http://www.samuelzwemerseminary.com/
http://www.samuelzwemerseminary.com/
CONTENTS OF THE QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Josh McDowell as a university student investigated if Jesus rose from the dead he was so convinced of the evidence he trusted the Lord as saviour.
“On December 19, 1959, at 8:30 pm., during my second year at the university, I became a Christian. That night I prayed. I prayed four things in order to establish a relationship with God a personal relationship with His Son, the personal, resurrected, living Christ. Over a period of time that relationship has turned my life around. First, I prayed, "Lord Jesus, thank You for dying on the cross for me." Second, I said, "I confess those things in my life that aren't pleasing to You and ask You to forgive me and cleanse me." The Bible says, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Third, I said, "Right now, in
the best way I know how, I open the door of my heart and life and trust You as my Saviour and Lord. Take control of my life. Change me from the inside out. Make me the type of person You created me to be." The last thing I prayed was, "Thank You for coming into my life by faith." It was a faith produced by the Holy Spirit, based on God's Word and supported by evidence and the facts of history. (Read his book Evidence demands a verdict).Many like Josh who have studied this topic have come to know the Lord as the truth
In this lecture I hope to give you some evidence to show why Jesus rose from the dead and I hope you come to know the Lord Jesus as your personal saviour.
My lecture is in 5 parts.
1.Presuppositions
2.Methodology
3.Evidence.
4.Objections
5 Conclusions.
A consideration of the resurrection is primarily a look at history. Specifiably a history of Jesus and the early church. In the study of this history it is important to note all historians come to the material with a bias .This leads scholars to make up a Jesus of their own making. In a profound lecture of his Dr Dale Allison a formidable scholar “The Historical Christ and The Theological Jesus )March 6,2012 Duke University noticed the orthodox scholars produce a Jesus that fits their creeds while the sceptics produce a Jesus to fit their ideologies .For example he notes it is no accident the Irish scholar Dominic Crossan writes the life of Christ as an Irish revolutionary who is under the Imperial power of Rome. As we take a look at the history of the historical Jesus quest we see how especially sceptics who boast of their superior objective historiography are as guilty as any.
H S Reimarus (1694-1768) Jesus was a Jewish revolutionary .
D F Strauss (1808-74) Jesus was a myth:i.e. the new testament was a projection of the church onto a fictitious past.
Ernest Renan (1823-92) Jesus was a romantic visionary.
H J Holtzmann (1832-1910) Jesus was the teacher of Timeless ethical truth.
Johannes Weiss (1863-1914) Jesus was an eschatological teacher figure who should be fitted into first century Judaism.
Albert Schweitzer (1875 – 1965 ). Jesus was a failed prophet but a towering personality who we can learn about if we go back to the Jewish context and avoid the early churches historical spin.
Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) He saw Jesus as a preacher of timeless truth using his existentialism to reconstruct him. He thought we must avoid the Jewish context. Even the last twenty years modern Jesus studies is plagued with many ideas of who the historical Jesus is thus showing methods are shaping the historical material to fit the scholars agenda.
All these scholars wrote about Jesus influenced by their intellectual horizons and culture .It is not to say they did not have some relevant in sites to who Jesus was but only to show they soon became out of fashion.
.(Who was Jesus?) N T Wright.spck.1989.
The New Atheists have also not broke free from making a Jesus in their own image.
The British scientist Richard Dawkins Jesus is a product of the later church a mythological figure who might have existed. He gives no analysis of any historical data in depth p119-122 (The God Delusion)to back up his claims.
When he comments on the history of the church he uses in the main secondary sources and does not know the few primary sources he quotes.ie Gospel of Thomas.
The British journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens 13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011 in his book God Is Not Great p40,51,60,64,,68,89,,06,109-23,127-128,130,152,158-159,.
In his polemical attack on Christianity Hitchens conclusion is that Jesus was an Avatar of Seth a Gnostic invention who makes more sense than the early churches fabrication of an historical Jesus. He spends most of his time attacking the birth narratives of Jesus relying the scholar Bart Ehrman for his evidence. Hitchens does not engage with any main stream scholars who would disagree with Ehrman. Hitchens puts the four gospels along the same date as the Gnostic gospels failing to realize the Gnostic gospels quotes the four gospels thus making the four gospels much earlier in their production. The four gospels are first century and the Gnostic s in the main are second century(Who Wrote the Gospels? by Timothy McGrew) lecture on you tube channel apologetics315. Hitchens shows no awareness of the culture of 1st century Judaism and how that relates to Jesus studies. When he does comment about Jesus most of the time he sees him in the context of power were religion is one of control. This highlights Hitchens Marxist influences in understanding history.
The American writer Sam Harris In his book End Of Faith ,page 35,96-97,82,83,156-57,158,241,254. He sees Jesus as a Jew but politicizes him at every turn. He understands Jesus divinity and death as political tools used by the church against the Jews,a theological anti Semitism. Jesus birth is but a Catholic invention which had hang ups about sex that we have had for two thousand years in the west. It is no accident that Sam is a secularised Jewish atheist and would see Jesus the way he does. Again Sam makes no effort to really understand the historical Jesus both in his historical context .He engages with no scholars who would disagree with him on his comments of Jesus. It is a one-sided highly politicised broadside against religions.
Michel Onfray the French Philosopher in his book Atheist Manifesto p115-127 said “ Jesus existence has not been historical established.” He makes great sweeping claims but fails to site scholars and evidence to back up what he says. He has even been noted to get his facts wrong.
He said there are an "incalculable number of contradictions and improbabilities in the body of the text of the synoptic Gospels”.he then notes crucifixion victims were not put to rest in tombs, Jews were not crucified at this time
But solid evidence contradicts the French philosopher.
