at Amazon<\/a>)
\n__________________________<\/p>\n
\nIn his earlier writings, Bultmann expressed this conclusion quite strongly, such as his belief that \u201cwe can know almost nothing concerning the life and personalty of Jesus.\u201d^5 Still, there is no doubt that Bultmann accepted a number of historical facts concerning the life and message of Jesus, especially in his later writings.^6 Bultmann\u2019s view will be presented in Chapter 7, where we will list a number of historical facts that are even accepted by historical skeptics.<\/p>\n
While the works of Rudolf Bultmann are probably the best known source for the position that little can be known about the historical Jesus, other critics have also held this view as well, including a number of his disciples. But as we said in Chapter 1, several reasons have accounted for the decline in the influence of this postion over the last thirty years. We will emphasize four important problems.<\/p>\n
1.Historical grounding needed<\/p>\n
As already mentioned, Bultmann\u2019s own disciples noted the initial problem with their mentor\u2019s approach. By de-emphasizing the historical basis for the life of Jesus, Bultmann failed to provide both early and modern Christians with the grounding that is indispensable for the founding and present existence of the Christian faith. If no such factual support exists, then this critique is not entirely effective. But if Bultmann\u2019s position was due more to a philosophical bias, which many thought was the case, and if there is a historical foundation, then he was mistaken to proclaim otherwise.<\/p>\n
The New Testament often claims to be based on historically accurate accounts.^7 Paul reminds us that, apart from a historical Gospel, there is no basis for faith whatsoever, since it would be vain and groundless (1 Cor. 15:1\u201320). The point here is that, without a historical core of knowledge concerning Jesus, Christianity would have little initial impetus to encourage faith in an otherwise unknown person.<\/p>\n
This criticism was probably the single most influential contribution to the dissatisfaction with Bultmann\u2019s thought. John Macquarrie, while supporting Bultmann in a number of areas, takes issue with him here: It is very doubtful whether the Christian faith could have been built upon the foundation of a historic Jesus who, as Bultmann presents him, was little more than a teacher of a practical philosophy with certain resemblances to existentialism, and who is stripped of the numinous characteristics which the Gospels attribute to him.^8<\/p>\n
Many of Bultmann\u2019s disciples agreed with this critique that there had to be some adequate historical knowledge of Jesus. We saw in Chapter 1 that the major thrust came from the \u201cnew quest for the historical Jesus\u201d scholars like Ernst K\u00e4semann,<\/p>\n
5 Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, transl. by Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress (New York: Scribner\u2019s, 1934), p. 8.<\/p>\n
6 Bultmann, Theology, vol. I, chapter I in particular.<\/p>\n
7 For some instances, see Luke 1:1\u20134; John 1:14; 20:30\u201331; Acts 2:22\u201338; 17:30\u201331; Heb. 2:3\u20134; 2 Pet. 1:16\u201318; 1 John 1:1\u20133.<\/p>\n
