Author : Keith Sharp
“Jesus was very likely ‘a party animal’, somewhat shiftless, and disrespectful of the fifth commandment: Honor your father and mother” (Johnson. 15). Such quotations could be multiplied, some perhaps even more shocking and blasphemous, representative of the currently faddish “quest for the historical Jesus.” We are led to inquire. Who is the real Jesus?
How Do You Define “Expert”?
From 1985 to 2006 newspapers occasionally carried articles chiefly notable for their shock value about the “Jesus Seminar.” These self-styled scholars on the “historical Jesus” held seminars at various sites chosen for publicity value, invited only those who agreed with them to speak, and gave out flamboyant press releases designed to lead unsuspecting people to think that modern scholarship has destroyed the evidence for the existence of the Jesus of the New Testament as an historical figure. With the death of Funk in 2006 the “Jesus Seminar” effectively ended, but the modern, liberal bias against the Christ of the gospel is abundantly demonstrated by the 1970 rock opera “Jesus Christ Superstar” and the 2003 novel (followed by the film) “The Da Vinci Code.”
Criticizing the Critics
The word “criticism” just sounds bad. But even the most ardent believer engages by necessity in biblical criticism of a constructive sort. When we reject the apocryphal books of the Catholic translations of the Bible and object to loose or slanted translations that pervert the Scriptures, we are engaging in criticism.
Biblical criticism is divided into two categories: Higher and Lower. These divisions don’t mean one is better or more important than the other.
‘Lower criticism’ deals strictly with the text of Scripture, endeavoring to ascertain what the real text of each book was as it came from the hands of its author; ‘higher criticism’ concerns itself with the resultant problems of age, authorship, sources, simple or composite character, historical worth, relation to period of origin, etc. (ISBE. 2:749)
It should be obvious that “higher criticism” potentially leads to destructive criticism, where the critic undermines faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures. This is the case to the extreme among liberal theologians.
Form criticism, as a kind of higher criticism, arose in Germany after Word War II.
The form critics assume that the Gospels are composed of small units or episodes. These small units (pericopes) were circulated independently. The critics teach that the units gradually took on the form of various types of folk literature, such as legends, tales, myths and parables.
According to Form Criticism, the formation and preservation of the units were basically determined by the needs of the Christian community…. In other words, when the community had a problem, they either created or preserved a saying or episode of Jesus to meet the needs of that particular problem. Therefore, these units are not basically witnesses to the life of Christ but rather are considered to be the beliefs and practices of the early Church.
This criticism proposes that the evangelists (writers of the four Gospels – KS) were not so much the writers as the editors of the four Gospels. They took the small units and put them in an artificial framework to aid in preaching and teaching. (McDowell. 189)
Basically, Form Criticism is the product and tool of infidelity. It begins with the assumption that the gospel story of Jesus is legendary. It assigns the gospel a place alongside the myths of false religions, what in a university would be called the study of Comparative Religion, assuming a natural and evolutionary origin to them all.
The conclusions of the form critics run head long into the facts. First and perhaps most glaring is the comparison of the gospel to folklore.
Normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations: it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time. But in conformity with the thinking of the form critic, we must conclude that the gospel stories were produced and collected within little more than one generation. (Kistemaker. 48-49)
Form criticism fails to account for the existence of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus at the time the four gospel accounts began to circulate, especially of hostile witnesses.
… eyewitnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among these eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrate a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challenged. (McGinley. 25)
Other contradictions of the facts are glaring as well. The destructive critics assume the New Testament writers made no distinction between what Jesus said and what they themselves said, whereas the inspired writers were meticulous in distinguishing between the words of the Lord and their own words (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:10,12,25).
Furthermore, if the teaching the gospel accounts impute to Jesus was really legend perpetrated by the writers, then the apostolic teaching ought to have the same forms and terminology as that ascribed to Christ. Why, then, is the teaching of Jesus in the synoptic gospels overwhelmingly parabolic (cf. Matthew 13:34-35), whereas parables are absent from the remainder of the New Testament? Why does Jesus characteristically refer to Himself as the “Son of man,” doing so eighty times in the gospel accounts, whereas this designation is only used four other times in the remainder of the New Testament?
In history as well as in a court of law, the most powerful witnesses are those who, while confirming the testimony in question, are either disinterested or hostile, The apostle Paul qualifies as a hostile witness, for, as Saul of Tarsus, he “persecuted … to the death” the disciples of Christ and, before those who could refute his testimony if it were false, called upon the high priest and elders of the Jews as his witnesses to this fact (Acts 22:4-5). Yet, Paul’s own letters confirm the truth of the gospel story (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-8).