Josephus said "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even malefactors who have been sentenced to crucifixion are taken down and buried before sunset". Josephus, Jewish War 4.317
So we have looked at four New atheists we find these facts about their understanding of Jesus. All four do not do any where near extensive study of the historical source material about the life of Jesus. All four ignore engaging with scholars who might disagree with them. All four have a polemical agenda against religion. They tend to read the life of Jesus in the light of their political struggle against religion in the present. They tend to attack the virgin birth and see that as the main evidence against Jesus being a real historical figure. The rest of Jesus life is superficially treated only to make a political point against religion in the present. This can hardly be seen as a fare objective historical treatment of the life of Christ.
C:Bayes Theorem :Conclusion.
In a debate James white asked Dominic Crossan about bias in historical method. Dominic Crossan replied we have Presuppositions but we also have “data”.The Resurrection Debate: Crossan and Borg v. White and Renihan This debate took place an board ship in 2005 in the Gulf of Alaska you tube channel DrOakley1689.He implied that we can get to the historical data even with bias. I agree with Crossan but he failed to highlight as DR White wanted to do, that our Presuppositions in historical inquiry are a problem. Most of us even scholars are not aware how we shape the historical material to suite our agenda. What bias do you bring to the table?How are they shaping you as you look at the material?What steps have you taken to make sure your bias don't get in the way?What presuppositions still remain on the table when all said and done?As we have looked at the history of Historical Jesus studies and the New Atheists we all have to be more conscious of our bias,be more honest and upfront about it,or if not we will just go round in circles confirming what we want to believe rather letting the evidence speak for itself. Scholars can try to trick the public into thinking they are more objective than they are. An example is scholars who use the Bayes Theorem such as the atheist DR Richard Carrier in proving Jesus did not rise from the dead. This theorem tires to show how the conditional probability of each set of probable causes for a an observed outcome can be logically deduced from knowledge of the probability of each cause and the conditional probability of the outcome of each cause. To be fare it must also be noted that evangelical scholars have also used the bayes theorem to prove their case for the resurrection. The bayes theorem can be used by both sides to give the public the feel that what is being said is all scientific. Susan Haack an atheist has given a great lecture in warning us about using science as some authority to give are ideas more kudos than in reality science does not actual substantiate or remains neutral.(Susan Haack - Six Signs of Scientist-Dr. Haack's talk, at the Rotman Institute of Philosophy at the University of Western Ontario on January 7th, 2011, engages Scientism, the view that natural science is the most authoritative way of looking at the world, and is superior to other interpretations of life)
.We can see in the case of DR Richard Carrier that he already thinks Jesus is a myth but he uses his bayes theorem to make people think he is being objective in his historical work.(Bayes’ Theorem and the Modern Historian:
Proving History Requires Improving Methods Dr Richard Carrier).
What Dr Richard Carrier fails to tell people the theorem is not used by most historians and is subjective in many cases when used for the historical task..
“ The great difficulty about applying the theory is that it is often not at all clear what value should be given to the prior probability” David Bartholomew Statistician, page 117 The Resurrection Of Jesus M Licona IVP.
“Thus the bayes theorem is subjective.” David Bartholomew page 117 ROJ Licona.
“Virtually no historian has used it....” DR McCullagh page 117 ROJ Licona.
“It is unclear how{Bayes theorem} can be worked out in practice.” DR Tucker page 117 ROJ Licona.
2.Methodology
A:Comprehensiveness and depth.
B:The Historical Grammatical Method
C:Historical Criteria
D E P Sanders
A:Comprehensiveness and depth.
Adolf Schlatter (16 August 1852 – 19 May 1938) wrote over 400 papers on theology and New Testament studies. He is ranked as one of the great theologians of modern times equal in stature to that of a Bultman.
His historical method will be used for this lecture. He advices that you avoid sectarian bias,that you study all relevant material before you come to any conclusion. He seeks to understand the historical context of any given ancient text. He gives equal time to primary source material and engaging with the scholars in the field you are at work in. I think this method gives you comprehensiveness and depth to your scholarship.
Adolf Schlatter’s “The Significance of
Method for Theological Work”:
Translation and Commentary
Robert Yarbrough
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/02/sbjt_012_sum97_yarbrough1.pdf
B:The Historical Grammatical Method
Next I hope to use the historical grammatical method for understand ancient texts. The academy today has many intellectual tools for understand texts such as Post-modern readings,Feminist reading and Post Colonial readings ect .The HGM treats texts in a fare and wide ranging way .It is able to draw on textual criticism,Source criticism,Redaction criticism but does so in the interest of seeking what the text meant in its own time. Dr Bob Uuntley explains what the HGM way is.
First Principle
The first principle is to note the historical setting in which a biblical book was written and the
particular historical occasion for its authorship (or when it was edited). The original author had a purpose
and a message to communicate. The text cannot mean something to us that it never meant to the original,
ancient, inspired author. His intent—not our historical, emotional, cultural, personal, or denominational
need—is the key. Application is an integral partner to interpretation, but proper interpretation must always
precede application. It must be reiterated that every biblical text has one and only one meaning. This
meaning is what the original biblical author intended through the Spirit's leadership to communicate to his
day. This one meaning may have many possible applications to different cultures and situations. These
applications must be linked to the central truth of the original author. For this reason, this study guide
commentary is designed to provide a brief introduction to each book of the Bible.”
p3 DR Bob Utley
Second Principle
The second principle is to identify the literary units. Every biblical book is a unified document.
Interpreters have no right to isolate one aspect of truth by excluding others. Therefore, we must strive to
understand the purpose of the whole biblical book before we interpret the individual literary units. The
individual parts—chapters, paragraphs, or verses—cannot mean what the whole unit does not mean.
Interpretation must move from a deductive approach of the whole to an inductive approach to the parts.
Therefore, this study guide commentary is designed to help the student analyse the structure of each literary
unit by paragraphs. Paragraph and chapter divisions are not inspired, but they do aid us in identifying
thought units.