8 John Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 23.
\n
\nGunther Bornkamm, and James Robinson.^9 While they did not emphasize historical facts as the basis for faith, they did agree that, without such data, violence is done both to the apostolic kerygma(the kernel of their message) and to the present understanding of Jesus.^10<\/p>\n
Although Bultmann never endorsed the search for a historical Jesus, he was perhaps affected by some of these critiques, and in his later years he admitted more historical knowledge about Jesus.^11 Christianity proclaimed a historical basis for its message. If an investigation reveals that such a basis exists, then these facts must have a more important function than Bultmann allowed.<\/p>\n
2.Assumption of myth<\/p>\n
Second, the major problem for Bultmann in terms of this study is that he dismissed the historicity of Jesus\u2019 resurrection without any investigation at all. Rather than consider the evidence, he simply rejected it a priori. Again it is Macquarrie, himself an eminent commentator on Bultmann\u2019s thought, who sharply criticizes him on this point: And here we must take Bultmann to task for what appears to be an entirely arbitrary dismissal of the possibility of understanding the resurrection as an objective-historical event . . . . The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious. The one valid way in which we can ascertain whether a certain event took place or not is not by bringing in some sweeping assumption to show that it could not have taken place, but to consider the historical evidence available, and decide on that.^12<\/p>\n
The problem is that Bultmann made his decision against the historicity of the resurrection apart from factual observation. Again it is Macquarrie who comments: But Bultmann does not take the trouble to examine what evidence could be adduced to show that the resurrection was an objective-historical event. He assumes that it is myth.^13<\/p>\n
This is a crucial critique, because it just might be the case that the historical facts are enough to demonstrate the resurrection, but that Bultmann simply ignores what could provide an excellent basis for the Christian faith. Interestingly enough, we will argue below that the methodology of form criticism, which he popularized, even backfired into an argument formiracle-claims.<\/p>\n
3.Faulty historiography<\/p>\n
The third problem with Bultmann\u2019s methodology is that even contemporary historians oppose the form and redaction criticism that he popularized as the proper approach to New Testament studies. Whereas Bultmann\u2019s use of these methods<\/p>\n
9 For details, see \u201cThe New Quest for the Historical Jesus\u201d in Chapter 1.<\/p>\n
10 For an excellent treatment of this issue, see Carl F.H. Henry, Frontiers in Modern Theology(Chicago: Moody, 1965), pp. 15\u201324.<\/p>\n
11 See Ibid., pp. 21\u201322 for an interview with Bultmann, where he lists some of these historical facts.<\/p>\n
12 Macquarrie, Existentialist Theology, pp. 185\u2013186.<\/p>\n
13 Ibid., p. 186.
\n
\nrevealed the minimal historical results noted above, ancient historians have employed their normal patterns of investigation and found an adequate basis for history in the New Testament. Oxford ancient historian A.N. Sherwin-White leveled the following indictment at form critics: So, it is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism . . . that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. This seems very curious.^14<\/p>\n
Sherwin-White asserts that the same standards that are commonly applied to ancient secular history can also be applied to the New Testament records, with the result that a factual account emerges. Michael Grant, another historian, likewise applies the techniques of normal historical methodology to the New Testament and also concludes that much can be known about the historical Jesus, in spite of the efforts of Bultmann, whose methodology Grant specifically rejects.^15<\/p>\n
Here an objection is often advanced. It is sometimes claimed that the New Testament authors cannot be compared to ancient secular writers, since the latter attempted to write history, while form critics hold that the biblical authors allowed their beliefs to significantly color their recording. To this challenge and to the larger issue of the form criticism advocated by Bultmann and others, Sherwin-White and Grant provide numerous responses.<\/p>\n
(1) There are several examples of ancient historians like Herodotus, Livy, or Tacitus whose works show similarities in several respects to that in the Gospels, including a moralizing intent \u201cwhich the evangelists would have applauded,\u201d yet they are well accepted as historical. And even though there were differences, too, this does not keep us from discovering a good amount of factual material in the Gospels.^16 (2) Literature of the sort the form critics believe the Gospels to be is not known elsewhere in ancient history. As Sherwin-White asserts, \u201cWe are not acquainted with this type of writing in ancient historiography.\u201d^17 (3) The Gospels are quite close to the period of time that they record, while ancient histories such as those by Plutarch and Livy often describe events that took place even centuries earlier. Yet, modern historians are able to successfully delineate data even from these early periods of time.^18 (4) Ancient histories sometimes \u201cdisagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion,\u201d such as the four ancient sources for the figure of Tiberius Caesar,<\/p>\n
14 A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament(London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963), p. 187.<\/p>\n
15 Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review, especially pp. 175\u2013184, 198\u2013201.<\/p>\n
