Many prefer a more historical view that constructs a life of Jesus from the available records, apart from either doctrine or miracles. However, this view, while seemingly more compelling, suffers both from ruling out miracles a priori, and by its frequent denial of a historical investigation of miracle-claims. Further, this approach failed in its attempt to offer naturalistic alternative theories concerning the resurrection, as even critics admit, and by ignoring the possibility that Jesus’ theological teachings would very possibly be relevant if it could be shown that he was literally raised from the dead in time-space history.
Lastly, some charge Christianity with having no extrabiblical references for Jesus’ life whatsoever. Not only is such a claim false, as we will show in Part Two, but there are good reasons why there are not even more secular sources for the life of Jesus than the surprising number of ancient non-Christian sources that are available.
These alternative approaches to the historical Jesus therefore present no roadblock to our investigation of his life. Applying normal historical methodology to early Christian creeds, archaeological evidence, ancient non-Christian, and Christian (non-New Testament) sources, we will examine what history tells us about the life of Jesus. But first we will study some more or less popularized presentations of Jesus that portray atypical views of his life, as well as examine two recent movements that seek to explain the life of Jesus in non-orthodox terms.
1Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, pp. 16-21, 35-38.
2Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” p. 38.
3Ibid., p. 42. Bultmann expresses the same view in his Theology, vol. I, p. 45.
4Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” pp. 60-61, 64, 72.
5Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, transl. by Louise Pettibone Smith and Erminie Huntress (New York: Scribner’s, 1934), p. 8.
6Bultmann, Theology, vol. I, chapter I in particular.
7For some instances, see Luke 1:1-4; John 1:14; 20:30-31; Acts 2:22-38; 17:30-31; Heb. 2:3-4; 2 Pet. 1:16-18; 1 John 1:1-3.
8John Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 23.
9For details, see “The New Quest for the Historical Jesus” in Chapter 1.
10For an excellent treatment of this issue, see Carl F.H. Henry, Frontiers in Modern Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1965), pp. 15-24.
11See Ibid., pp. 21-22 for an interview with Bultmann, where he lists some of these historical facts.
12Macquarrie, Existentialist Theology, pp. 185–186.
13Ibid., p. 186.
14A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1963), p. 187.
15Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, especially pp. 175-184, 198-201.
16Ibid., p. 182.
17Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189.
18Ibid., p. 186.
19Ibid., pp. 187-188.
20Paul Maier, First Easter: The True and Unfamiliar Story (New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 94.
21Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, pp. 181-182.
22Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189. Throughout this volume, Sherwin-White investigates various claims in the book of Acts.
23Ibid., pp. 189-193.
24For more complete data concerning these points of critique, see Sherwin-White, Roman Society, pp. 186-193 and Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, especially p. 180-184.
25Sherwin-White, Ibid., pp. 186-187; Grant, Ibid., pp. 199-200.
26See F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), especially p. 16; John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust, especially p. 36.
27Bruce, Documents, pp. 16-18; John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust, pp. 36-37; Daniel-Rops, Sources, pp. 41-42.
28Bruce, Documents, p. 16; Robinson, Can We Trust, pp. 37-38.
29Koester, Introduction, vol. 2, pp. 16-17.
30Macquarrie, Existentialist Theology, p. 168; Gordon H. Clark, “Bultmann’s Three-Storied Universe” in Christianity Today, ed. by Frank Gaebelein (Westwood: Revell, 1966), pp. 218-219.
31Carl F.H. Henry, “Cross-Currents in Contemporary Theology,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Saviour and Lord, ed. by Carl F.H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), p. 15; Clark, “Bultmann’s Universe,” pp. 217-218.
32Avery Dulles, “Jesus of History and Christ of Faith” in Commonweal, Nov. 24, 1967, pp. 225-232.
33Schubert Ogden, Christ Without Myth (New York: Harper and Row, 1961).
34For an excellent treatment of the general trustworthiness of the Gospels, see Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987). Part Two specifically addresses the efforts of recent forms of criticism.
35Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, p. 13.
36James M. Robinson, A New Quest, chapter II.
37Schweitzer, Quest, pp. 3-4.
38It should be noted that the other major approach to miracles that we outlined in Chapter 1, the mythical strategy of David Strauss, is very similar at this point to Bultmann’s position that we just covered above.
39Schweitzer, Quest, pp. 49-55.
40See Gary R. Habermas, “Skepticism: Hume” in Biblical Errancy: An Analysis of its Philosophical Roots, ed. by Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), pp. 23-49 for an examination and critique of Hume’s argument against belief in miracles and their relation to the laws of nature, as well as an evaluation of a number of other scholars who are inspired by Hume’s account. See also Richard Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle (London: Macmillan, 1970).
41For details on historical methodology and inductive research, see Appendix 1.
42William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1972), pp. 29-30, 70-71.
43This charge is also investigated in depth in Appendix 1.
44Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980; Lanham: University Press of America, 1984).
45Some examples are Yamauchi, “Easter,” March 15, 1974, pp. 4-7 and March 29, 1974, pp. 12-16; Maier, First Easter, pp. 105-122; Wand, Christianity, pp. 29-31, 51-52, 93-94; A.J. Hoover, The Case for Christian Theism: An Introduction to Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), chapter 16.
46Schweitzer, Quest, p. 56.