“Interpreting at a paragraph level—not sentence, clause, phrase, or word level—is the key in following
the biblical author’s intended meaning. Paragraphs are based on a unified topic, often called the theme or
topical sentence. Every word, phrase, clause, and sentence in the paragraph relates somehow to this unified
theme. They limit it, expand it, explain it, and/or question it. A real key to proper interpretation is to follow
the original author’s thought on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis through the individual literary units that
make up the biblical book.” p3 Dr Bob Utley
Seminar Textbook (PDF, 240 pages) On Hermeneutics by DR Bob Utley.
http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/pdf/seminar_textbook.pdf
C:Historical Criteria.
I hope to use the methods that historians use in assessing an hypothesis for historical data. This means my method tries to keep within the main stream of historical scholarship. Aso it is very important to note as we use the historians tools it means we are using historical data as evidence and not presuming or defending an inspired Bible .I believe the Bible is the word of God but my argument is an historical argument based on historical evidence
1:Explanatory scope This means we look at the quantity of the facts that our hypothesis accounts. The hypothesis that has the most relevant facts has the best explanatory scope. My historical criteria is as follows.
2:Explanatory Power:This looks at quality of the given facts. If you can explain your position with less ambiguity then it has better explanatory power.(if one has a strong presence you may get some due to the nature of patchiness of history.)
3:Plausibility :he hypothesis conforms to the background knowledge better than other positions. We look at opponents views and see also if they are confirmed by anything in history or today by he sciences.
4:Less ad hoc :When we use less non evidenced assumptions we are in a better position than using such arguments that lack any evidence.
5:Illumination: An hypothesis can provide good solutions to historical problems and if this is the position it strengthens ones case.
P109-111 The Resurrection of Jesus Michael Licona ( A New Historical Approach Ivp 2010
“When conducting authentic historical investigation, one cannot
presuppose that the sources with which they are working are inerrant or
divinely inspired. Otherwise, we would simply conclude everything reported
in those sources is true and wrap up the investigation. A theologian
can do that when studying Jesus. A historian does not have that
luxury. Theology and history are different disciplines with different objectives
and approaches. Now, I believe that everything in the Bible is
true. But that’s a statement of faith and has to be argued by reasons of a
different sort. My objective in the book was to see what I could prove
concerning Jesus’ resurrection with reasonable and adequate historical
certainty and apart from any faith commitment” Dr Licona
(A Round table Discussion with Michael Licona on The
Resurrection of Jesus:
A New Historiographical Approach
Danny Akin, Craig Blomberg, Paul Copan,
Michael Kruger, Michael Licona, and Charles Quarles
Southeastern Theological Review, Moderator
http://www.risenjesus.com/images/stories/pdfs/a%20roundtable%20discussion%20with%20michael%20licona%20on%20the%20resurrection%20of%20jesus.pdf)
D: E P Sanders and The Academy
It is true that many lives of Jesus are produced by scholars and are biased. But at the same time we must realize that modern scholarship has come to a general agreement about some facts as to the life of Jesus. It would be unwise to build a foundation without paying respects and using some of this scholarships conclusions. What atheists do not tell you is DR Richard Carrier,Earl J. Doherty,David Fitzgerald,and DR Robert McNair Price are all sceptics who say Jesus never even existed which makes them fringe scholars who are flying in the face of main stream scholarship. I do not say I agree with all the methods and conclusions of mainstream scholarship but at the same time I acknowledge we are making progress in our understanding of Jesus. Some of the facts we now know about Jesus and most scholars agree on are as follows.
"Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist.
Jesus was a Galilean he preached and did healings.
Jesus had 12 disciples according to him.
Jesus did his work for Israel.
Jesus was controversial at the temple.
Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities.
After his death Jesus' followers continued as an clear movement.
A group of Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement (Gal. I.13,22; Phil. 3.6), the persecution continued up to the end of Paul's career (II Cor. II.24; Gal. 5.11; 6.12; cf. Matt. 23.34; 10.17)." E. P. Sanders (1985). Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
3.Evidence.
A:The Gospels
The gospels can be traced back to show they are early historical source material.
180AD
Tatian the Assyrian a Christian theologian lived about 120 to 180AD. His text “Diatessaron"is harmony of the four gospels. The text was used by Syriac speaking churches and was a standard text for Christians of that time.
150AD
Justin Martyr, “First Apology” (150AD) quotes the Gospel of John Chapter 3 (1 Apol. 61, 4-5)
130AD
Eusebius the historian says that Papias of Hierapolis talks about the writings by Matthew and Mark when (Papias) wrote his five-volume “Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord” about 130AD. This is backed up by the “Ryland’s Papyri” that contains a fragment of John’s gospel dating to the (130AD).This means the gospel of John was much earlier.
120AD
Polycarp a disciple of the Apostle John. In His letter Philippian Church he quotes from the gospels and the other new testament books.
100AD
The Didache was a teaching text used widely by the church. The writer quotes form Matthew on the Lords prayer.
95AD
Clement quotes Matthew in 1 Clement 13:1-2.
All this evidence shows that the gospels are first century documents. They are written when the live witnesses where around. To quote the gospels as the fathers did shows that they where much widely used and circulated .This would of taken time to copy and send them around the ancient world. It is reasonable to assume early dates for the gospels to account for the wide use of these texts.
The scholars who agree with this.
Giuseppe Ricciotti Italian Bible scholar, archaeologist and historian.
John Arthur Thomas Robinson :A theological Liberal after studying the gospels he came to change his mind and settle for early dates for the texts.
John W. Wenham Professor of New Testament Greek and Biblical scholar.
Birger Gerhardsson Swedish professor at Lund University.