16 Ibid., p. 182.<\/p>\n
17 Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189.<\/p>\n
18 Ibid., p. 186.
\n
\nyet the history they record can still be ascertained.^19 Another contemporary historian, Paul Maier, makes the same point in reference to the contradictory material in the sources for the great (first century AD) fire in Rome.^20<\/p>\n
(5) Form critics speak much of the experiences of the earliest disciples, but history looks for adequate causes behind these experiences.^21 (6) Some portions of the New Testament, like the book of Acts, are confirmed by external indications of historicity.^22 (7) The principles of form criticism do not preclude an important place for history in the Gospels. Although the primary interest of the Gospel writers was spiritual, history was also very important. There is no good reason why they would pervert the historical in order to preserve the spiritual, when both were so important and even complemented one another.^23 <\/p>\n
Sherwin-White and Grant are examples of modern historians who have pointed out some of the many weaknesses in the form-critical method as espoused by Bultmann.^24 Both scholars conclude that if the same criteria which are applied to other ancient writings are applied to the New Testament, we can delineate a historical basis for the life and teachings of Jesus.^25<\/p>\n
4.Textual attestation<\/p>\n
Our fourth critique is not really aimed specifically at Bultmann, but at any critics who would challenge the text of the New Testament, which measures exceptionally well against ancient classical works. This is especially the case in three areas: manuscript number, the time of the writing in relation to the time of the events described, and the completeness of the text. So, in addition to our previous subject concerning factual content, as noted by historians, the New Testament texts can be ascertained.<\/p>\n
The New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the number of manuscripts. Ancient classical works have comparatively few manuscripts, with twenty entire or partial copies generally being an excellent number. By comparison, the New Testament has over 5000 copies. Such a wide difference would provide the New Testament with a much better means of textual criticism, which is crucially important in ascertaining the original readings.^26<\/p>\n
19 Ibid., pp. 187\u2013188.<\/p>\n
20 Paul Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story(New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 94.<\/p>\n
21 Grant, Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review, pp. 181\u2013182.<\/p>\n
22 Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189. Throughout this volume, Sherwin-White investigates various claims in the book of Acts.<\/p>\n
23 Ibid., pp. 189\u2013193.<\/p>\n
24 For more complete data concerning these points of critique, see Sherwin-White, Roman Society, pp. 186\u2013193 and Grant, Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review, especially p. 180\u2013184.<\/p>\n
25 Sherwin-White, Ibid., pp. 186\u2013187; Grant, Ibid., pp. 199\u2013200.<\/p>\n
26 See F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), especially p. 16; John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust, especially p. 36.
\n
\nPerhaps the strongest manuscript evidence concerns the date between the original and the earliest copy. For most of the ancient classical works, a gap of only 700 years would be excellent, while 1000\u20131400 years is not at all uncommon. By comparison, the Chester Beatty Papyri and Bodmer Papyri contain most of the New Testament and are dated about 100\u2013150 years after its completion. An entire copy of the New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) and a nearly complete manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) date only about 250 years after the original autographs. Such early dates for the New Testament help to insure its authenticity.^27<\/p>\n
Additionally, while we have the entire New Testament text, this is not the case with every ancient work. For instance, of the 142 books of Roman history written by Livy, 107 books have been lost! Only four and a half of Tacitus\u2019 original fourteen books of Roman Historiesremain in existence and only ten full and two partial books remain from the sixteen books of Tacitus\u2019 Annals. In contrast, each New Testament book is complete, which is also a factor in establishing the authenticity of these writings.^28<\/p>\n
The fact that the New Testament is so well-attested is seldom even disputed by critics. In a two-volume work dedicated to his former teacher Rudolf Bultmann, Helmut Koester summarizes nicely the excellent state of the text: Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek, numerous translations that derive from an early stage of the textual development, and finally, beginning in II CE, an uncounted number of quotations in the writings of the church fathers. . . . the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors.^29<\/p>\n
Other critiques could be raised against Bultmann\u2019s form-critical approach to the Gospels. For instance, some have noted his outdated, nineteenth century view of science that causes him to refer to anything which does not fit his system as \u201cmyth.\u201d^30 Others note that he is also dated in his heavy reliance on Hellenistic influences for much of the New Testament teaching, instead of turning to the now demonstrated<\/p>\n
27 Bruce, Documents, pp. 16\u201318; John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust, pp. 36\u201337; Daniel-Rops, Sources, pp. 41\u201342.<\/p>\n
28 Bruce, Documents, p. 16; Robinson, Can We Trust, pp. 37\u201338.<\/p>\n
29 Koester, Introduction, vol. 2, pp. 16\u201317.<\/p>\n
30 Macquarrie, Existentialist Theology, p. 168; Gordon H. Clark, \u201cBultmann\u2019s Three-Storied Universe\u201d in Christianity Today, ed. by Frank Gaebelein (Westwood: Revell, 1966), pp. 218\u2013219.
