Evidence for the Historical Jesus: Is the Jesus of History the Christ of Faith? Gary R. Habermas
Evidence for the Historical Jesus: Is the Jesus of History the
Christ of Faith?
Dr. John Ankerberg: The search for the historical Jesus is a hot topic in both popular and
academic circles today and has drawn a lot of attention from national magazines, such
as Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. Further, the media has given an undue
amount of attention to the outlandish statements of the Jesus Seminar, a self-selected liberal
group representing a very small percentage of New Testament scholarship.
Today we will
address the questions surrounding the debate over the historical Jesus and show there are a
significant number of historical facts about Jesus in secular and non-New Testament sources
which prove that the Jesus of history is the same Jesus of the Christian faith.5 | P a g e
My guest is world-class philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas, author of the book, The
Historical Jesus and about twenty other volumes. He received his Ph.D. from Michigan State
University. Dr. Habermas is chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty University
and has written more than 100 articles, mostly on the life of Jesus, which have appeared in
scholarly journals and elsewhere.
Join us for this edition of The John Ankerberg Show and
learn why Jesus is one of the most historically verified lives of ancient times.
Dr. John Ankerberg: Welcome. If you read the articles about Jesus in national
magazines such as Time,Newsweek, or U.S. News & World Report, you know that the
truth claims of Christianity are under attack. A liberal group of scholars called the
Jesus Seminar have published their conclusions and stated: it is no longer credible to
think of Jesus as divine; Jesus did not rise from the dead; and the New Testament is a
highly biased attempt to invent Christianity. In other words, if you’re a Christian and
believe that Jesus is God, that he said the things recorded in the gospels, that he died
on the cross and rose again from the dead, then your faith is not credible, and you
have no historical evidence to back up your beliefs. Such statements are just plain
wrong. My guest today is Dr. Gary Habermas, who has a Ph.D. and has written some
twenty books and over 100 articles on the life of Jesus and other subjects. I asked him
what mainstream scholarship thinks about the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar.
Here
is what he said.
Dr. Gary Habermas: Now, with respect to the Jesus Seminar, what’s bothered a lot
of people, and not just conservatives, is that we’re talking about several dozen
scholars here. But quite frequently in interviews or elsewhere they’ll say, basically,
“We’re mainstream. We’ve got the fundamentalists over here on the right and we’ve
got the people who don’t believe there’s a Jesus at all–he never existed–on the other
side, and we’re in-between them, in the middle.” But they’re not mainstream, and
they do not speak for even most scholars, as many have said.
Now regarding the historical facts, I think that if we do link ourselves to what
history says, we’ve got a situation where we can know quite a lot of information
concerning Jesus. There are dozens of facts about Jesus’ birth, his life, his teachings,
his death, everything–even his burial. This especially applies to his resurrection6 | P a g e
appearances. And we’re not even short of information regarding claims that he was
deity, both from material both inside and outside the New Testament.
Ankerberg: One of the most unfounded statements made by the Jesus Seminar is that
there is no real historical evidence for the Jesus of traditional Christian beliefs. But
that is simply false. Dr. Habermas lists some of the different sources where facts
about Jesus can be found. Listen:
Habermas: Well, as far as the historical facts are concerned, the New Testament has
always been and still remains the best source for the historicity of Jesus. This is the
case even according to critical scholars who use it regularly. And maybe we can
comment more on this later, but I think the case for the overall life of Jesus Christ can
be built from the ground up.
I also think that we have to look beyond the New Testament at Christian
claims outside the New Testament.
We have to look at some dozen and a half nonChristian sources outside the New Testament. Archaeology chimes in on a few things
here, as well, and when you put it all together, we have quite a lot of information
about Jesus Christ and his life in the first century.
Ankerberg: Now, the Jesus Seminar claims that the New Testament documents are
not historical biographies of Jesus but only theological reflections about him. But Dr.
Habermas explains that other historical writings also contain theological ideas,
without being disqualified as reporting historical information. Listen:
Habermas: One problem is the charge that the New Testament writers were
theologians or worse and therefore just presenting propaganda. From the Greek and
Roman historians of that time, we have very few historical accounts that do not
include the supernatural. We really have very few ancient accounts where the authors
are just plain “hardcore historians.” The fact is, if you study Livy or Tacitus, or if you
look at Suetonius or Pliny, if you view others from roughly the time of Jesus, these
Roman historians are famous for mixing omens, miracle accounts, and other
supernatural stories into their histories. Tacitus has fewer of these sorts of accounts,
but we can still find them in his writings. Suetonius talks rather freely about omens
and the Caesars who thought that they saw their demise ahead of time, so they acted
this way or that way. What do contemporary historians think about this? Sometimes
they may respond with a comment like, “Well, that’s different. These writers are real7 | P a g e
historians and they’re not attempting to talk theology or religion, like the Gospels
writers do.”
