4.The possibility of theology
The fourth critique of this historical approach will only be mentioned briefly since it cannot be dealt with in this book. But the attempt of both contemporary historians and nineteenth century liberals to ignore the theological teachings in the life of Jesus might also be subject to revision if it is found that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead.^51 If the resurrection were shown to be an historical event, it would have much possible relevance for Jesus’ theological teachings, which could not then be ruled out as irrelevant.
For reasons such as these, we must therefore rule out this erroneous attempt to pursue historical facts in the life of Jesus. It fails because it usually rejects the possibility of miracles in an a priorimanner, and also because it frequently rejects any investigation of miracle-claims at all. Additionally, its naturalistic approach to Jesus’ resurrection has failed, as even critics admit, and it also ignores the possibility that, if Jesus literally arose from the dead, then there is certainly a possible relevance for the theology that he taught. No Extra-New Testament Sources for Jesus
The last view that we will examine in this chapter is the often-mentioned opinion that everything we know about Jesus is recorded in the New Testament, and in the Gospels in particular. These are sometimes said to be our onlysources for the life of Jesus, meaning that ancient secular history knows nothing of him.
Actually, this position is compatible with any number of possible positions regarding the historicity of Jesus, including the two other views set forth in this chapter. On the other hand, it need not be a critical theory at all, in that believers could hold the view that the uniqueness of Jesus is increased because only Christian records know of his teaching and life.
But sometimes this position is held as a challenge to Christians. It may be asked that if Jesus made such an impact on the people of his time, then why do we know nothing of him from ancient (and especially secular) history?
Whatever the motivation or belief of the one holding this opinion, it certainly is held by a seemingly wide spectrum of persons. As one history text proclaims: Historical information about the beginnings of Christianity is unfortunately very limited. No external source, Jewish or classical, records the career of Jesus, and our entire knowledge comes from the subsequent writings of his followers gathered together in the Gospels. Modern scholarship no longer doubts the authenticity of these writings . . . (emphasis added by the authors).^52
51 The lengthy chain of argument can be found in Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic, especially Part One.
52 Shepard Clough, Nina Garsoian and David L. Hicks, Ancient and Medieval, in A History of the Western World, 3 vols. (Boston: D.C. Heath and Co., 1964), vol. I, p. 127.
The authors certainly do not sound overly critical and perhaps they are speaking of a fully developed life of Jesus in ancient history. Nevertheless, this view is echoed by many persons. Consider a statement in a modern novel, spoken by a fictitious archaeologist who is very skeptical of Christianity: The church bases its claims mostly on the teachings of an obscure young Jew with messianic pretensions who, let’s face it, didn’t make much of an impression in his lifetime. There isn’t a single word about him in secular history. Not a word. No mention of him by the Romans. Not so much as a reference by Josephus.^53