\n
\nJewish milieu.^31 One serious claim is that his lack of emphasis on the historicity of Jesus qualifies his system as a type of twentieth century gnosticism.^32<\/p>\n
Some even believe that Bultmann\u2019s lack of emphasis on the historical Jesus leaves him in the precarious position of having to demythologize Jesus himself in order to be logical.^33 Additionally, an entire host of other historical and textual problems could be raised against these and other critical approaches to the New Testament text.^34<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, these four major critiques of Bultmann and others who employ more radical versions of form and redaction criticism are sufficient to show that these methods are unsuccessful in pre-empting an historical approach to Jesus. The lack of an adequate historical basis for Christian faith, the improper dismissal of supernatural claims such as Jesus\u2019 resurrection, historical problems with radical form and redaction criticism, and the reliability of the New Testament texts all argue against such approaches. Many other criticisms could be added to the list, contrary to efforts that minimize the historical facts in the life of Jesus. An Historical Jesus Without Theology or Miracles<\/p>\n
A less radical but very popular model for pursuing history in the life of Jesus involves accepting the Gospels as fairly reliable historical records. While the historicity of many aspects of Jesus\u2019 life may be affirmed in this way, it is at the expense of the miraculous and the theological portions of the material, which are usually either ignored or rejected.<\/p>\n
Such an approach is appealing to Michael Grant, who judges that, while much history can be gained by such a method, the miraculous elements in the life of Jesus are not within the purview of the historian, but belong in the realm of faith.^35 Nevertheless, Grant does find a considerable amount of history in the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n
In addition to historians, this approach of ascertaining historical facts from the Gospels was made famous by the theological movement known as nineteenth century Liberalism, as we discussed in Chapter 1. Often termed \u201cOld\u201d or \u201cGerman Liberalism\u201d to distinguish it from other modern alternatives, the chief methodology was to reconstruct Jesus\u2019 life chiefly by using the synoptic Gospels. These sources were generally viewed as quite adequate materials for this endeavor, with the general exceptions of doctrinal portions and miracles. In other words, the Liberals usually accepted the facts presented in the synoptic Gospels, but endeavored to get<\/p>\n
31 Carl F.H. Henry, \u201cCross-Currents in Contemporary Theology,\u201d in Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord, ed. by Carl F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), p. 15; Clark, \u201cBultmann\u2019s Universe,\u201d pp. 217\u2013218.<\/p>\n
32 Avery Dulles, \u201cJesus of History and Christ of Faith\u201d in Commonweal, Nov. 24, 1967, pp. 225\u2013232.<\/p>\n
33 Schubert Ogden, Christ Without Myth(New York: Harper and Row, 1961).<\/p>\n
34 For an excellent treatment of the general trustworthiness of the Gospels, see Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987). Part Two specifically addresses the efforts of recent forms of criticism.<\/p>\n