However, in principle, just because the New Testament has things to say about
theology and faith, that has nothing to say about whether they can also report accurate
history.
There is a good amount of historical data in the New Testament and I think
that’s recognized by the majority of scholars today.
Ankerberg: Next, the Jesus Seminar claims that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
really didn’t write their gospels. Further, the Jesus Seminar has concluded that only
about 18 percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were actually spoken by
him. What about this? Dr. Habermas explains that, l) the traditional authors can be
defended, 2) the critical scholars have conceded that parts of the gospels are
historically true, and 3) you can take that evidence and easily defend traditional
Christian beliefs about Jesus. Listen:
Habermas: Let me make three comments about the authorship of the gospels. First,
the traditional authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, can be defended with a good
deal of scholarly force and it is still being done today. Second, British New Testament
scholar R. T. France stated, for example, that even if we don’t take the time to sit
down and work all the way through each of the traditional authors, we can still
support the authenticity of the gospels on the same ground that we do for Roman
history – that these are still the earliest extended accounts about Jesus that we possess.
As such, they are due the respect of being the earliest historical pieces of data on this
subject and we should make use of them accordingly. Besides, time and again they
have been shown to present many reliable historical reports.1
So we could argue for the traditional gospel authors. If scholars don’t like that,
the gospels still remain the earliest books that depict a large portion of Jesus Christ’s
public ministry, and have been shown to employ reliable traditions.
But third, I prefer another type of argument that builds from the ground up,
that does not take a more common approach that these books must be totally historical
before they are useful, thereby making every detail in them true. Coming at this
1 R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, The Jesus Library, Michael Green, Series Editor (Downers
Gove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), pp. 101-111, 122-125, 133-139.8 | P a g e
subject from a different angle than this last one, I call my method2 the “MinimalFacts
Argument” and suggest that this sort of approach is probably the strongest, in
evidential terms. It employs snippets of information, basically moving one fact at a
time, building a case upwards, but only when there is much factual support for each of
these historical facts. It is as if we were building a wall, one brick at a time, with each
historical fact being one of these bricks. Because of the large amount of scholarly
confirmation for these particulars, critical scholars generally recognize that they are
historical events.
As I explain to my graduate students over and over again, with critical
scholars today most generally, the “authentic” Pauline epistles are almost always
accepted as authoritative, while the gospels frequently are questioned. On the other
hand, for evangelical Christians, Paul and the gospels are all part of Scripture. But if
the critical scholars are going to grant us more than a half-dozen of Paul’s major
epistles as being good sources, why don’t we take those texts and begin building a
strong case—a brick wall, as it were? So I would favor taking a number of historical
facts that are recognized and accepted by virtually all scholars, building up these data
and showing how we can make our case, based on these few facts alone, rather than
holding out for all of the New Testament. That is the chief idea behind the Minimal
Facts Argument.
Ankerberg: There is a body of Pauline literature that can be accepted as historical by
virtually everyone. Let me give you an example or two. G.A. Wells is the British
Professor of German who has written a number of books arguing that Jesus probably
never lived. G.A. Wells will still grant eight authentic Pauline letters. But that doesn’t
satisfy the Christian who would like thirteen. But instead of being upset with him for
what he doesn’t give us, let’s take what he does give us. Those eight Pauline epistles
that Wells grants includes our most important doctrinal works, namely, Romans, 1
and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians. He gives you all those. And so since in
these epistles Paul is a good source, even for somebody like G.A. Wells who argues
that Jesus probably never existed, then let’s use Paul.
2 Incidentally, it must be noted that this approach is precisely an apologetic method rather than any sort
of personal position on the truth of the New Testament proclamation. I sometimes refer to it asthe
“lowest common denominator” methodology.9 | P a g e
And when we’re talking about the resurrection of Jesus, for an example, or the
nature of the gospel, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15, let’s look at Galatians 1, passages
that are unanimously given. And that is precisely why the New Testament still gives
us our best data, because this is all a sort of irreducible minimum or the lowest
common denominator.
We still have plenty of data here to talk about the Jesus of
history.
Some in the Jesus Seminar may think that the Apostle Paul invented the
divinity of Christ; that Paul’s Jesus is completely different from the historical Jesus.
