As always happens, you’ll want to listen to this as I don’t stick to the following as a “script.” Just listen.
What can we really know about Jesus?
The good news: enough to have confidence in our faith, knowing who he really was. As Nancy Pearcey puts it.
Biblical Christianity refuses to separate historical fact from spiritual meaning. Its core claim is that the living God has acted in history, especially in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. ~ Nancy Pearcey
Like last weekend, what follows is from what follows from here is all attributed to Dr. Jonathan Morrow’s book, Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible’s Authority. I’ve interjected a few of my own bits, but this is a summary of his work (Which, by the way, you should just buy.) and he gets all the credit. If something doesn’t make sense, it’s probably my fault in summarization.
***
Everywhere Jesus went there was controversy…Two thousand years later, Jesus is still drawing a crowd. But have you ever stopped and asked yourself
How do you really know that Jesus ever existed?
And if he did, can you be confident about what he said and did?
Is it more reasonable to believe that gullible people invented the idea of Jesus or that there really was a Jewish miracle worker from Nazareth who claimed to be the long-awaited Messiah? Especially if you can’t assume the Bible is historically accurate.
To answer these questions, we need to go back to the sources.
Three ‘quests for Jesus’ are marked by differing approaches
The first quest: late 1600s-1953
One of the main aims of this quest was to get back to the historical Jesus of Nazareth by peeling away the theological layers that later Christians (i.e., the early church) allegedly read onto the lips of the real Jesus. (32)
…the cultural backdrop for this quest was the Enlightenment. During this time a strong anti-supernaturalistic or naturalistic sentiment permeated the whole discussion about Jesus. Consequently, critical scholars began with the assumption that the miracle accounts recorded in the four Gospels were invented along with many of the more remarkable words and works of Jesus. (32-33)
Three other ideas of influence in the first “quest for Jesus”
Introduction of the idea that Jesus was just a myth when it comes to miracles. It wasn’t just that it was irrational to believe Jesus could walk on water, but that these miracle stories were legends created much later by the Gospel writers and a community that did not have access to eyewitnesses. (33)
These myths were theologically motivated and therefore propaganda. (33)
Worth noting: that these were claims and stories that explained Jesus and the early Christian movement if you assumed the impossibility of miracles and dismissed the Gospels as early eyewitness testimony. But what if these presuppositions are without merit?
A new “history of religions” school of thought emerged, arguing that religions evolve from simple to complex – and the pagan mythological influences found in the Hellenistic religions turned the historical Jesus into someone he never claimed to be, namely, God (34).
The second quest: 1953-1970s
During the second quest the goal was to separate the Greek Jesus from the Jewish Jesus. One of the ways this came about was to try to analyze the forms (i.e., form criticism) of the stories as they were developed. One unfortunate consequence of this period was that the focus on the literary dimension began to diminish the possibility of the historical. (34)
Not as skeptical as the first quest, but when it came to history, the Gospels were seen as guilty until shown to be innocent by various critical tools (i.e., form, source, and redaction criticism).
The third quest: 1980s-today
However, things began to change with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1945. As they were eventually translated, published, and made accessible to scholars, it became increasingly clear that the Jewish context would be essential in understanding Jesus of Nazareth (a time period known as second-temple-period Judaism).
Why not just take the Gospels by faith?
That is a fair question, but as we have seen, biblical faith is not blind faith. Faith is only as good as the object in which it’s placed. Faith is active trust in what you have good reason to believe is true. But this doesn’t answer the skeptics as seen particularly in the first quest.
As a result of the three quests for the historical Jesus, mainline scholarship has concluded one can cross the ditch with varying degrees of success and has developed some generally agreed upon rules to use.10 (The technical name for these are “Criteria of Authenticity.”) (35)
If we are going to engage the public conversation about Jesus (and not merely assert our opinion), we need to be conversant with the rules of the historical Jesus studies game. And the heart of this game is corroboration.
A key indicator in corroboration is a rule known as “multiple attestation” – just like having multiple witnesses in a court of law. Fortunately it can be show the events were not invented because several independent sources are referring back to this event.
What are the sources that corroborate the existence of Jesus?
General consensus: four key sources…what historical Jesus scholars use are Mark, Q, L, and M.
As you begin to look more closely at the Gospels and compare them, you will find that they depended on one another in specific kinds of ways. This is known as the Synoptic Problem.
“n reading the four Gospels it is apparent that three of them resemble one another and one does not. A brief time spent in any synopsis of the Gospels will indicate that Matthew, Mark and Luke share a number of striking similarities. The “Synoptic Problem” is the name that has been given to the problem of why the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke look so much alike. Why are they so similar in content, in wording and in the order of events found within them? ~ R. H. Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels[1]
Mark is thought to have been written first because both Matthew and Luke (independently) use a lot of material found in Mark. But there is also unique material in Matthew (M) that did not originate from Mark and there is unique material in Luke (L) that did not originate in Mark. And there seems to be a common (written/oral) source used by both Matthew and Luke that has been hypothetically called “Q” (which means source). As of now, this “two-source” hypothesis is the dominant view of the academy. (36-37)
IMPORTANT: Today, virtually all professional New Testament scholars agree that Jesus claimed that the kingdom of God had arrived in his ministry. The primary reason is the Criterion of Multiple Attestation.
Here are at least six independent lines of corroboration: Mark (2:21–22); “Q” (Luke 11:20); “M” (Matthew 5:17); “L” (Luke 17:20–21); John (4:23); Paul (1 Corinthians 10:11; Colossians 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:12). (37)
Notably, a singly-attested event can’t be used…So the vast majority of the gospel of John is immediately set aside because it contains 92 percent unique material. (38)
Conclusion: There are twelve historiographically “valid” events
Even playing by the rules set by people outside the church and unsympathetic to the reality of God or the Christian faith, there were at least twelve significant events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth that can be positively established by these criteria. (38)
These are from Professor Darrel Bock’s book, Who is Jesus?