35 Grant, Jesus: An Historian\u2019s Review, p. 13.
\n
\nto the man behind the early theological creeds and to provide naturalistic explanations for the miracles.^36<\/p>\n
On the one hand, the doctrinal affirmation of Jesus being both divine and human was viewed by the Liberals as being untenable, so their desire was to \u201cunmask\u201d the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith and doctrine. They attempted to strip the Christ of dogma from the human Jesus.^37<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the historicity of miracles was also rejected. The most common way^38 to deal with the subject was to accept as factual the biblical accounts containing them, minus the supernatural portion. This element was explained by normal, naturalistic phenomena. For example, in the early nineteenth century, Heinrich Paulus accepted most of the Gospel reports pertaining to the death and resurrection of Jesus with one major exception: Jesus was said to have been removed from the cross while he was still alive. The resulting view attempted to remove the supernatural element from the resurrection.^39<\/p>\n
This approach presents some seemingly compelling ideas, such as viewing the Gospels as generally historical sources, an attitude that takes the supporting evidence and historical data seriously. However, there are several reasons why it falls short, and this led to the rejection of Old Liberalism. We will present four major critiques of this view.<\/p>\n
1. A priorirejection of miracles<\/p>\n
First, why should miracles be rejected as actual events, unless we have prior knowledge that they can neverbe factual? Neither history, science, nor any other discipline can rule out miracles without an investigation. The claim that miracles are contrary to the laws of nature and therefore invalid is itself based on faulty reasoning and thus cannot rule out miracles a priori.^40<\/p>\n
Current science is no longer able to postulate absolutes that can rule out possibilities in an a priorimanner, as was often believed in the past. We can only speak in terms of probabilities for any given occurrence. Even more important, the technique of examining all of the evidence before conclusions are drawn is required by the proper use of inductive research methodology. Accordingly, such an approach is utilized not only in physics, but in such varied disciplines as law,<\/p>\n
36 James M. Robinson, A New Quest, chapter II.<\/p>\n
37 Schweitzer, Quest, pp. 3\u20134.<\/p>\n
38 It should be noted that the other major approach to miracles that we outlined in Chapter 1, the mythical strategy of David Strauss, is very similar at this point to Bultmann\u2019s position that we just covered above.<\/p>\n
39 Schweitzer, Quest, pp. 49\u201355.<\/p>\n
40 See Gary R. Habermas, \u201cSkepticism: Hume\u201d in Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of its Philosophical Roots, ed. by Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), pp. 23\u2013 49 for an examination and critique of Hume\u2019s argument against belief in miracles and their relation to the laws of nature, as well as an evaluation of a number of other scholars who are inspired by Hume\u2019s account. See also Richard Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle (London: Macmillan, 1970).
\n
\nmedical science, criminal justice, and journalism. Historians also investigate the known facts to find whether an event actually happened or not.^41<\/p>\n
As former Oxford lecturer William Wand remarks, there is no scholarly reason for rejecting possibilities before an investigation. An a prioridismissal cannot be allowed, even if we do not like the conclusion that is indicated by the facts. One must decide on the basis of the known evidence.^42<\/p>\n
Then if miracles cannot be rejected without an investigation, on what grounds can we accept part of the Gospel record and reject part of it? Such picking and choosing seems arbitrary unless there is some objective criterion for determining such a practice.<\/p>\n
For reasons such as these, conclusions that are drawn before and against the facts are both non-historical and non-scientific. To rule out the possibility of miracles a prioriis not a valid procedure. We must investigate the evidence and then draw our conclusions.<\/p>\n
2.Miracle-claims and historical investigation<\/p>\n
The second major problem with this approach is the common assumption that miracle-claims cannot be investigated by historical methodology at all. Often the charge is made that miracles belong in the realm of religious faith and, as such, are out of the reach of the tools of historical or any other investigation.^43<\/p>\n
It should be repeated that it is not the purpose of this book to determine if a miracle, as an act of God, has actually occurred. Our intention is to investigate the life of Jesus in general, and his resurrection in particular, according to historical standards. We are asking about the historical basis that we have for these events, not whether God performed any certain occurrences. For such a philosophical investigation of the resurrection as an actual miracle, which is an entirely appropriate study, the interested reader is referred to Habermas\u2019, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic.^44<\/p>\n
As indicated in Appendix 1, we distinguish between a miracle-claimand a miracle. We can historically investigate the Christian claim that Jesus was raised from the dead without, in this present study, raising the attendant question of whether it is a miracle caused by God in a theistic universe. Nonetheless, the historical question of the resurrection is quite important even by itself, for ifa miracle did literally occur, it did so in the time-space realm. Our approach will be to examine the historical side of the claim that Jesus was raised. Did Jesus, after dying on the cross by crucifixion, appear to his followers alive? This is our major focus.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the charge that historical methodology cannot take us all the way to the conclusion that a miracle has actually occurred is a worthwhile concern. But this<\/p>\n
41 For details on historical methodology and inductive research, see Appendix 1.<\/p>\n
42 William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion?(Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972), pp. 29\u201330, 70\u201371.<\/p>\n
43 This charge is also investigated in depth in Appendix 1.<\/p>\n
44 Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980; Lanham: University Press of America, 1984).