What historical evidence proves is that the Apostle Paul did not invent Jesus; rather,
both he and the other Apostles viewed Jesus the same way and preached the same
message? Listen:
Habermas: One of the most important pieces of information that the critical
community will almost unanimously admit and allow is 1 Corinthians 15. Now, in the
first two verses Paul had just said, basically, “I came to you Corinthians and I
preached the gospel to you.” Paul went there in person and preached orally. We’re
talking here about a date that is well-recognized as 51-52 AD. And Paul said,
essentially, “I preached the words of the gospel. If you believe those, you’re saved,
and if not, you’re not.” [1 Cor. 15:1-2]
Then Paul defined for them the factual side of the gospel message. He states
in verse 3: “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ
died for our sins according to the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on
the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter and then to the
twelve.” [1 Cor. 15:3-5] Then he listed some of the other appearances. He added at
the end, “Last of all, he appeared to me.” [1 Cor. 15:8] So this is one of the very
clearest statements of the factual portion of the gospel message, as proclaimed in the
New Testament.
Why do scholars take this text so seriously? First of all, it’s from an epistle
that is unanimously thought to be written by the Apostle Paul. Why is that? Well, as
one scholar attested, we don’t even need to discuss Pauline authorship here because
both the internal and external evidence for this epistle are so strong. Like what?
Well, just prior to 100 AD, Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthians
(about 95 AD). Then, just after 100 AD, Ignatius wrote seven brief epistles around10 | P a g e
107 AD, and Polycarp wrote another one about 110 AD. These three men, writing
nine short epistles, quote, cite, or refer to the book of 1 Corinthians approximately
some 30 times, and do so just about a decade after the traditional close of the New
Testament. That is an incredible amount of attestation from sources outside of Paul,
all asserting Paul’s authority. These are just some of the many reasons that cause even
skeptics to admit that Paul the apostle wrote this epistle.
So when Paul presented the report here that he received from others, namely,
that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again
the third day and appeared . . . .” [1 Cor. 15:3-4], he must be taken seriously. And
scholars do indeed take him that way, too. Further, it is admitted virtually
unanimously that Paul at least believed that he saw the risen Jesus himself, and that
makes all the difference in the world.
So we’re dealing with someone here who was there very close to the
beginning, who knew the other Apostles, who’s repeating the gospel that they all
agreed on and which they all taught. In 1 Corinthians 15:11 Paul states that it
therefore made no difference whether it was he or the other apostles who were
presenting this gospel message, precisely because they were all preaching the same
thing. Paul took great care–as he explained in Galatians 2:2 (another of Paul’s
unanimously-recognized epistles)–to ascertain that this was the same gospel that the
other apostles were preaching, too, as the others had affirmed regarding Paul just four
verses later (Gal. 2:6).
This is why eminent Cambridge University New Testament professor C.H.
Dodd stated it like this: “anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian
Gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear
the burden of proof.” This is the case precisely because, “Paul’s preaching represents
a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a
point very near to its source.”3
Ankerberg: Now remember, the Jesus Seminar claims Christians have no historical
evidence for Jesus’ resurrection appearances, and that Paul invented the deity of
Christ, but they are mistaken. These words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, accepted by
3 C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House,
1980, reprint), p. 16.11 | P a g e
almost all critical scholars, take us right back very close to Christ himself. Look at
this time line:
In 30 AD Jesus died by crucifixion.
Shortly thereafter, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and the other apostles preached
Jesus’ resurrection and deity.
In 32 AD Paul met the risen Christ while he was on the road to Damascus and
became a Christian.
In 35 AD Paul went to Jerusalem to meet the apostles Peter and James and to check
out his gospel to see if his message contained the same truths about Christ that the
other eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection also preached. The others
confirmed his message.
Then in 51 AD Paul preached the gospel orally to people in Corinth and many
become Christians.
In 55 AD Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and recorded the facts that he received from the
other apostles about Jesus and knew to be true himself.
This information indicates that Paul did not invent Christ’s deity but that he wasin
agreement with the very same message that Peter and James also preached. Further,
it’s obvious that Peter and James were preaching their message way before Paul
arrived on the scene. So Paul couldn’t have invented Jesus Christ and his message.
Dr. Habermas explains why these historical facts indicate a sound foundation about
Jesus and cannot be denied. Listen:
Habermas: Let’s talk about why this is so important in terms of history. 1
Corinthians 15 is nearly a given, even from people like G.A. Wells and Michael
Martin, who say that Jesus probably never lived.