Marcel Jousse A French Bible scholar
Jean Carmignac A French scholar
Philippe Rolland A French scholar
Carsten Peter Thiede German papyrologist
More details at : The Early Eyewitnesses of Jesus J. Warner Wallace
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-early-eyewitnesses-of-jesus/
Ignatius is an case in point. He live from 35 to 117 AD( scholars debate about the exact dates).He was most definitely active at the later end of the first century ,He quoted the gospels.
"Jesus Christ....was of the stock of David,who was from Mary,who was truly born,ate and drank,was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate,was truly crucified and died...who also was truly raised from the dead,His Father raising him...”
Ignatius based his comments on the gospels. He knows at least three gospels ,Matthew,Luke and John and uses them often in his seven letters.
Ignatius Letter to the Trallians 9:4 in J N D Kelly ,Early Christian Creeds,London:Longmans,1963 p 68
Matthew 12:23 is in his letter to The Ephesians 14:2
Luke24:39 is in his letter to smyrnaeans 3:2
John 3:8 is in his letter Philadelph 7:1
Also noted in page 28 of “The Gospel Truth” Paul Barnett ,IVP ,2012.
Ignatius wrote about 110 Ad so it puts the gospels as first century historical source material .
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html
The next important thing to note the gospels are accurate historical documents.
The historical accuracy of Johns gospel:
1: BETHSAIDA. John 1:44 .This text tells us Andrew and Peter came form the city. They where fishermen. Archaeologists discovered a “plethora of fishing implements” in a house in Bethsaida.
2:CANA: ; John 2:1-11 Archaeologists who think Kherbit Cana is the place where Jesus did the miracle of turning water into wine found storage facilities for water pots.
3: MT. GERIZIM: John comments on this mountain John4:19-23.We know the Samaritans worshipped on this mountain and it is clear in the John text he alludes to this. We also have texts of the Samaritans from fourth century AD which have within them earlier tradition of Messiah expectation. This can be seen in the Samaritan woman’s reaction to Jesus.
Samaritan text “Let the Restorer come safely and sacrifice a true offering. The Restorer will come in peace and reveal the truth and will purify the world”.
Jesus reply to the Samaritan woman messianic question“I who speak to you am he” (4:25-26).
:4 POOL OF BETHESDA
John describes a pool called "BethesdJohn 5:2a" in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate."von Wahlde writes:
The discovery of the pools proves beyond a doubt that the description of this pool was not the creation of the Evangelist but reflected accurate and detailed knowledge of Jerusalem".
5: TIBERIAS:John is the only one to identify the Sea of Galilee as also the Sea of Tiberias (6:1; 21:1)Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (r. 4 BC-AD 39), moved the capital from Sepphoris to Tiberias in about AD 24.So he reflects the changing political times.
6: PILATE’S JUDGMENT SEAT:In John 19:13, Pontius Pilate brought Jesus to the judge’s seat. This has been identified near the Herodian palace.
For more details see
For more details see
https://bible.org/seriespage/archaeology-and-john’s-gospel-skepticism-chic-passé
James M. Arlandson
James M. Arlandson
Archaeology and John’s Gospel: Is skepticism chic passé?
Now lets us look at the historical reliability of the synoptic s gospels.
1:NSCRIPTION ABOUT PONTIUS PILATE: Pilate is mentioned in all four gospels. An inscription at Caesarea Maritima was found with his name on it as prefect of Judea, which is the southern region that encompassed Jerusalem.
2:THE BOY JESUS IN THE TEMPLE:Luke 2:41-50,The discovery of a stairway south of the southern wall of the Temple Mount makes it clear that it was here that the young Jesus amazed the rabbis by his knowledge. This was the place the Rabbis came to discuss matters of the law.
3:A WINEPRESS, STONE-WALLED TERRACES, AND THREE TOWERS.
In all Gospels, Jesus is called “Jesus of Nazareth.” In the Parable of the Tenants, he says that “a man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower” (Mark 12:1 // Matt. 21:33 // but Luke 20:9 omit most of the elements). In the 1990s archaeology confirmed this data of Nazareth and a winepress. “less than half a mile from the centre of first-century Nazareth” to the west … . “A winepress has been exposed, and beautifully constructed stone-walled terraces are now visible. Most importantly, three circular stone towers only about fifty feet [about 16m] apart now rise majestically above the rocky terrain”
4:THE GALILEAN BOAT
Luke 5:1-11 .A fishing boat in found in the mud on the northwestern shore of the Lake of Galilee confirms the gospels.
scholars who would agree.
5:THE FARMERS IN THE PARABLE OF THE TENANTS
In this parable (Matt. 21:33-46 // Mark 12:1-12 // Luke 20:9-19), the landlord rents out his land to farmers. When he sends his servants to collect some of the produce or profits, the farmers beat them and eventually killed the landowner’s son.
From the larger contexts of rabbinic traditions, Greek papyri, a true-life story from Cicero himself (106-43 BC)this practise is verified. Craig A. Evans, “Are the Wicked Tenant Farmers ‘Peasants’?” pp. 231-50.
6 :PETER’S HOUSE IN CAPERNAUM
(Matt. 9:1) Peters house found. Von Wahlde writes: “Almost all scholars now espouse this view” that the house belonged to the apostle.
Helpful books on the subject and research material on the subjects about historical reliability.
Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Traditions. Baker Academic, 2007
For more details see
https://bible.org/seriespage/archaeology-and-synoptic-gospels-which-way-do-rocks-roll
James M. Arlandson
For more details see
https://bible.org/seriespage/archaeology-and-synoptic-gospels-which-way-do-rocks-roll
James M. Arlandson
Archaeology and the Synoptic Gospels: Which way do the rocks roll?
D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Zondervan, 2005
F. F. Bruce. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 6th ed. Eerdmans, 1981
Craig Blomberg. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. 2nd ed. Intervarsity, 2007.
Birger Gerhardsson. Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. Hendrickson, 2001
Donald Guthrie. New Testament Introduction. 4th ed. Intervarsity, 1990
Mark D. Roberts. “Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?” 2005
Rami Arav. “ Bethsaida.” In Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology, pp. 145-66
Dan Barhat. “Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount.” In Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology, pp. 300-08.
