"An unexamined faith is not faith... but superstition"
Mark 1:9-11
In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."
Luke 3:21-22
Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."
Matthew 3:13-17
Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased."
John 1:29-34
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, `After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.' I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel." And John testified, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God."
While there are variations in the telling of the story, the differences are not significant. We know that in the telling and retelling of the gospel story, different speakers and writers used different words and ways to tell about Jesus. But we have no evidence that the story of Jesus was changed significantly during the time period from the life of Jesus until the writing of the New Testament documents. If the story of Jesus was going to be transformed from that of a peasant rabbi into that of the miracle working Lord, we would expect to see significant development. Instead, what we find from the latest to the absolute earliest tradition about Jesus is the same: Jesus was believed to be the divine Son of God who was resurrected on the third day. We do not find him not working miracles in the earlier layers of the tradition and working miracles in the later traditions. We do not find his body decaying in the tomb in the earlier layers of the tradition and resurrected only in the later layers of the tradition. The story of Jesus is the same in substance throughout.
This argument may be extended in some very powerful ways. For example, not only is there evidence pointing toward the accuracy and continuity in the transmission of the Jesus tradition, but also there is no evidence for the free creation of words and deeds attributed to Jesus. One of the simplest ways in which one can demonstrate this is to study the major controversies which gripped the church throughout the later half of the first century. As Blomberg explains:
Numerous Christian controversies that surfaced after Jesus' ascension and threatened to tear the New Testament church apart could have been conveniently solved if the first Christians had simply read back into the Gospels solutions to those debates. But this is precisely what never happens. Not once does Jesus address many of the major topics that for the rest of the first century loomed large in the minds of Christians--whether believers needed to be circumcised, how to regulate speaking in tongues, how to keep Jew and Gentile united in one body, whether believers could divorce non-Christian spouses, what roles were open to women in ministry, and so on.
As Ben Witherington put it: "The evidence for Christian prophets speaking words that were later retrojected into narratives about the historical Jesus is nonexistent."
If the writers of the Gospels were this careful, there is no logical reason to think that anyone who went before them was not equally careful. Not only did they want to be accurate in their transmission of the story of Jesus, since it was sacred to them, but they also had the ability to transmit it accurately. In the ancient Jewish world, and to a slightly lesser extent in the Greco-Roman world, memorization was a highly developed talent. Huge bodies of literature or tradition were passed along in this way. If the early Christians acted in the ways which were traditional for the first century, they would have passed down the story of Jesus with great accuracy. As the New Testament scholar I. H. Marshall reminds us, the tradition of Jesus' deeds and words was transmitted in a Jewish environment "where considerable importance was attached to the accurate memorisation and transmission" of traditions.
There are other ways in which we can cross-examine the Gospel witnesses as to their reliability. One is the test of multiple attestation or converging lines of evidence. Just because only one person reports an event does not mean that event did not take place. But in testing the probability of whether or not something happened, multiple attestation is better. In the story of Jesus we have a multitude of witnesses. We have the four Gospels. We have numerous other historical references in the rest of the New Testament. We even have a small amount of evidence from non-biblical sources, although it is quite minimal. Multiple attestation points to the credibility of the Jesus story.
Next, we have the test of embarrassment. If a story is told about Jesus which made the early Christians uncomfortable, that story is most probably true. Why would the early church make up some story of Jesus which puzzled them or bothered them? We can know with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Baptism was a penitent act for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus did not need to repent, nor did he have any sins of which he needed to be forgiven. Furthermore, submitting to baptism by John might give some people the wrong impression that John was superior to Jesus. Because of these difficulties, it is as certain as it is possible to be, within the limitations of historical knowledge, that Jesus was baptized by John and that the early church did not invent this story.
The same thing is true of the crucifixion of Jesus. Crucifixion in the ancient world was for slaves and the worst of criminals. Christianity had a major public relations problem in preaching the gospel due to the crucifixion of Jesus. It was "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor. 1:23).26 One further example would be the statement of Jesus: "No one is good--except God alone" (Mk. 10:18; Mt. 19:17; Lk. 18:19). Many Christians are uncomfortable with that statement. It almost sounds as if Jesus is denying that he is good in any absolute sense. Many Christians have misinterpreted this passage to mean that Jesus was trying to draw a confession out of this man by pretending not to claim goodness. The embarrassment this passage has caused the church is a strong indicator that the saying is genuine.
Another way to test the genuineness of the New Testament message is to ask if it is the best explanation of the facts. How do we explain the beginning of the church? How do we explain the existence of the New Testament documents, including the four Gospels? How do we explain the traditions about Jesus which predate the New Testament documents? The skeptical approach to Jesus claims that the original, simple story of a Jewish peasant was transformed, layer by layer, into the story of the divine Son of God. But the evolution of this story exists only in the minds of the radical revisionists. The belief that Jesus was the divine Son of God did not appear in 60 A.D. in Asia Minor, or in 50 A.D. in the writings of Paul, or in 40 A.D. in Antioch. The belief in the Messiahship of Jesus can be traced back to within a few months of when the resurrection is supposed to have occurred.