Josephus, the great Jewish historian contemporary with Paul, qualifies as a neutral witness. Leaving out the part of his notice of Jesus that negative critics claim Christians later added, Josephus testified:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man…. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin…. And when Pilate, because of accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who loved him previously did not cease to do so…. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out. (Johnson. 114)
The parts of the quote from Josephus which are omitted confess Jesus to be more than a man, to be the Messiah, and to have appeared to the disciples after His death in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets. The quote actually reads smoother with those portions still intact, and there is just as much textual evidence for them being the words of Josephus as to the portion quoted. But the quote which even the negative critics allow testifies that Jesus lived, was a wise teacher who worked great deeds, taught the truth, gained a wide following, was crucified by Pilate at the instigation of the Jewish leaders, and still had a wide following of people named after Him.
Finally, the form critic cannot account for the most important fact of all concerning the witness of the gospel writers. Why were they willing to be savagely persecuted and even killed for their testimony, when they had nothing earthly to gain for telling it? (cf Acts 4:1-31; 5:17-42; 6:8 – 8:4) Not even one of the apostles of Christ ever changed or recanted His testimony, although tradition assigns a violent death at the hands of persecutors to all but John, who was exiled to a lonely, barren, rocky ancient Alcatraz (the island of Patmos) for his faith.
Gi’me Your Best Shot
Professor E.P. Sanders, Arts and Sciences Professor of Religion at Duke University, has been called “America’s most distinguished scholar in the field of Jesus research today” (Professor John B. Meier, Catholic University, quoted on fly leaf Sanders). He has his Th.D. from Union Theological Seminary and formerly taught at Oxford. He has written two award winning books on Jesus, and is a fellow of the British Academy. Pretty heady stuff.
Sanders is no friend to believers in the Jesus of the gospel. While intending to answer the radical nonsense of the Jesus Seminar, he concludes of Jesus:
… from time to time individuals stood up and claimed to be the truest representatives of God, In general terms, this is where Jesus fits. He was an individual who was convinced that he knew the will of God (Ibid. 48).
The professor sees nothing unique about Jesus. “There may have been numerous people who felt as close to God as Jesus did” (Ibid. 239). Sanders farther claims, “Thus there is no certainty that Jesus thought of himself as bearer of the title ‘Messiah.’ On the contrary, it is unlikely that he did so…” (Ibid. 242).
Sanders is a form critic. Of the gospel accounts as primary historical sources, he asserts:
The main sources for our knowledge of Jesus himself, the gospels in the New Testament, are, from the view of the historian, tainted by the fact that they were written by people who intended to glorify their hero. (Ibid. 3)
He further concludes of the gospel narratives, “Moreover, the early Christians also created new material; they made things up” (Ibid. 62).
He completely discounts the historical value of the book of John.
… the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic gospels and… John represents an advanced theological development, in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them. (Ibid. 71)
The synoptics gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke – fare little better. The safest conclusion is that the synoptic gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, are ‘mythological elaboration based on fact” (Ibid. 117). Sanders professes to find numerous glaring contradictions between the three accounts and historical inaccuracies throughout the synoptics. Sanders concludes, “There are no sources that give us the ‘unvarnished truth’; the varnish of faith in Jesus covers everything” (Ibid. 73).
Achilles’ Heel
But Professor Sanders makes an admission which is fatal to negative criticism. As he assesses the historical value of the witnesses who claimed they had seen Jesus after He was raised from the dead, Sanders observes:
I do not regard deliberate fraud as a worthwhile explanation. Many of the people in these lists (lists of witnesses to the resurrection – KS) were to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming that they had seen the risen Lord, and several of them would die for their cause (Ibid. 279-80).
If the witnesses were not liars, how do we explain their consistent testimony that they had seen the risen Lord? Sanders candidly admits, “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my Judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experience I do not know” (Ibid. 280).
Why, herein is a wonder! Professor E.P. Sanders is heralded by liberal theologians as the greatest American expert on the historical Jesus. And yet, when it comes to the central issue of Jesus, that upon which both Jesus and His apostles were willing to stake their claims (Matthew 12:39-40; Romans 1:1-4), the professor is unable to come to grips with the question.
Skepticism thus confesses itself impotent to speak concerning the historical Jesus. No wonder, as hypercriticism throws away passage after passage from the New Testament accounts of Jesus, nothing but doubt is left concerning anything from the Master’s life. No wonder each participant in the radically liberal Jesus Seminar felt the liberty, with boundless imagination and scanty facts, to reconstruct Jesus into a teacher suitable to his leftist agenda.
Christ in Court
Now let us put Jesus of Nazareth on trial. His disciples aver He is the Christ the Son of God (John 20:30-31). According to their testimony. He made this claim for Himself (e.g., Matthew 16:13-17). They and He assert that the ultimate proof of this fact is that God demonstrated His approval of Jesus by raising Him from the dead. They claim to be witnesses of this fact (Acts 2:32). How shall we account for their testimony?