James H. Charlesworth. Jesus and Archaeology. Eerdman’s, 2006
James D. G. Dunn. “Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran.” Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ed. James H. Charlesworth. Doubleday, 1992. Pp. 254-72.
Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration. Brill, 1997. Eds. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, pp. 231-50
John McRay. “Archaeology and the Bible"
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor. Oxford Archaeological Guides: The Holy Land. 4th ed. Oxford, 1998
The Gnostic Gospels and The Gospels: A Comparison.
Gnosticism the word comes from an ancient Greek word foreknowledge. A Gnostic is “someone who knows” or a “knower.” What does he or she know? It was secret teachings that lift him to new insites. The Biblical Gospels root their t truths in real time and place around the life of Jesus, who lived in Israel, before fall of Jerusalem. It is true each a gospel has a theological agenda but history is at the heart of what they communicate. One must always note that all historians write with an agenda but that does not mean we can't find historical facts from them.
In contrast you find the Gnostic texts do not anchor Jesus in historical time for example Pilate is not mentioned at all. Galilee comes only once in a Gnostic text. . As for Biblical Gospels, Pilate appears about sixty times . Galilee is mentioned also about sixty times .Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts, Jerusalem is found only sixteen times and the comments lack historical reality. The Biblical Gospels mention Jerusalem 70 times and know the city intimatelyintamitaley. (cf. Matt. 21:12-16 // 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-47; and John 2:12-16; Matt. 24:1-2 // Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6; Luke 21:1-4; John 2:20; Luke 21:20). The Gnostic gospels when compared to the Biblical gospels lack historical details which the Biblical gospels are full of.
More details at:
More details at:
https://bible.org/seriespage/archaeology-and-john’s-gospel-skepticism-chic-passé By Anderson
Finally the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. Example from Mark.
Fist it must be noted more and more scholars are coming over to the idea the gospels may have eyewitness material to the life of Jesus and the resurrection.
“ It is the contention of this book that, in the period up to the writing of the Gospels, gospel traditions were connected with named and known eyewitnesses, people who had heard the teaching of Jesus from his lips and committed it to memory, people who had witnessed the events of his ministry, death, and resurrection and themselves had formulated the stories about these events that they told. These eyewitnesses did not merely set going a process of oral transmission that soon went its own way without reference to them. They remained throughout their lifetimes the sources and, in some sense that may have varied for figures of central or more marginal significance, the authoritative guarantors of the stories they continued to tell”.Richard Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses:
The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006 :The following evidence comes from his research.
Evidence of Eyewitness of the Gospel of Mark
A:He writes in a similar way to Historians of his time who valued eyewitness account writing such as Alexander and Porphyry’s Life of PlLucianotinus.
B:He used a common narrative strategy is called inclusio. Inclusio is the literary technique of placing corresponding material at the beginning and end of a particular stretch of text (short or long) in order to mark off that section and to say something about the intervening section of text. Inclusioin this general sense is extremely common in ancient literature.
C:Mark’s inclusio makes Peter the principal eyewitness in the second Gospel. It just makes sense that a biographer would name his human sources early in his account and remind his readers of them at the end of his account.Peter plays a big role, but it is bigger in the much-shorter Gospel of Mark
D:Mark is writing a narrative that he is not in. So he cannot use "we." Instead, he uses "they" in a careful way in passages of movement from one place to the next. These passages imply the "we" of Peter’s point of view. And who is included in the "we"? It is Peter and the eleven other disciples or the core of Peter, James, and John, and sometimes Andrew (Peter’s brother).
Bauckham says that “the literary function of the plural-to-singular narrative device in Mark makes it, in effect, Mark’s way of deliberately reproducing in his narrative the first-person perspective – the ‘we’ perspective – from which Peter naturally told his stories” (p. 164).
E:Finally we see how Marks text matches Peters sermon showing eyewitness attestation. Compare Acts 10:34-43 Mark
“The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ” (1:1) Mark
Telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ” (v. 36) Acts
Jesus . . . saw the Spirit descending on him” (1:10) Mark
“God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit” (v. 38)Acts
The Galilean ministry (1:16-8:26)
Jesus’ ministry focuses on healing and exorcisms; e.g. “Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons” (1:34)Mark
“Beginning in Galilee” (v. 37)
“He went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil (v. 38)
“Jesus entered Jerusalem” (11:11); see chapters 11 to 14 Mark
“We are witnesses of everything he did . . . in Jerusalem” (v. 39)Acts
“And they crucified him” (15:24)Mark
“They killed him by hanging him on a cross” (v. 39) Acts
“He has risen! He is not here” (16:6)Mark
“God raised him from the dead on the third day” (v. 40)Acts.
“Tell his disciples and Peter . . . ‘you will see him’” (16:7)Mark
He was seen . . . by witnesses . . . by us” (v. 41Acts
The narrative style or flow of the Gospel of Mark and Peter’s speech in Acts 10:36-42 match up well.
On Acts and Mark see D A Carson,Douglas J Moo, and Leon Morris Introduction To The New Testament,Apollos,1992. p106
On Acts and Mark see D A Carson,Douglas J Moo, and Leon Morris Introduction To The New Testament,Apollos,1992. p106
Objections
In Mark 14:66-72 As we know that the gospel is based on Peters testimony why would Mark put in Peters denial of Jesus if it did not happen?Also why would Peter be a coward at the time of Jesus death and be bold preaching in Jerusalem 40 days later?What changed him from coward to Mr courageous?
The account of Jesus death has a ring of historical truth round it.
