by stories of mythological heroes and, hence,
at least in part legendary. But today it is recognized that the
hypothesis of mythological influence was historically incorrect. Craig
Evans, a well-known Jesus scholar, says that "the older notion" that the
miracle stories were the product of mythological divine man ideas "has
been largely abandoned."{10}
He says, "It is no longer seriously contested" "that miracles played a
role in Jesus’s ministry." The only reason left for denying that Jesus
performed literal miracles is the presupposition of
anti-supernaturalism, which is simply unjustified.
3. Jesus’s Trial and Crucifixion. According to
the gospels Jesus was condemned by the Jewish high court on the charge
of blasphemy and then delivered to the Romans for execution for the
treasonous act of setting himself up as King of the Jews. Not only are
these facts confirmed by independent biblical sources like Paul and the
Acts of the Apostles, but they are also confirmed by extra-biblical
sources. From Josephus and Tacitus, we learn that Jesus was crucified by
Roman authority under the sentence of Pontius Pilate. From Josephus and
Mara bar Serapion we learn that the Jewish leaders made a formal
accusation against Jesus and participated in events leading up to his
crucifixion. And from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, we learn
that Jewish involvement in the trial was explained as a proper
undertaking against a heretic. According to Johnson, "The support for
the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its coagents, is
overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned and
executed by crucifixion."{11}
The crucifixion of Jesus is recognized even by the Jesus Seminar as "one
indisputable fact." {12}
But that raises the very puzzling question: Why was
Jesus crucified? As we have seen, the evidence indicates that his
crucifixion was instigated by his blasphemous claims, which to the
Romans would come across as treasonous. That’s why he was crucified, in
the words of the plaque that was nailed to the cross above his head, as
"The King of the Jews." But if Jesus was just a peasant, cynic
philosopher, just a liberal social gadfly, as the Jesus Seminar claims,
then his crucifixion becomes inexplicable. As Professor Leander Keck of
Yale University has said, "The idea that this Jewish cynic (and his
dozen hippies) with his demeanor and aphorisms was a serious threat to
society sounds more like a conceit of alienated academics than sound
historical judgement."{13}
New Testament scholar John Meier is equally direct. He says that a bland
Jesus who just went about spinning out parables and telling people to
look at the lilies of the field-- "such a Jesus," he says, "would
threaten no one, just as the university professors who create him
threaten no one."{14}
The Jesus Seminar has created Jesus who is incompatible with the one
indisputable fact of his crucifixion.
4. The resurrection of Jesus. It seems to me
that there are four established facts which constitute inductive
evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:
Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried
by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant
because it means that the location of Jesus’s tomb was known to Jew and
Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his
resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing
his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge
University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and
best-attested facts about Jesus."{15}
Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the
crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women
followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the
resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of
the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."{16}
As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to
the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the
basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."{17}
Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various
circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced
appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is
almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even
Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the
resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that
Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which
Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."{18}
Finally, fact #4: The original disciples believed
that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not
to. Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an
undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in,
proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of
Jesus’s resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes
that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical
influences can account for--apart from the resurrection itself.{19}
Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an
account of the matter, must deal with these four independently
established facts: the honorable burial of Jesus, the discovery of his
empty tomb, his appearances alive after his death, and the very origin
of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection and, hence, of Christianity
itself. I want to emphasize that these four facts represent, not the
conclusions of conservative scholars, nor have I quoted conservative
scholars, but represent rather the majority view of New Testament
scholarship today. The question is: how do you best explain these facts?
Now this puts the sceptical critic in a somewhat
desperate situation. For example, some time ago I had a debate with a
professor at the University of California, Irvine, on the historicity of
the resurrection of Jesus. He had written his doctoral dissertation on
the subject and was thoroughly familiar with the evidence. He could not
deny the facts of Jesus’s honorable burial, his empty tomb, his
post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his
resurrection. Therefore, his only recourse was to come up with some
alternative explanation of these facts. And so he argued that Jesus
had an unknown identical twin brother who was separated from him at
birth, came back to Jerusalem just at the time of the crucifixion, stole
Jesus’s body out of the grave, and presented himself to the disciples,
who mistakenly inferred that Jesus was risen from the dead! Now I won’t
go into how I went about refuting his theory, but I think that this
theory is instructive because it shows to what desperate lengths
skepticism must go in order to deny the historicity of the resurrection
of Jesus. In fact, the evidence is so powerful that one of today’s
leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapide has declared himself
convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised
Jesus from the dead!{20}
Conclusion
In summary, the gospels are not only trustworthy
documents in general, but as we look at some of the most important
aspects of Jesus in the gospels, like his radical personal claims, his
miracles, his trial and crucifixion, and his resurrection, their
historical veracity shines through. God has acted in history, and we can
know it.
Endnotes
{1}Luke Timothy
Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco,
1996), p. 123.
{2}A. N.
Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 188-91.
{3}Rudolf Pesch,
Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976-77), 2: 519-20.
{4}See discussion
in Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic
History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament 49 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), chap. 8.
{5}Ibid., chaps.
4-5.
{6}Sherwin-White,
Roman Society, p. 189.
{7}William M.
Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the
New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), p. 222.
{8}C. S. Lewis,
Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1952), p. 56.
{9}Rudolf Bultmann,
Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926), p. 159.
{10}Craig Evans,
"Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological
Studies 54 (1993): 18, 34.
{11}Johnson,
Real Jesus, p. 125.
{12}Robert Funk,
Jesus Seminar videotape.
{13}Leander Keck,
"The Second Coming of the Liberal Jesus?" Christian Century
(August, 1994), p. 786.
{14}John P. Meier,
A Marginal Jew, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the
Person, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991),
p. 177.
{15}John A. T.
Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1973), p. 131.
{16}Jakob Kremer,
Die Osterevangelien--Geschichten um Geschichte (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977), pp. 49-50.
{17}D. H. Van
Daalen, The Real Resurrection (London: Collins, 1972), p. 41.
{18}Gerd Lüdemann,
What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville,
Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.
{19}C. F. D. Moule
and Don Cupitt, "The Resurrection: a Disagreement," Theology 75
(1972): 507-19.
{20}Pinchas Lapide,
The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (London: SPCK,
1983).