37Ibid., p. 85.
38Wells as cited by Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 55.
39Ibid., p. 92.
40Josephus, Antiquities 20:9.1
41Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 55.
42In a discussion about what can be known of Jesus’ life, even Helmut Koester lists James as one of Jesus’ brothers (p. 73). Concerning Peter, he asserts “it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus . . . .” (p. 164). Of further interest, Koester remarks about a first century dating for Jesus: “It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed” (p. 76). (The italics in both quotations above have been added.) Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).
43Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 43. In the name of fairness, we must agree with Martin that a detailed discussion would be far too complex to present as a chapter sub-section of any book.
44Drane, Introducing New Testament, p. 184.
45Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 88.
46Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 43.
47See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III:XXXIX.
48 Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 43.
49See Clement, Corinthians 13, 46; Ignatius, Smynaeans 3. Whatever view one takes on the sources of these quotes, the minimal point here is that Martin seems unaware of the errors in his statements or the critical case that could easily be mounted against him.
50See J.B. Lightfoot, transl. and ed., The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), p. 31.
51Martin, Case Against Christianity, pp. 44-45.
52Josephus, Antiquities 18:3.
53Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 48.
54F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 37-41.
55Drane, Introducing New Testament, p. 138. Incidently, after a detailed look at the issue in question, Charlesworth concludes that we can now be sure that Josephus did write about Jesus in the major reference in his Antiquities (Jesus Within Judaism, p. 96).
56Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 85. Later, he calls Josephus’ text a “clearly forged passage” (p. 91).
57Ibid., p. 46.
58For examples, why should we question Josephus’ second reference to Jesus as the brother of James (Martin, p. 49)? Do many but the most radical scholars doubt it? How do we know for sure that Tacitus couldn’t have obtained data about Jesus from Roman or other sources (p. 51), especially when he records data not found in the New Testament? Should we reject all secondary citations in ancient accounts like Martin questions Africanus’ citing of Thallus (p. 51)? While some scholars may question whether Suetonius’ mention of “Chrestos” is a reference to Jesus (pp. 51-52), what about those who think that it is Jesus (such as Bruce, p. 21)? Although Martin questions why I don’t mention some of the texts from the Talmud (p. 70, note 44), I plainly say that these passages are dated much later. (See Gary R. Habermas, Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus, [Nashville: Nelson, 1984, 1988], p. 99.)
59Both quotations are from Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 52.
60For instance, when John M. Allegro wrote a rather bizarre work (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973]) to argue that Jesus probably never lived, he was greeted by intense criticism from his peers, even though he admitted that his views were only speculation on his part. Norman Anderson reports that, in England, Allegro’s thesis was dismissed by fifteen experts in Semitic languages and related fields who lodged their protest in a letter that was published in the May 26, 1970 issue of The Times (apparently referring to the American edition). They judged that Allegro’s views were “not based on any philological or other evidence that they can regard as scholarly.” The book was also “met with scathing criticism in review after review.” See Anderson’s Jesus Christ: The Witness of History (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1985), p. 15, fn. 2. John A.T. Robinson concurs, mentioning Allegro’s volume in a section of his book entitled “The Cynicism of the Foolish.” Robinson asserts that if such reasoning was found in other disciplines, it “would be laughed out of court.” See Robinson’s Can We Trust the New Testament? p. 15.
61Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, p. 98.
3Limitations on the Historical Jesus
While few scholars doubt that Jesus ever lived, several approaches have been popular over the years that propose to limit what we can know about the historical Jesus. We will investigate a number of common misconceptions that would restrict research on our topic. Each challenge will be presented, followed by an initial critique. Many of the criticisms in this chapter will anticipate the research that will be presented subsequently.
A Demythologized Jesus
From about 1930–1960, a popular view was that the Gospels do not present a historical record of Jesus, but a witness to early Christian belief. Since the writers were more concerned about faith and the application of the Christian message to daily concerns than about actual events in the life of Jesus, we know much less about the historical Jesus than the Gospels actually record.
The most influential version of such a view was popularized by Rudolf Bultmann, who held that the Gospels were essentially a later interpretation of Jesus’ person and teachings, largely in mythical terms. The early post-Easter faith allowed a free modification of the historical Jesus into a partially mythical figure. According to this theory, the Gospel writers used imagery to express spiritual concepts in mundane terms.
For instance, God’s transcendence might be described as immense spatial distance. Or God’s use of a miracle to control nature would really reveal his omnipotence. However, these mythical expressions were said to be literally meaningless today. The chief job for theologians, according to Bultmann, was to demythologize the Gospels by ascertaining what the writers were really trying to communicate and by reinterpreting it into a message that was existentially valid for twentieth century humanity.1
A major example was Bultmann’s treatment of the resurrection of Jesus, which was accomplished without a historical investigation of any sort. He concludes at the very outset, “Is it not a mythical event pure and simple? Obviously it is not an event of past history.”2
While the earliest disciples’ faith in the resurrection was a historical fact, it is not even important to know the cause of this belief.3 Thus, the historicity of the resurrection was rejected a priori as a myth, without any attempt to investigate the facts. Even the importance of such historical research was rejected. Because the early church was said not to have been interested in recording history, legend was mixed into the Gospel accounts. The result was that Bultmann thought there was much uncertainty concerning historical aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings.4