In Mark chapter 16:9 Mary Magdalane a woman of ill rapute is the first to bare witness to Jesus. Why make a woman the first witness when a woman’s testimony was not respected in the ancient world? In Mark 16:11 we are told the disciples did not believe the testimony of the woman. Why would you put material into a text that was either deluded or lying?It only makes sense that these events. took place. In Mark we learn that Jesus died on a cross Mark:15:25-37.He was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Aramathea in Mark15:43 and he was seen in a resurrection by Mary Magdalane .This resurrection is stated as just that a bodily resurrection the Jesus who died is said to of really appeared to Mary .You may not believe in a literal resurrection but you must be honest and face the fact that the early church in this account is saying Jesus rose from the dead. Now these three facts modern scholarship would agree with. It falls in-line with the work done by EP Sanders and others.
If or historical source material is early source,is reliable and based on eyewitness accounts , fits the historical context and accords with the scholarship of most scholars I conclude the following.
Either the disciples were lying. But this makes no sense. Why lie?What would they gain. They gained no money,sex or power which people who start new movements are often after. If you was lying why would you preach your prophet died a criminal?People would of seen this as silly so why did they preach it ?If they lied the enemies could of just produced the body of Jesus and that would be them exposed?Why preach in Jerusalem of all places your lies would have been exposed in no time?How come no one recanted of these so called lies?Those who said they saw the golden plates of of Joseph smith some recanted. Either they where deluded had some illusion or vision?If this is this case why do they insist on a real resurrection?The disciples where defeated by Jesus death. They had been beaten by this. They where not in a fit state to have visions or grief induced illuminations as they where so disappointed so lost so shattered they where in no mental state to be induced by such phenomana. Or Jesus really did rise from the dead. It makes perfect sense why Peter was a coward one minute and bold the next. It makes sense they put Mary as the first witness because she just was it happend. It makes perfect sense the disciples did not believe Jesus rose from the dead as they were crushed by Jesus death and where not expecting anything. Mark is just telling us what really happend. You might say miracles do not happen but that is a philosophical argument that can't account of all interactions at the quantum level in relation to matter and if you was honest you would say the only way to know if a miracle happened is to check the historical data. You might say there are contradictions in the gospel accounts but you have to face the fact all the gospels agree to the main facts I have just pointed to and modern scholarship. Minor contradiction if you can find them do not over turn the big facts we know or what epistemologists would say the plausibility structure..You might say Jesus was a myth but we have already shown how early the historical source material is and any way this Jesus myth idea has no supporting evidence the the Greek and Egyptian Gods are in no way the same as Jesus. If you read plutarchs a standard text on this his essay tells you what the ancients believed and it has nothing to do with mythological dying and rising Gods. See SALT 2013 - MaryJo Sharp on you tube she a good scholar for a refutation of the Jesus myth idea. It seems to me then looking at the historical evidence in a fare and honest way Jesus Christ rose from the dead. If he did it means we need to take his claims to be the Son Of God seriously .It means we can know God through his Son ,find forgiveness and have a future hope after the grave. When an Atheist the famous philosopher Antony Flew said this:
“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It's outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”1
- Antony Flew
- Gary Habermas, "My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew." Available from the Web site of Biola University at www.biola.edu/antonyflew
Final Conclusions
1:Explanatory scope :We note my position has 3 main facts based on sound scholarship we noticed the new atheists denies the basic facts ,they just don't have any facts on the table and denies Jesus death,burial and what the 1st century church preached about a resurrection.
2:Explanatory Power: :We note my position has 3 main quality facts based on sound scholarship in agreement with mainstream scholars again we noticed the new atheists denies the basic facts of of Jesus death,burial and what the 1st century church preached about the resurrection.
3:Plausibility :My three facts fit into the historical context but the new atheists not having any facts are also not rooting what they say in the time frame of first century Judaism a basic task a historians needs to do if to be take seriously in assessing the life death and resurrection of Jesus. Also are facts and the conclusions drawn from them do not go against any scientific studies of note about near death experiences and illusions by grief endued states.
4:Less ad hoc :My three facts are based on solid evidence the new atheists have to fill in the gaps with conjecture .
5:Illumination: An hypothesis can provide good solutions to historical problems and if this is the position it strengthens ones case. If my facts and the conclusions drawn from them are accepted then it would give us a new understanding of the new testament and we would read the early history of the church in a new way helping to see the early church Fathers as having real experiences of the event. This would change are attitude to reading religious texts over the last 2000 years. In short my hypothesis would help us to understand the history of Christianity in a better way.
6:Based on the 5 criteria that secular historians use I think my belief in Jesus rising from the dead as good historical evidence. I showed we are all bias but I gave good methodologies and built on what we know in the academy about Jesus to make sure bias is put in control of more objective criteria. I gave solid evidence for the gospels being early historical source material,then I built a good case for those gospels being historically reliable documents. From this I gave the evidence of the gospel of Mark as being a sample of the eye witness historical material the gospels are. Once we got to historical bedrock of showing that in this early,reliable and eyewitness source material it was safe to deduce 3 facts that modern scholarship already agree with. Those facts are Jesus death,his burial and the preaching of the early church of Jesus resurrection. From these facts I noticed the details of the Marken text are not explicable in seeing the early church as lying or having illusions of Jesus resurrection. I came to the conclusion the details in the marken text can only be explained by the fact the resurrection took place. On these grounds I submit to you Christianity has evidence for its main claim that Jesus rose from the dead. On this bases I would invite you to trust in the Lord Jesus as your saviour.
Scholars against my position you might want to read.
Earl J. Doherty
Robert McNair Price
Bart D. Ehrman
John Dominic Crossan
D Fitzgerald
Dale C. Allison
Scholars for My position you might want to read
William Lane Craig
Mike Licona
Gary Habermas
Craig L. Blomberg
Craig S. Keener
N T Wright
Richard Bauckham
My recommended books and study material
More popular works:
The Case for the Real Jesus: A Journalist Investigates Current Attacks on the Identity of Christ Paperback
This book is an easy read and for most people.It gives you top scholars in a simple style .Very good if you are just starting out on the topic.
