HISTORICITY OF JESUS
At various times in the distant past there have been attempts to
disprove the historicity of the person of Jesus. No scholar takes that
position today. The only reputable scholar to make this suggestion in the
past generation is G. A. Wells (see Did Jesus Exist? Prometheus, 1975), but
he stands alone.
Everyone admits Jesus existed. The primary reason is ancient and
reliable non-Christian sources, which are divided into Greco-Roman and
Jewish:
1. Greco-Roman
Four ancient Roman historians refer to Jesus:
JULIUS AFRICANUS, writing in the third century, refers to the chronicle of
Thallus, a world history from the first century. Thallus refers to the
"darkness" which surrounded the crucifixion of Jesus, though he attributes
it to an eclipse of the sun.
PLINY THE YOUNGER was a Roman legate of the second century. He wrote to the
emperor Trajan about the Christians, who sang hymns "to Christ as if to a
god." The wording suggests Pliny knew Jesus to be historical, but that his
divinity was doubtful.
SUETONIUS, also of the second century, describes the expulsion of the Jews
from Rome under Claudius, du to rioting at the instigation of "Chrestus"
(Latin for "Christ").
TACITUS, the Roman historian of the early second century, refers to
"Christ, who had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate
in the reign of Tiberius."
In addition to these, there is an incredible reference to Jesus in
the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata, writing in the mid-second century.
He refers to Jesus as the founder of Christianity, "the man who was
crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."
He also refers to Jesus as the "first lawgiver," who persuaded his
followers they were all "brothers of one another." He is also called "that
crucified sophist."
2. Jewish
A SYRIAC LETTER, c. 80 A.D., refers to Jesus as a "wise king" whom certain
Jews apparently killed.
RABBINIC LITERATURE of the second and third centuries is dotted with
references to Jesus. An ancient tractate likens a rebellious person to one
"who publicly burns his food like Jesus of Nazareth." Another states:
"Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray."
Several sources refer to Jesus as the son of "Pandera." What does
that mean? It is an attempt to deride the circumstances surrounding Jesus's
birth. Pandera was the name of a Roman soldier! The implication is obvious,
but it should be noted that the fact of Jesus's birth is accepted.
Another Rabbinic source speaks of Jesus and five of his disciples,
named Matthai, Naqai, Nezer, Buni and Todah (sounds more like elves).
Anyway, the first is obviously Matthew, Naqi is probably Nicodemus, and
Todah is a shortened form of Thaddeus. Nezer could be an unnamed
"Nazarene." And Buni is probably a corruption of the Hebrew form of "John."
JOSEPHUS is by far the most famous and reliable witness. Writing in the
first century, he makes a detailed reference to Jesus. This passage has
been the source of scholarly debate for a long time, because it contains
wording that Josephus probably would not have used. The consensus among
scholars today, however, is that the redacted passage contains the
following reliable information: Jesus lived, won over many Jews and Greeks,
was a doer of "surprising" feats, was a teacher followed "gladly" by many,
and was crucified by Pilate.
So Jesus of Nazareth existed. The two real questions for purposes
of this discussion are:
1. WHAT PARTS OF THE RECORD ARE TRUSTWORTHY?
2. WHAT DID JESUS TEACH CONCERNING HIMSELF?
As to #1, there has been much debate over the years, of course. But
a survey of recent scholarship (see Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 1997)
shows that even those who approach the gospels from a non-Christian and
critical perspective agree as to a certain corpus of trustworthiness. This
is based in particular on four standard criteria of authenticity:
1. The dissimilarity criterion, which looks for information about Jesus in
which he noticeably diverges from the conventional Judaism of his day, and
also potentially embarrassing or awkward material that would not likely
have been made up. This provides, in Blomberg's phrase, a "critically
assured minimum."
2. Multiple attestation, which is self-explanatory.
3. Semitic language, or Palestinian distinctives, which argue against
"contextual re-working."
4. Coherence, or those items which don't fall into one of the above
categories but DO cohere in form, style or content to something which does.
Based on these criteria, there is abundant agreement that Jesus was
a rabble rousing Jew, a "flouter of convention" (Ian Wilson, Jesus: The
Evidence, 1984), who performed miracles and exorcisms (Josephus uses the
Hellenistic Jewish word "paradoxon," which denotes miracles) and influenced
enough Jews that the more influential Jews of Jerusalem engineered his
execution.
As to #2, there is also a core of agreement. Jesus placed himself
in the divine position by pronouncing forgiveness of sins. Jewish belief,
of course, was that this the sole province of God. Thus, Jesus was
considered a blasphemer because he was, by implication, taking on God's
role.