\n
\nis entirely different from the assertion that historical inquiry cannotdo any part of the important research. We need to distinguish between the historical and the philosophical dimensions of the issue. While knowledge is united, the research paths to it are multiple and each discipline has its strengths.<\/p>\n
The original charge that miracles cannot be investigated at all would only be correct if we knew in advance that miracles do not literally occur in history. If they happen only in some non-objective realm or if they do not occur at all, then they cannot be investigated by historical methodology and this would be a correct assessment. However, since the claim that miracles literally occur in normal history is an open question, then it would at least be possible to investigate the historical portion of these claims as to their accuracy.<\/p>\n
While some will object to even a partial investigation of a miracle-claim, this assertion is often simply a form of a prioriobjection just answered in the first critique above. In other words, since we cannot rule out the possibility of miracles without an inquiry, and since it is claimed that miracles have happened in space-time history, they can be investigated as such.<\/p>\n
For those who object to investigations of any sort with regard to miracle-claims, holding that they are only tenets of faith, it must be remembered that the New Testament teaches that Jesus\u2019 resurrection is an actual event (1 Cor. 15:1\u201320, for instance). Further, salvation consists of trust in the facts of the gospel, including the resurrection (vv. 1\u20134). Paul asserts that faith is built on these firm facts.<\/p>\n
But if faith is not placed in a trustworthy source, how can we know that it is legitimate? Again, we do not need sight as a basis for our belief, but historical facts provide a stronger foundation than does a hopeful \u201cleap.\u201d If strong evidence for the resurrection is found, this would be the final indication that this event can be investigated historically, for it would bear up well under examination.<\/p>\n
Some historians have called for just such an investigation. They hold that any data for the resurrection must be examined. Then we can judge whether it is an actual event of history.^45<\/p>\n
3.The failure of naturalistic theories<\/p>\n
A third problem with this approach to history in the life of Jesus, especially with Old Liberalism, is that the naturalistic theories that were proposed to account for the resurrection are disproven by the known historical facts. Interestingly enough, it was the liberals themselves who attacked their own theories, in spite of their theological dispositions.<\/p>\n
These naturalistic views were very popular in the nineteenth century. There was no consensus of opinion on which theory was the best alternative explanation for the literal resurrection. In fact, many of those who popularized these theories did so only<\/p>\n
45 Some examples are Yamauchi, \u201cEaster,\u201d March 15, 1974, pp. 4\u20137 and March 29, 1974, pp. 12\u201316; Maier, First Easter, pp. 105\u2013122; Wand, Christianity, pp. 29\u201331, 51\u201352, 93\u201394; A.J.Hoover, The Case for Christian Theism: An Introduction to Apologetics(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), chapter 16.