The Resurrection Of Christ by Dr Machen
A very good essay on the topic by a great classic scholar.
Resurrection and Redemption: How Eschatology and the Gospel Relate
Dr. Richard B. Gaffin is professor of biblical and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (
A solid article on the theology of the resurrection.
Verifying The Resurrection
Six Evidences
James Montgomery Boice
A Good essay
More academic works:
The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach Paperback by Mike Licona IVP
This book is a must for any student or academic on the subject.
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony
By Richard Bauckham
This book is ground breaking and all students and academics need to read it.
Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts
By Craig S. Keener
Great book a must for all thinkers.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oCrSpYJvGakC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Miracles+dr+keener&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zwNnUtuBBMWh0QXc4YHIBg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Miracles%20dr%20keener&f=false
Lectures On the topic
Lectures On The Gospels Dr. Timothy McGrew on you tube channel
Websites to look up
Resources on academic research:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/ Great place for theology and Biblical studies.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ Great place to study Gnostic gospels and any religious ancient writings.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/mark.php Good place to study scholarship on the Gospel of mark.
Study notes for those wanting more info:
On Schlatter and his methodology :
Study notes for those wanting more info:
On Schlatter and his methodology :
“The task of observation lies in the simultaneous
attempt both to sharpen and to
broaden the field of vision” Adolf Schlatter
“must be brought to bear in the discovery
and formation of those methods that are
helpful for the apprehension of the facts
of the matter before us. Hindrances here
will of course include the intensity of the
observation-and-judgment process and
the breadth of the field of vision possessed
by the observer. In this connection every
person has certain limits in intellectual
capacity. The desired goal, however, remains
for both historical and dogmatic
activity that we work our way up out of
the two extremes of either specialization,
with its immersion in amassing of tiny
details, or the abstract trafficking in accepted
ideas that characterize our “disciplines.” Adolf Schlatter
For further study read
[“working out of healthy levels of interaction
with older literature. It is a mistake
in method when the observer depends
only on his own eyes and lightly esteems
the confirmation and correction of his field
of vision through the works of others.
Often theological publications give the
impression of originating in a monastic
cell practically sealed off from the world;
the author heeds only his own thoughts
and has not clarified to himself that the
intellectual task we face is a common enterprise.” Adolf Schlatter
“to a corporate egoism that thinks of nothing
but its own sect. The oscillations between
the rationalistic ideal, which placed
the act of thinking totally under the sovereignty
of ideas regarded as generally
valid and thereby endorsed the sovereignty
of the majority, and the modern
impulse toward an individualist structuring
of our life including our deepest
certainties, will continue to cause disturbances
in our theological work” Adolf Schlatter
“to explain origins and causes of
observed phenomena, occupy a place of
secondary importance in the domains of
both historical and dogmatic work. It is
for that reason a mistake in method when
they immediately assume dominance
over the formation of thoughts. The first
task, in which we have to confirm both
the sharpness of our capacity to see and
the wealth of our judgment formation,
consists in this: that we through the structuring
of our thoughts reproduce reality
with the fullness of its connections. It is
true that this includes the task of gauging
the significance of causal processes for the
things that they brought about. But from
rationalism our science is still plagued
with the mania for explaining everything,
and explaining it right now—before the
relevant phenomena have even approximately
been assimilated. This error renders
many scientific works so much chaff.”Adolf Schlatter
“perception which is indispensable to
it, where the intellect’s productive
power tries to be in command and play
the creator so that what we produce is
no longer connected with a prior receiving,
where thought circles around
one’s own self, as though this could
create from itself the material from
which knowledge comes and the rules
by which it is to be judged, there we
have rationalism. It stands in irreconcilable
hostility to the very basis of the
New Testament, because acknowledging
God is the direct opposite of rationalism.
But this rationalism is at the” Adolf Schlatter]
Schlatters method from the following quotes and paper are as follows. We must make sure we try to understand the historical context before we make hasty generalizations. We must be willing as historians to enter the world of the people and texts we are studying keeping our agendas out of such an enquiry. All historical material relevant to the task should be utilized. We must have a healthy balance of looking to primary source material and interacting with scholars in the field. We must avoid sectarian impulses in the historical task that is to say the danger of favouring are particular school of historical interpretation. Jesus is not a presupposition to the texts but inherent with in the texts .
(For further study read the following:
Schlatter commenting on Rudolf Bultmann, “In the foreword to The History of the Christ in 1920, Schlatter wrote, ‘The knowledge of Jesus is the foremost, indispensable centerpiece of New Testament theology.’ This stands in marked contrast to Rudolf Bultmann, who opened his famous two-volume New Testament Theology thus: ‘The message of Jesus is a presupposition for the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself.’”)Robert Yarbrough
Schlatter qoutes and Yarbrough are found in the following article.
Adolf Schlatter’s “The Significance of
Method for Theological Work”:
Translation and Commentary
Robert Yarbrough
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/02/sbjt_012_sum97_yarbrough1.pdf
On the historical Gramatical Method :
"1. What did the original author say? (textual criticism)
2. What did the original author mean? (exegesis)
3. What did the original author say elsewhere on the same subject? (parallel passages)
4. What do other authors say on the same subject? (parallel passages)
5. How did the original hearers understand the message and respond to it? (historical
application)
6. How does this truth apply to my day? (modern application)
7. How does this truth apply to my life? (personal application
p49 DR Bob Utley
a. information about the author
b. information about the date of writing
c. information about the recipients of the writing
d. information about the occasion of the writing
e. information about the writing itself
56
(1) recurrent or unique terms
(2) recurrent or unique concepts
(3) basic flow of the message
- the form in which the message appears (genre)
p55 DR Bob Utley
So for example if we are looking at evidence for Jesus resurrection of the gospels we would have to consider the following issues.