Ian Wilson in particular cites a parable that appears not only in
all three synoptic gospels, but also the Nag Hammadi gospel of Thomas, the
parable of the vineyard owner (see Mark 12:1-2; Matthew 21:33-46; Luke
20:9-19).
Then there is Jesus favorite attestation, "Son of Man." What did he
mean by this? Most scholars agree was a Danielic reference, understood as
such by his hearers. The Son of Man, according to Daniel, was to travel on
the clouds to the very throne room of God. Jesus places himself in that
position, and prophesies his RETURN on the clouds (e.g., Mark 14:62).
According to Blomberg, then, Son of Man "winds up being a very exalted
title for Jesus. It does not primarily focus on his true humanity but on
his heavenly enthronement." [p. 407]
There are other references, of course: Son of God, Christ, Lord,
etc. that I won't go into here. There is enough, for me at least, to
conclude that Jesus clearly claimed divinity.
LIAR, LUNATIC, LORD?
Now to the argument itself. It really boils down to whether we can
place Jesus comfortably in either of the first two categories. Let's take a
look.
1. LIAR. I find this the least plausible. Deceiver is probably a more
accurate term here. For this to apply we would have to believe that Jesus,
rationally, made up this deception and carried it through to the end. What
is lacking is a plausible motive. There was absolutely nothing for a
rational Jew to gain from this, and he ended up losing everything. His life
ended in a torturous death. Further, his moral life and teachings--part of
the scholarly consensus--are at odds with this profile.
2. LUNATIC. This is the option I find most plausible of the two. One of the
reasons for this is that Jesus's own family, at the beginning of his
ministry, thought he had gone mad. This is undoubtedly an accurate portion
of gospel history (e.g., Mark 3:20 ff.) The Jewish teachers took the lunacy
a step further, alleging Jesus was actually demon possessed.
Now, remember the context of Lewis's argument. He says we are
PRECLUDED from calling Jesus simply "a good moral teacher." That is not an
option he left us. And Lewis is absolutely right about that. Jesus is out
to rip out the existing order by its roots, which meant nothing less than
shred the Old Covenant (it wasn't called "old" then, of course). That's
something that would not be taken on by a person without a belief in his
own divinity.
So we must face this dilemma: If we reject Jesus as the Son of God,
we must conclude he was not of sound mind.
But for various reasons, the latter seems highly unlikely (this is
not the place for a wide ranging discussion on the symptoms and
psychographics surrounding the "divinity complex," but suffice to say
Jesus doesn't fit them--he manifests the very opposite profile).
Having laid this foundation, there will be, of course, those who
refuse to accept the logic. This dynamic is discussed in the wonderful
little book, Between Heaven and Hell, by Peter Kreeft. As you may know, the
premise of the book is delicious: given that C.S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley and
John F. Kennedy all died on November 22, 1963, what if their souls "in
transit" met somewhere beyond death and had a discussion about religion?
Lewis for Christianity, Huxley for Eastern pantheism and Kennedy for
secular humanism? In the course of this discussion, Lewis presents his
argument. Kennedy cavils. The conversation continues:
Lewis: There are only four possibilities. He [Jesus] is either God, or a
bad man (blasphemous or insane), or a good man (a mere sage), or an
ordinary man. That's another way of stating the either/or premise, with
four possibilities instead of two. And you can't classify Jesus in any one
of the other three categories.
Kennedy: The conclusion seems to follow here too. Yet I don't want to be
forced to admit that.
Lewis: Why not? If the argument really proves it, then it must be true.
Don't you want to admit what is true?
Kennedy: Of course. But there must be something wrong with the argument.
Lewis: Why?
Kennedy: Well, I don't want to accept the conclusion.
Lewis: Do your wants determine the truth?
Kennedy: No, but I don't believe the conclusion is true.
Lewis: But if you cannot refute the argument, you must.
Kennedy: Must I, really? Why? I think I'm being bullied.
Lewis: By the truth, not by me. If you cannot refute the argument, you can
mean only one thing by refusing the conclusion.
Kennedy: What?
Lewis: That you know it's true and still refuse to believe it; that you
simply don't care about truth; that you don't WANT to know the truth. In
short, that you are dishonest.
Kennedy: How dare you! I've not been dishonest with you. I've been quite
candid.
Lewis: Yes, and I appreciate that. But you'd be dishonest with reality if
you admitted that the argument proves the conclusion to be true and you
still refuse to believe it. I don't think you are dishonest; that's why you
have to accept the conclusion.
Kennedy: Aldous, help!