5.Historical methodology
A fifth criticism of Wells’ thesis is his lack of application of normal historical methodology to the Gospel material.^24 When this is done, historically reliable material about Jesus can be gleaned. Michael Grant specifically notes that this is the major problem with Wells’ thesis: But, above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.^25 By normal historical standards used to ascertain other events in ancient history, we can learn about Jesus as well.
Wells postulates that the lateness of the Gospels and the lack of reliable information caused their writers to do much guessing and made them accept almost anything reported about Jesus. Yet we have just seen several ways in which Wells’ lack of application of the historical method has contributed to the major problems with his thesis.
For example, if the majority of critical scholars is right in dating the Gospels earlier than Wells postulates, then these writings are much closer to the events that they record. The basis for the Gospel report of the death and resurrection of Jesus is firmly grounded in history, without being inspired by the mystery religions, again contrary to Wells’ thesis. That eyewitnesses had considerable influence is a definite pointer in the direction of the reliability of the material.^26 The trustworthiness of the
22 Grant, Jesus: an Historian’s Review, pp. 183–189.
23 Wells, “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate?” p. 26.
25 Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, pp. 199–200.
Page 123456789101112131415161718192021