The Four Gospels
(1) Although we have four Gospels and we are able to compare them, this is
not always the best method in trying to find the purpose or meaning of one
particular Gospel writer. We must look at the way he uses the material,
not how other Gospel writers use it or develop it. Comparison will be
helpful, but only after you have determined the meaning of a particular
writer.
(2) The literary or historical context is crucial in interpreting the Gospels. Try
to identify the literary limits of the general subject being discussed and not
its isolated parts. Try to see this subject in light of first century Palestinian
Judaism.
(3) It is important to remember that the Gospels record the words and acts of
Jesus, but it is the Epistles which interpret them into specific church
settings. Check the parallels in the Epistles.
(4) Jesus said some ambiguous and difficult things, some of which we may
not fully understand until we see Him. He also said much that is plain and
obvious—start there. Act on what you do know and often the rest will be
made clear to you. If not, the message is possibly not for us, for our day
(Dan. 12:4).
(5) In connection with parables
(a) Be certain of the context. Notice (1) who Jesus addressed the
parable to; (2) Jesus’ purpose for telling the parable and (3) how
many parables are told in a series. Read further to see if He
interprets it.
(b) Do not push the details. Major on His major point(s). Usually there is just one central truth per parable or main characters.
(c) Do not build major doctrines on parables. Doctrine should be
grounded on extended clear teaching passages.
Page 59. DR Bob Utley"
This method is not only good for studying the Bible it is also good for studying ancient texts.
"A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.”Milton S. Terry Biblical hermeneutics : a treatise on the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House. Page 205 .
This does not mean we reject other methods out right but we use what ever other methods can fit into the main method .The following methods can be used to give us valuable information if used wisely and in the aid of the historical grammatical method.
Textual Criticism ,the study of the transmission of the text. Source criticism that is looking at textual sources such as the gospel of Mark is behind much of Matthew and Luke. Redaction criticism is looking at the big picture of the material such as how the sermon on the mount functions in the totality of the gospel of Matthew. Historical criticism is smiler to the grammatical historical method. Form criticism is getting behind the text to the original edited version or the oral form of the tradition. This was started by Jakob 1785-1863 developed by Gunkel 1862 -1932 and Bultmann 1884-1976.My method might disagree with the form critical school but I would still be open to any information that might be a help in understanding the text from such scholars.
A helpful introduction to history and hermanutics is the following article
History and Hermenutics by Paul Ricoeur The Journal Of Philosophy vol 73 no 19
For a more in depth look at Biblical Hermeneutics this is a good online book to read.
Issues in Hermeneutics
Prof. Herman C. Hanko
(Prof. Herman C. Hanko can be contacted at: hanko@prca.org )http://www.prca.org/articles/issues_in_hermeneutics.html
The following were a series of four articles which appeared in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journals of April and November, 1990, and April and November, 1991. Prof. Herman C. Hanko is professor in the Protestant Reformed Seminary in Grandville, Michigan.
A good book to read for seminary students:
The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation ,Cambridge University press. Edited by John Barton.
Now the whole point of my method is the belief we can know what the original writers wrote. It takes seriously the historical and literary contexts of what we are reading. It seeks to be faithful to the text and not impose our own cultural bias to the interpretation we seek to make.
Historical Jesus Studies:
The Quest of the Historical Jesus
A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede
By Albert Schweitzer
CONTENTS OF THE QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS
BY ALBERT SCHWEITZER
| Preface | ||
| 1. The Problem | 1 | |
| 2. Hermann Samuel Reimarus | 13 | |
| 3. The Lives of Jesus of the Earlier Rationalism | 27 | |
| 4. The Earliest Fictitious Lives of Jesus | 38 | |
| 5. Fully Developed Rationalism - Paulus | 48 | |
| 6. The Last Phase of Rationalism - Hase and Schleiermacher | 58 | |
| 7. David Friedrich Strauss - The Man and his Fate | 68 | |
| 8. Strauss's First "Life of Jesus" | 78 | |
| 9. Strauss's Opponents and Supporters | 96 | |
| 10. The Marcan Hypothesis | 121 | |
| 11. Bruno Bauer | 137 | |
| 12. Further Imaginative Lives of Jesus | 161 | |
| 13. Renan | 180 | |
| 14. The "Liberal" Lives of Jesus | 193 | |
| 15. The Eschatological Question | 223 | |
| 16. The Struggle against Eschatology | 242 | |
| 17. Questions regarding the Aramaic Language, Rabbinic Parallels, and Buddhistic Influence | 270 | |
| 18. The Position of the Subject at the Close of the Nineteenth Century | 294 | |
| 19. Thoroughgoing Scepticism and Thoroughgoing Eschatology | 330 | |
| 20. Results Good place to study http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer Historical Jesus Theories
Other material that can help you in the study of this topic: On Histiography: http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/essays/introducingphilosophy/18-philosophy-of-history-r35 The above site as been a help to me on thinking about the philosophy of how to do history. http://www.historiographyinternational.org/ http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/interviews/aviezer-tucker-our-knowledge-of-the-past-r40 http://www.culturahistorica.es/welcome.html# Some great articles on the History of how historians thought about history.I found these articles a great help. More books I use : http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/ I have used Josephus much in my studies but in the lecture above have not put him in.But if you want to understand the time of Jesus you need to read Josephus . http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/philo.html Philo is another writer you need to read .He helps you understand the time of Jesus.Again I did not put him in the lecture to save time but you need to read him. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ You need to read all the books on this site if you want to understand the debates on Gnostic gospels. Whately, Richard
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte (1819; 11th ed 1874) [G] [A] [CA] Some great and classic works on this site love the books.
http://historicalapologetics.org/whately-richard/
J P Holdong website: http://www.tektonics.org/infohub.html
This website is good at looking at Atheist ideas on Jesus.Holding has done some great work.
|
Comments