Paul said, “I delivered unto you the
gospel which I also received: Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again on the
third day and then appeared . . . .” [1 Cor. 15:1-4]
Now, let’s see what this looks like on a time line. Let’s picture between my
hands here a space of about 25 years: 30ish AD–the cross of Jesus; 55ish AD–the
writing of 1 Corinthians. It really doesn’t make a difference if you’re a liberal or a
conservative here, either. These dates remain the same, within a year or so. Now, Paul12 | P a g e
wrote 1 Corinthians in 55: “I delivered it to you (orally) when I came to you.” [1 Cor.
15:1] When was that? About 51 AD. Now notice, we’ve closed the gap from 25 years
to about 20 years – from 30ish to 51. Then he said, “I delivered unto you that which I
also received.” [1 Cor. 15:3]
Now, the ten million dollar question here is, when did Paul receive this
material and from whom did he obtain it? There’s five steps here: the cross and Paul’s
epistle are the outside book ends, and the oral testimony is in-between. Then we have
two stages to go: when and from whom did Paul receive this creedal testimony? Of
course, the folks who passed it on to him had the material before he did.
The common consensus of recent critical New Testament scholars provides
the following data: Paul most likely received this material when he visited Peter and
James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem about 35 AD. How do they arrive at this
year? Well, if the crucifixion was about 30, then scholars place Paul’s experience on
the road to Damascus at just about one to three years later. He said in Galatians
1:18 (again, another of Paul’s authentic epistles), that he went away for three years
and that, afterwards, he went to Jerusalem. That’s an average of two years before his
conversion, plus another three years afterwards, which totals five years (2 + 3 = 5
years) later for this visit.
Now if Paul’s experiences came only one year afterwards, as some think, then
that’s one + three = four years after the crucifixion. But 35 AD is a nice round figure.
So you’ve got the cross at about 30, 1 Corinthians written about 55, and Paul’s oral
teaching in Corinth about 51.
He attested that he went to Jerusalem in approximately
35 and he explained that he spent 15 days talking with Peter and James, the brother of
Jesus [Gal. 1:18].
There’s a helpful Greek word here, too. In English it is usually translated as
Paul “getting acquainted with Peter,” or “seeing Peter” or maybe even “questioning
Peter.” The Greek word is historeo. The root word is histor when transliterated into
English, and it’s the root word for our word “history.” Histor is used in documents
outside the New Testament as when someone travels and maps out a region, for
example, showing changes in the terrain and so on. A few critical word studies from
non-Evangelical authors point out that this word in Galatians 1:18 basically indicates13 | P a g e
that Paul played the role of checking the testimony he received, or even playing a sort
of investigative reporter.
Now, if Paul went up to Jerusalem around 35 AD and met with Peter and
James, the brother of Jesus, and did some checking on these apostles’ Christian
testimony, there’s one other thing to learn. What did they talk about? One of the old
rules of literary criticism is that we do best to interpret a text in its context, and the
passage both before and the one immediately afterwards both state that Paul was
talking about the nature of the gospel message.
Does that surprise us at all? After all, when we think of it, what else would
Paul rather talk about more than the gospel? He traveled all of this distance to
Jerusalem in order to meet with the head apostles, including the brother of Jesus.
What would your first question be if you were Paul? I think just normally Paul would
ask about the gospel. But as we said, that is also the immediate context, and Paul is
basically asking, “Tell me about what happened.”
Now, just a few verses later in Galatians 2:1-2, Paul stated that he went up to
Jerusalem again 14 years after the first visit, or at approximately 48 AD, or some 18
years after the crucifixion. Paul went there to specifically to check out the nature of
his gospel message (2:2) to see if “I was running or had run… in vain.” So now Paul
is attempting to ascertain whether or not he and the other apostles were on the same
“gospel page,” so-to-speak. As the passage relates later, the other apostles added
nothing to his message (2:6), and responded by giving he and Barnabas “the right
hand of fellowship.” [2:9]
Lastly, we mustn’t miss who gave these men this commendation: James the
brother of Jesus, Peter, and this time the apostle John was present, as well. Paul calls
them the “pillars” (Gal. 2:9). Along with Paul himself, no one in the early church was
more influential than these four apostles. The other three basically concluded that,
“Paul, you’re on the right track here. We see that Jesus called you on the way to
Damascus, giving you the gospel for the Gentiles. Go for it. We’ll take the gospel
message to the Jews.” That’s basically what they did in Galatians 2:6, 9. This entire
sequence is crucially important.