We shall abbreviate the trial and omit the fact of the empty tomb, a fact the skeptic cannot explain away, to concentrate on the testimony of the witnesses.
We have the first hand testimony of Matthew, Peter, and John (Matthew 28:16-17; John 20:1-10, 19-29,21:1-24; I Peter 1:3,20-21; 2 Peter 1:16), all of whom were intimate with the Lord during His ministry. We have the historical record of Luke, who researched his subject by interviewing the eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4, New American Standard Bible; Luke chapter 24; Acts 1:1-11). Luke records sermons by both the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul, in which they testify to having seen Jesus after He was risen (e.g.. Acts 2:32; 3:14-15; 22:1-10). Paul records his own eye-witness testimony (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:1-8).
How shall we explain their testimony? Certainly, the appearance of Jesus was no illusion. Unlike those who imagine a vision of Mary, they did not expect to see Him, even after His crucifixion (e.g., John 20:9). They were still skeptical even after some had seen Him (Mark 16:14; John 20:24-25). They actually spoke to Him, ate with Him, and touched Him (e.g., John 21:1-14; 20:26-27).
As Sanders acknowledges, they utterly lacked motive to lie. Why would Peter leave his prosperous fishing business to endure a life of extreme persecution and eventual martyrdom? (John 21:3, 15-19; Acts 5:17-42; 2 Peter 1:12-16) Why would Paul abandon a life of prominence in Judaism to be ridiculed and persecuted by his own people and eventually executed for his testimony? (Acts 22:3; Galatians 1:13-14; 1 Corinthians 4:11-13; 2 Corinthians 11:23-27; 2 Timothy 4:6-8)
So much more could be said, but surely it takes no Sherlock Holmes to follow the evidence and reach a verdict. Surely, we must acknowledge that Peter spoke the truth when he claimed, “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).
Then who is the historical Jesus, the real Jesus? Assuredly Paul was right when he proclaimed that Jesus Christ our Lord was “declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:4)
So, Why the Skeptics?
If the case for Christ is so strong (And this study only briefly touches on the evidence), why do the skeptics reject Jesus Christ the Son of God as an historical reality? Sanders states it thus:
The view espoused by Cicero has become dominant in the modern world, and I fully share it. Some reports of ‘miracles’ are fanciful or exaggerated; the ‘miracles’ that actually happen are things that we cannot explain, because of ignorance of the range of natural causes. (Ibid. 143)
Do the skeptics with unbiased fairness just follow the facts where they lead? Hardly! Their naturalistic philosophy that denies even the possibility of a miracle blinds them to the facts.
Is it good history to deny all testimony of miracles because of philosophical bias against the miraculous? Perhaps no greater church historian has lived than Philip Schaff. He well described the historian’s craft: “The purpose of the historian is not to construct history from preconceived notions and to adjust it to his own liking, but to reproduce it from the best evidence and to let it speak for itself” (1:175).
So prejudiced is Professor Sanders against miracles that, although he admits the honesty of the gospel writers, he discounts their testimony. “We doubt things that agree too much with the gospels’ bias, we credit things that are against their preference” (Ibid. 94). How can one who refuses to accept the testimony of the only primary sources for the historical Jesus, even when he admits their honesty, ever hope to know the real Jesus?
Will the Real Jesus Please Rise?
The skeptic through prejudice rejects the only primary sources we have for the historical Jesus and is thus both confused and ignorant of Christ. He does not accept the facts of Jesus’ life, does not understand their significance, and fails to acknowledge who the Lord is. His stubborn adherence to unbelief leaves him incapable of knowing the real Jesus.
The informed Christian accepts the Jesus of the gospels, not through blind, unreasoning faith, but because of the evidence from multiple, unimpeachable, primary sources. Thus, Christians alone truly know the historical Jesus, the real Jesus, the risen Lord of glory. He is the Christ the Son of the living God, God who became flesh and dwelt among us.
Skeptics vainly inquire, Will the real Jesus please rise? Christians triumphantly declare, He is risen!
Works Cited
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1996.
Kistemaker, Simon. The Gospels in Current Study. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1972. as quoted by McDowell. 210.
McDowell, Josh, More Evidence That Demands a Verdict. San Bemardino, CA; Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1975.
McGinley, Lawrence J. Form Criticism of the Synoptic Healing Narratives. Woodstock, MD., Woodstock College Press, 1944, as quoted by McDowell. 211.
Orr, James. “Criticism, of the Bible.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Ed. James Orr. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdman’s, 1939.
Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London: Penguin, 1993.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 1. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1882. as quoted by McDowell, 11.