The innovators who proclaimed this story of a divine being born in Bethlehem, crucified at Calvary and resurrected are not the second and third generations of Christians. The innovator was not even the apostle Paul. "The innovators can be traced back to the earliest days of the Christian church." The innovation of this gospel story occurred in the early 30s of the first century. Later embellishment and fictionalizing by the second and third generation of Christians simply cannot explain the origin of the story of Jesus, the emergence of the church or the writing of the New Testament documents. Some other cause must be found to explain where all these traditions about Jesus came from.
Let us compare it to the big bang theory of the universe. The universe exists. How did it come into existence in its present form? One theory is the big bang theory. That theory does not explain where matter came from, but it is one hypothesis which does explain some of the features of the universe which we observe today. Similarly, the church came into existence in the early 30s of the first century. Traditions about Jesus originated at the same time. In the next seventy years the whole of the New Testament was written. How do we account for all of these? The skeptical view that all of these can be accounted for by pious embellishment and fictionalizing of the gospel story by the early church is not an adequate explanation. I submit to you that the best explanation, the most adequate cause, is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There was a real person, Jesus, who was the founder of this new religious movement, and there was a significant founding experience, a big bang, which set it in motion, namely, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We cannot prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ through historical analysis, but we can present it as the best explanation of the data and thus the most probable scenario of what really happened. As Johnson illustrated with an analogy to the Holocaust:
Anyone becoming aware of the drastically reduced number of Jews in Europe in 1945 compared with 1932 could logically posit a cause sufficient to account for the effect. Such reasoning would not necessarily lead to the specific description of the Holocaust. But it would necessarily lead to some force sufficiently great to accomplish so awesome an effect. Theories of increased tourism would not do.
What can be known historically about Jesus can be placed on a continuum from what certainly happened to what certainly did not happen. We know things in ancient history to varying degrees of probability. For ancient history very few things can be placed in the extreme categories. Most things are placed somewhere in between, and we use terms such as probably, likely, maybe or could have. Recognizing that the boundary line between various categories is arbitrarily chosen and that scholars will disagree on what belongs in each category, let me outline five categories in which we can place the material about Jesus from the four Gospels and from the rest of the New Testament.
What beyond a reasonable doubt did happen
actually lived as a Jew in Palestine
proclaimed the kingdom of God
taught in parables
died by crucifixion
prayed using "Abba"
etc.
What probably happened
the resurrection of Christ
called and trained disciples
told parable of the prodigal son
cleansed the temple
the last supper
etc.
What could have happened
changed water into wine
worshipped by wise men
born of a virgin
etc.
What proably did not happen
nothing from the Gospels in this category
What beyond a resonable doubt did not happen
nothing from the Gospels in this category
Through cautious historical analysis the careful student can reconstruct the real Jesus of history. First, one can compile those things that can be known about Jesus with some certainty by means of historical study. At this point the picture will be incomplete. It will only be very minimal, because that is the limited nature of historical knowledge for ancient history. .
Then one can add to these facts other things which Jesus probably did or probably said, as long as they are consistent with those things which can be known with much certainty. The material in this category does not increase in probability just because it is consistent with the more certain category, but it must pass the test of coherence to be included here. At this point the picture of Jesus will begin to fill in with much more detail, and it will take on definite shape.
@
Finally, one can add those things which could have happened, as long as they are consistent with what is known with certainty about Jesus and that which is probable. Then, one can begin to interpret the meaning and the significance of Jesus' sayings and actions, which takes one into a world totally beyond the reach of history. It is a world of spiritual values such as divine forgiveness and salvation. It is a world of spiritual existence which speaks of heaven and God. At that point one should have a more complete portrait of the whole personality of Jesus which is internally consistent with itself.
@
In all humility as a finite being trying to grasp an invisible and infinite God, at this point may I suggest that the resulting portrait of the real Jesus of history has become identical with the Christ of the four Gospels and the rest of the New Testament documents.
Conclusion
The real Jesus of history is consistent with the glorified Christ of Christian faith, because he is one and the same. The skeptical attempt to separate the real Jesus of history from the Christ of faith is a futile attempt to separate the inseparable. The Christ of Christian faith is simply the real Jesus of history plus a developed understanding and interpretation of who he was and is. For example, the real Jesus of history was "born of a woman, born under the law" (Gal. 4:4). The Christ of faith is the Word who was "with God" and "was God" and "became flesh" (Jn. 1:1, 14; 1 Tim. 3:16). The real Jesus of history was a teacher who shed light on many subjects. The Christ of faith is "the light of the world" (Jn. 8:12; 9:5; 12:46), "the light of all people" (Jn. 1:4), and "the true light" (Jn. 1:9). The real Jesus of history was a Jew, a descendant of the royal line of David. The Christ of faith is the Son of God, the Messiah, the King of kings. The real Jesus of history died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. The Christ of faith "died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). The real Jesus of history was resuscitated after his death. The Christ of faith was "raised for our justification" (Rom. 4:25), "designated Son of God in power...by his resurrection from the dead" (Rom. 1:4).
We began with a historical study. We have concluded at the point of faith. "Faith starts from knowledge, even it if reaches beyond it, and its character as faith is not destroyed by its association with knowledge...It appears, then, that we cannot do without the historical Jesus if we are to believe in the Christ of faith." Crossan, one of the members of the Jesus Seminar, makes an important point: "There can be history without faith." There were some who saw Jesus, heard him teach and even witnessed him perform miracles who did not believe in him. So yes, there can be history without faith, then and now.
To be continued . . .