Now, back to the original point here: 1 Corinthians–55 AD; oral preaching in
Corinth–51 AD; the crucifixion–30 AD.
ith no further adjustment, that’s only a14 | P a g e
total of 25ish years later, and that’s quite early. But Paul got it from somebody else,
and the consensus position even among critical scholars is that he most likely received
it from Peter and James pretty close to 35 AD.
Now, if Peter and James gave it to Paul, then they had to have known this
content before Paul did! It was their own testimony, after all, before they even met
him! For years, virtually no scholars picked a date as to when these data became
formalized into the early creed that we find in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Why not?
Probably because there was no need to do so. The date basically already extended
back on top of the crucifixion itself. What this shows is that the resurrection
proclamation and the factual side of the gospel message as a whole (which includes at
least the Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus according to the New Testament4
) was
known, agreed upon, and shared.
In my opinion, many Evangelicals even stumble when they attest that the early
apostles preached the gospel message immediately, pointing to texts like 1
Corinthians 15:1-19. True, that’s only a brief 25 years later. But we can teach that
Paul received this message perhaps just five years later and somebody had it before he
did, going right back to the cross itself.
Now, this is one of the paths to the knowledge that the factual content of the
gospel, in particular, is identified in the New Testament as at least the Deity, death,
and resurrection of Jesus, as we just mentioned directly above. These are all linked to
one another on exceptionally strong historical grounds. Further, critical scholars grant
texts such as I Corinthians 15:1-11, and Galatians 1:18-2:10.
Again, this is what I
mentioned earlier—what I have called the Minimal Facts historical argument.
Ankerberg: Now, if you’re a non-Christian, let me ask you, how did the Christian
religion originate? How could the early Christians proclaim to the people in
Jerusalem, the very city that had watched Jesus die on the cross, that Jesus was now
alive? My point to you is this: there is strong historical evidence for Jesus’
resurrection. It can’t be ignored. Facts just don’t disappear; and they are a sound
foundation for a faith commitment to Jesus if you so decide. Dr. Habermas
summarizes:
4 For just a few of the major references, all from early passages that date even earlier than Paul,see
Rom. 1:3-4, Rom. 10:9, and Philippians 2:6-11.15 | P a g e
Habermas: Well, I hope this provides a better idea of the comment early in the
program that believers indeed have a solid historical basis for our faith. We’re talking
about the center of Christianity, too: the Deity, death, burial, and the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. The time frame that Paul is discussing is back in the neighborhood of 35
AD, when he met with two of the central figures in the early church: Peter, the head
apostle, and James, the brother of Jesus and the pastor of the Jerusalem church. This is
indeed a strong foundation.
So it surprises me when I hear people saying, “Hey,
there’s no evidence here or there.” Believers who may wonder, worry, or doubt need
to be assured of these things when their faith is questioned. Let the critics deal with
these sorts of data right here, found in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1-2, and the
strong basis for the gospel.
Once again, we’re not talking here about periphery beliefs. We’re discussing
the very center of our faith. Paul proclaimed that he had met the risen Jesus on the
way to Damascus. Then he proceeded to check out all these things with Peter and
James in Galatians 1. As if this were all not enough, he returned 14 years later, in
order to make absolutely sure that he was not preaching the wrong message and doing
so in vain! But the other major, “pillar” apostles, now including John as well, assured
Paul in Galatians 2 that he was on course.
They attested that his message was
factually-grounded and true.
Then, in 1 Corinthians 15:11, Paul testified that what they were preaching was
true: “Whether it is I or they, so we preach and so you believe.” In other words, you
might say that Paul was keeping watch, as well! The others had approved his
message, and now he agreed with their proclamation. The wonderful conclusion is
that the gospel that Paul and Barnabas preached, as well as the message taught by the
other apostles, too, was one and the same. Whoever taught the message, it agreed in
its core of the Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We’re on central, sacred,
and very solid grounds on these themes.
It would be a good exercise sometime for us to just contemplate some of these
things. Is there a historical or other sort of evidential footing for any other central
religious teachings of another prominent world religious founder? Prominent critical
scholar John A.T. Robinson began one of his books by saying that these are not
questions that are asked in the other religions, not even in the monotheistic belief16 | P a g e
systems.5 One Buddhist scholar begins his book by declaring quite frankly that his
religious tradition doesn’t not have anything close to Christianity’s historical
foundation. The texts he edited in his volume all date from 600 to 900 years after the
Buddha’s death! Thus, all attempts to know the Buddha’s original teachings are “mere
surmise” and “fruitless”
Comments
Post a Comment