\n
\nafter attacking and revealing the weaknesses in the other theories of fellow liberals. For instance, Paulus\u2019 swoon theory mentioned above was disarmed by David Strauss, who, according to Schweitzer, dealt it its \u201cdeath-blow.\u201d^46 We will examine the swoon theory in detail in Chapter 4.<\/p>\n
It is not the purpose of this book to take an in-depth look at these alternative theories proposed to explain away the facticity of Jesus\u2019 resurrection. Suffice it to remark here that, as with Paulus\u2019 theory, each of the naturalistic theories was disproven by the liberals themselves. By this process, and by the critiques of others outside their camp, the weaknesses of these attempts were revealed. In other words, each of the alternative theories was disproven by the known historical facts.^47<\/p>\n
It is also instructive to note that twentieth century critics usually rejected these theories wholesale. Rather than deal with each proposal separately, the naturalistic attempts to disprove the resurrection were generally dismissed in their entirety by recent critical scholars. For example, Karl Barth, probably the most influential critical theologian of this century, listed the major naturalistic theories and concluded that \u201cToday we rightly turn our nose up at this,\u201d a conclusion derived at least partially from \u201cthe many inconsistencies in detail.\u201d He also notes that these explanations \u201chave now gone out of currency.\u201d^48<\/p>\n
Similarly, Raymond Brown also provides a list of these theories and then concludes: \u201cthe criticism of today does not follow the paths taken by criticism in the past. No longer respectable are the crude theories . . . popular in the last century.\u201d^49 These are just examples of the many contemporary critical theologians who, in spite of their diverse theological persuasions, have agreed in rejecting the alternative theories against the resurrection.^50<\/p>\n
Therefore, not only were the naturalistic theories disproven by the historical facts, but nineteenth century Liberals critiqued these views individually, while twentieth century critics have generally dismissed them as a whole. These<\/p>\n
46 Schweitzer, Quest, p. 56.<\/p>\n
47 See the excellent 1908 work by James Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965). Cf. Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Rational Inquiry (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1976), especially pp. 114\u2013171.<\/p>\n
48 Karl Barth, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, in Church Dogmatics, 14 vols., transl. by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), vol. IV, p. 340. 49 Raymond E. Brown, \u201cThe Resurrection and Biblical Criticism,\u201d in Commonweal, November 24, 1967, p. 233. 50 See Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971), vol. II, especially p. 156; Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 181\u2013185; Joachim Jeremias, \u201cEaster: The Earliest Tradition and the Earliest Interpretation,\u201d New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus, transl. by John Bowden (New York: Scribner\u2019s, 1971), p. 302; Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, pp. 123\u2013125; Pannenberg, Jesus\u2014God and Man, pp. 88\u201397; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection, transl. by A.M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977), pp. 117\u2013119; Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 120\u2013126; cf. A.M. Hunter, Bible and Gospel(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), p. 111.
\n
\nhypotheses have not stood the test, even from a critical perspective. These are important indications of the failure of the alternative approach to Jesus\u2019 resurrection.<\/p>\n
4.The possibility of theology<\/p>\n
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\u2019 theological teachings, which could not then be ruled out as irrelevant.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 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<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
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<\/p>\n
51 The lengthy chain of argument can be found in Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic, especially Part One.<\/p>\n
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.
