Of course, the issue here is not a battle of how many scholars hold these positions, but the reasons behind their views. Still, if the majority of contemporary scholars is correct over against Wells’ position on the dating of the Gospels, then Wells’ assertion that the New Testament does not link Jesus to Pilate prior to AD 90 is also in error.
Even apart from the issue of dating, Wells employs another highly questionable line of reasoning to explain how the early church unanimously chose Pilate’s name — because “Pilate would naturally come to mind . . . . for he was just the type of person to have murdered Jesus.”23 Here we must ask why would the Gospels all agree in this choice of names, even if Pilate did fit the description? Would Herod not be an even better choice? Wells obviously prefers his thesis because it facilitates his four-stage development of the New Testament. Yet his view is not compelling because it conflicts with the facts.
5. Historical methodology
A fifth criticism of Wells’ thesis is his lack of application of normal historical methodology to the Gospel material.24 When this is done, historically reliable material about Jesus can be gleaned. Michael Grant specifically notes that this is the major problem with Wells’ thesis:
But, above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.25
By normal historical standards used to ascertain other events in ancient history, we can learn about Jesus as well.
Wells postulates that the lateness of the Gospels and the lack of reliable information caused their writers to do much guessing and made them accept almost anything reported about Jesus. Yet we have just seen several ways in which Wells’ lack of application of the historical method has contributed to the major problems with his thesis.
For example, if the majority of critical scholars is right in dating the Gospels earlier than Wells postulates, then these writings are much closer to the events that they record. The basis for the Gospel report of the death and resurrection of Jesus is firmly grounded in history, without being inspired by the mystery religions, again contrary to Wells’ thesis. That eyewitnesses had considerable influence is a definite pointer in the direction of the reliability of the material.26 The trustworthiness of the Gospels follows from the earlier dating of the Gospels, especially if we can show that the writers were those who were either eyewitnesses or still in a position to know the truthfulness of their report.27 The result of our overview is that the early Christian writings are far different from those envisioned by Wells.
Michael Martin
One of the only scholars to follow G.A. Wells in his thesis about the historical Jesus is philosopher Michael Martin, who makes the claim that we are justified in questioning any but the barest data concerning the historical Jesus.28 Martin agrees with the thesis of G.A. Wells that in the earliest layer of Christian teaching, “Jesus is not placed in a historical context and the biographical details of his life are left unspecified.” Rather, most of the well-known particulars such as those in the Gospels were not proclaimed until the end of the first century or later.29 Therefore, Martin writes, “a strong prima facie case challenging the historicity of Jesus can be constructed.”30
In an intriguing move, however, Martin not only acknowledges the lack of scholarly support for Wells’ thesis, but he even opts not to employ it in the main portion of his book, since it “is controversial and not widely accepted.”31 While such a maneuver can be made for other reasons, Martin’s decision does raise an interesting question: is there a possibility that he is perhaps less convinced of Wells’ thesis than he is willing to acknowledge? Perhaps he, too, is aware of some of the serious problems with the entire proposal.
Following Wells, Martin postulates “four layers of Christian thinking,” the earliest of which “consists of Paul’s teaching of ‘Christ crucified’ in which Jesus is not placed in a historical context and the biographical details of his life are left unspecified.”32 Wells and Martin do not deny that there are some details about Jesus in these early sources. But the issue concerns whether the New Testament writers knew more than a minimal amount of data about Jesus and whether they even knew that he lived during the time traditionally assigned to him. Martin states: “there is no good evidence that they believed that these events occurred at the beginning of the first century.”33 Rather, these details emerged “only at the end of the first century.”34
In order to further evaluate this scenario, we will look at the three chief avenues pursued by Martin himself: Paul’s admittedly early information about Jesus, the dating of the Gospels, and extrabiblical sources. It is my contention that Martin errs in an extraordinary number of his central claims, and in each of these areas.
1. The earliest epistles of Paul
Martin admits that from the genuine Pauline letters we do learn some claimed information about Jesus, especially concerning his death and resurrection. In spite of this, Paul does not seem to know many details about Jesus; we cannot even conclude that he knew that Jesus was a first century figure.35
Here we are not interested in whether or not Paul was right, but what Paul thought about the chronology of Jesus. However, using only the Pauline epistles that Martin accepts, there is no shortage of data showing that Paul knew Jesus was an earlier contemporary. We have already seen that Jesus died and was raised, appearing to his followers just three days later (1 Cor. 15:3ff.). Those eyewitnesses who saw him afterwards included Peter, Jesus’ disciples, 500 believers, most of whom were still alive, James, and the apostles. Then Paul informs us that he was contemporary with these apostolic witnesses (15:9-11, 14-15).
If there is any doubt on the last point, Paul states that, right after his conversion, at least some of the apostles could still be found in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17). Three years later Paul visited there, and specifically tells us that he spent 15 days with the apostle Peter and also saw “James, the Lord’s brother” (1:18-19). Then, 14 years later, Paul went to Jerusalem again and met with Peter and James, as well as seeing John, the “pillars” of the church (2:1-10). Later, he met with Peter in Antioch (2:11-14).
Plainly, Paul considered himself a contemporary of the other apostles36 as well “the Lord’s brothers” (1 Cor. 9:5). Having seen the Lord was a prerequisite for the position of apostle (1 Cor. 9:1; cf. Acts 1:21-22).
Taking these declarations fairly and in a straightforward manner, there are several indications that Paul unquestionably thought of a direct chain from Jesus to the present. Jesus had died recently, as indicated by his resurrection appearances that began three days afterwards to hundreds of persons who were still alive in Paul’s day. Further, not only were Peter and James specifically included in Paul’s list of eyewitnesses, but along with John, they were singled out as apostolic leaders in the early church. James and others are even called the brothers of Jesus.
It is exceptionally difficult to see how anyone could know all this and still agree with Martin: “To be sure, Paul and other earlier epistle writers thought Jesus was crucified and was resurrected. But there is no good evidence that they believed that these events occurred at the beginning of the first century.”37