Jesus affirmed the ministry of John the Baptist.
John was announcing that a new era of God (i.e., the kingdom of God) was approaching. Included in this message was that people were accountable to God and that a response was required.
Jesus collected twelve key followers.
This was symbolic of the work that God had done in the past with Israel and was now doing with this new community.
Jesus publicly associated with sinners.
This highlighted that forgiveness was available and that Jesus was in the middle of this process.
Jesus claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath.
This was an authoritative claim that connected mercy to the mission of the Messiah.
Jesus cast out demons.
This also demonstrated his authority and that the scope of his mission was far bigger than Rome and politics. He was dealing with spiritual realities as well.
Jesus accepted Peter’s declaration that he was the Christ (i.e., Messiah).
This is a pivotal identity event. Jesus begins to reshape expectations concerning what his being the Messiah would mean.
Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.
Jesus’ kingly entrance presented people with a choice to follow or reject—he would not dominate and force people into his kingdom.
Jesus claimed to have authority over the sacred space of the temple.
Jesus’ invitation should not be confused with timidity. God takes things very seriously.
Jesus connects the Passover meal with his disciples to his claim to be the deliverer of God’s people.
Jesus’ messianic identity as a sacrifice to provide salvation is made explicit.
Jesus claimed unique divine authority when examined by Jewish leadership.
Jesus, drawing from Daniel’s prophecy concerning the Son of Man, makes clear the divine authority he is claiming.
The Roman ruler Pontius Pilate publicly executed Jesus for sedition.
This indicates the very public need to do something about who Jesus was and what he was claiming.
Following Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, his tomb was found empty by a group of women followers.
Jesus made good on his promises. He was who he claimed to be.14
Bock summarizes them this way:
“What Jesus offered was new and challenged the way things were being done. Jesus was more than a prophet or religious teacher. His claims went beyond simply pointing the way to God. His claims involved a personal level of authority through which God was revealing himself.” (38-40)
Again, this is Morrow quoting Bock, pointing out that without a single Bible verse, we know from history that
There was a Jewish man who lived early in the 1st century by the name of Jesus who was born out of wedlock,
whose life intersected with that of John the Baptist,
who as an adult became a very popular teacher in Israel who worked wondrous feats—apparently miraculous signs of different kinds,
who gathered a closer group of followers together that he called disciples—5 of them are named—
who consistently challenged conventional Jewish teaching on key topics of the Law and because of that was eventually arrested,
was crucified (a Roman form of execution) as ordered by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate (which narrows the time period down to his reign in Judea between AD 26–36) and that
despite this horrible and shameful death his followers believed he was the Jewish Messiah, or Christ, and they claimed to have seen resurrected from the dead and within a couple of generations (at the latest) were singing hymns to him; worshipping him as if he were a god.
Even a minimal Jesus can’t be ignored.
That, my friends, is pretty powerful. But what about the idea that the story of Jesus was borrowed from pagan mystery religions?
Three reasons the story of Jesus was not borrowed from pagan mystery religions
Scholars across the spectrum have soundly refuted this claim. But blowhards still spout this stuff, so here’s a quick summary of the three reasons. Again, you should buy the book to get the deeper explanations.
First, Christianity emerged out of first-century Judaism that was monotheistic and exclusive.
Second, the alleged parallels disappear once the specifics of each myth are examined.
Lastly, if any borrowing was going on, it was the pagan mystery religions copying from Christianity.
The bottom line
As Morrow points out, looking for a minimal Jesus isn’t to diminish him, it’s to point out that everyone’s got to come to terms with the radical claims of Jesus of Nazareth, and he can’t be ignored as simply a nice guy or mythic moral teacher.
In summary:
In order to engage the public conversation about Jesus today, we need to be familiar with the
various quests for the historical Jesus and
methods that critical scholars are using to try to “recover” him. (43)
Even by playing by these rules (the rules of agnostic and skeptical historiographers),
we still see a portrait of Jesus emerge who was claiming the authority of God and to be the Messiah.
If we cannot know that Jesus of Nazareth existed, then we can know virtually nothing from history—that’s how strong the evidence is.
Moreover, the story of Jesus was not borrowed and then invented from copying mystery religions.
We saw, among other things, that the context of first-century Jewish monotheism from which early Christianity would emerge was exclusive in nature and would not have tolerated this form of idolatry.
In other words, history reveals that Jesus cannot be simply dismissed as a good moral teacher.
You still must do something with Jesus.
The Gospels (and their sources: Mark, M, L, and Q) should not automatically be dismissed as unhistorical, because this begs the question of their reliability and historicity.
But even without appealing to the New Testament writings, we see the broad strokes of Jesus’ life and teachings attested by sources outside of the New Testament (e.g., Pliny, Josephus, and Tacitus).
And I really hope you listened instead of read…SO much better.
ForTheHope is a daily audio Bible + apologetics podcast and blog. We’ve got a passion for just keepin’ it real, having conversations like normal people, and living out the love of Jesus better every single day.
Roger Courville, CSP is a globally-recognized expert in digitally-extended communication and connection, an award-winning speaker, award-winning author, and a passionately bad guitarist. Follow him on Twitter -- @RogerCourville and @JoinForTheHope – or his blog: www.forthehope.org.
Sources and resources:
[1] As quoted by Morrow: R. H. Stein, “Synoptic Problem,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 784.