\n
\nThe 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\u2019s face it, didn\u2019t make much of an impression in his lifetime. There isn\u2019t 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<\/p>\n
Although the character who uttered this pronouncement is fictitious, the charge is a frequent one and, as in this case, sometimes used in an attempt to discredit Christianity. We will simply make two responses to this view here, especially since it is not necessarily a critical attempt to reject the pursuit of the historical Jesus.<\/p>\n
1.A false notion<\/p>\n
First, it is simply false to hold that there are no ancient sources outside of the New Testament that speak of Jesus. It is true that none of these extrabiblical sources give a detailedaccount concerning Jesus, but there are nevertheless well over a dozen non-Christian sources from ancient history that mention him. There are also a number of early Christian sources that provide more information concerning him. We will have to wait until Part Two to specifically substantiate this claim, but it is enough to note here that it is incorrect to assert that the ancient non-Christian world knew nothing of Jesus. It may even be the case that he is one of the most-mentioned figures of the ancient world!<\/p>\n
2.Communications in the ancient world<\/p>\n
Second, Daniel-Rops notes a few considerations that help explain why even more was not written about Jesus in ancient times. For instance, the first century was certainly not characterized by advanced communications, at least by any modern standards. Any number of events, persons, or situations could be newsworthy in a regional setting and get hardly any attention on the international scene. Furthermore, there were very few ancient writers, comparatively speaking. Consequently, they would have plenty to write about and often confined themselves to situations that were \u201cofficial\u201d or of international interest.<\/p>\n
At the beginning, we cannot be sure that Jesus or the earliest Christians made any such international commotion. Lastly, Jesus\u2019 background as a peasant from a humble family would mitigate against him receiving any great amount of attention. Even the Christian teaching of his messiahship might look to an outsider to be a Jewish sectarian dogma, making Jesus just another \u201cpretender\u201d to be the king of the Jews.^54<\/p>\n
Again, we must not be misled by these considerations into the mistaken conclusion that extra-New Testament sources ignore Jesus. There are a surprising<\/p>\n
53 Charles Templeton, Act of God(New York: Bantam, 1979), p. 152. 54 Daniel-Rops, \u201cThe Silence of Jesus\u2019 Contemporaries,\u201d pp. 13\u201314, 17\u201318.
\n
\nnumber of non-Christian sources that do tell us a number of things about him. There are also several reasons why even more is not reported.<\/p>\n
Summary and Conclusion<\/p>\n
In this chapter we have investigated some misconceptions concerning the historicity of Jesus, reaching the conclusion that none of them presents compelling reasons to disregard all or part of our source material about him.<\/p>\n
A popular view in the mid-twentieth century taught that Jesus did exist but that very little can be known about him. This approach was disproven by the data, and has lost most of its appeal. The disregard for details concerning the historical Jesus and their relation to faith, an a prioridismissal of the possibility of miraculous events such as Jesus\u2019 resurrection, historical objections to radical form and redaction criticism, and the demonstrated reliability of the New Testament text are some of the reasons we rejected this option. Other problems are also apparent.<\/p>\n
Many prefer a more historical view that constructs a life of Jesus from the available records, apart from either doctrine or miracles. However, this view, while seemingly more compelling, suffers both from ruling out miracles a priori, and by its frequent denial of a historical investigation of miracle-claims. Further, this approach failed in its attempt to offer naturalistic alternative theories concerning the resurrection, as even critics admit, and by ignoring the possibility that Jesus\u2019 theological teachings would very possibly be relevant if it could be shown that he was literally raised from the dead in time-space history.<\/p>\n
Lastly, some charge Christianity with having no extrabiblical references for Jesus\u2019 life whatsoever. Not only is such a claim false, as we will show in Part Two, but there are good reasons why there are not even more secular sources for the life of Jesus than the surprising number of ancient non-Christian sources that are available.<\/p>\n
These alternative approaches to the historical Jesus therefore present no roadblock to our investigation of his life. Applying normal historical methodology to early Christian creeds, archaeological evidence, ancient non-Christian, and Christian (non-New Testament) sources, we will examine what history tells us about the life of Jesus. But first we will study some more or less popularized presentations of Jesus that portray atypical views of his life, as well as examine two recent movements that seek to explain the life of Jesus in non-orthodox terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
While few scholars doubt that Jesus ever lived, several approaches have been popular over the years that propose to limit what we can know about the historical Jesus. We will investigate a number of common misconceptions that would restrict research on our topic. Each challenge will be presented, followed by an initial critique. Many of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_disable_autopaging":false},"categories":[6702,6709,6708,6707],"tags":[6710,6711,6712],"class_list":["post-3292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-thechrist","category-habermas-life-of-jesus-studies-thechristcontents","category-life-of-jesus-studies-thechristcontents","category-studies-thechristcontents","tag-habermas","tag-jesus-historical-facts","tag-life-of-jesus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ellopos.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}