In conclusion, there is a substantial body of data that argues for a historical Jesus who lived early in the first century. We have mentioned a few of the key strands (and we will investigate many others in Chapter 7). Paul knew of Jesus’ disciples and visited with Peter and John. Another acquaintance, James, was the brother of Jesus. Hundreds who had witnessed the risen Jesus were still alive in Paul’s day. Further, the Gospels are written within a time frame that at least raises the possibility of recording much reliable historical information about Jesus. Certain extrabiblical texts record other data about Jesus, as well. Martin’s charges at each of these points involve arguments that strain the limits of reason and even border on credulity.
While we will turn below to a positive case for the historicity of Jesus, we have argued here that the central tenets of Martin’s theses fail to account for the available data at a very basic level. Many of his problems stem from what might be considered, at best, a failure to assess carefully the available evidence on this topic. Along with Wells, one distinctly gets the sense that this thesis is held in the face of myriads of data to the contrary. That the view lacks scholarly appeal (as readily admitted by Martin himself) is not because some scholars are unwilling to embrace such a radical thesis, but that the conclusions are simply unwarranted.
Summary and Conclusion
Surprisingly few scholars have asserted that Jesus never existed or have attempted to cast almost total doubt on his life and ministry. When such efforts have occurred, they have been met by rare outcries from the scholarly community.60 We have seen that these attempts are refuted at almost every turn by the early and eyewitness testimony presented by Paul and others, as well as by the early date of the Gospels. Such evidence caused Charlesworth to conclude specifically concerning Wells’ position: “Many solid arguments can be presented against such distortions and polemics.”61
1Rudolf Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” in Form Criticism, transl. by Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), p. 60.
2Wells’ thesis is set forth in several writings, such as: Did Jesus Exist? (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1975); The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1982); “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pontius Pilate? Did He Even Live at All?” The Humanist, vol. XXXVIII, no. 1, January-February, 1978, pp. 22-27.
3Wells, “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate?” pp. 22, 25. Details are included in Did Jesus Exist?, chapter 5.
4Besides his discussion in Did Jesus Exist?, cf. “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate?” pp. 24, 26.
5Wells, “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate?” pp. 22, 24-26.
6This text is so important and figures so prominently in contemporary critical discussions, that we will devote a lengthy portion of chapter 7 to the subject. Here we will only be able to hint at some of the relevant details. The reader interested in some of the more scholarly particulars should consult the later chapter.
7For example, after providing arguments for the trustworthiness of this information, Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide declares that this formula “may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses.” See his volume, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982), pp. 97-99.
8Wells, “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate?” pp. 24-25.
9Some scholars favor interpreting “on the third day” in 1 Cor. 15:4 in other than literal terms. For an in-depth explanation and critique of such an option, see William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Lewiston: Mellen, 1989), pp. 94-115. However, it should be noted carefully here that, in spite of the serious problems with such interpretations, and regardless of the view one takes, Wells would still have other major problems. As we have seen, Paul personally spoke to Peter and other apostles, and most of the 500 witnesses were still alive when Paul wrote. Additionally, Paul also knew James, the brother of Jesus. It is not surprising that it is clear to the vast majority of interpreters that Paul thought of Jesus’ appearances as having occurred very soon after his death and certainly contemporaneously with his own life.
10Wells, “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate?” pp. 24-25; also Did Jesus Exist?, chapter 5.
11Matt. 12:46-47; Mark 3:31-32; Luke 8:19-20; John 7:5.
12Josephus, Antiquities 20:9.1.
13For one list, see Amedee Brunot, “The Gospel Before the Gospels,” The Sources for the Life of Christ, ed. by Henri Daniel-Rops, transl. by P.J. Hepburne-Scott (New York: Hawthorn, 1962), pp. 110-114; cf. pp. 114f.
14Pannenberg, Jesus — God and Man, p. 91.
15Otto Pfleiderer, The Early Christian Conception of Christ: Its Significance and Value in the History of Religion (London: Williams and Norgate, 1905), pp. 157-158; cf. pp. 77-78, 102.
16Ibid., pp. 153-154, 159.
17Compare Wells, “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate” p. 24 with Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), especially pp. 18-19.
18Metzger, Historical and Literary, pp. 11, 20-22; cf. Edwin Yamauchi, “Easter — Myth, Hallucination, or History?” Christianity Today, vol. XVIII, no. 12, March 15, 1974, pp. 4-7 and vol. XVIII, no. 13, March 29, 1974, pp. 12-16.
19Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner’s, 1977), p. 199.
20Examples include Metzger, Historical and Literary (p. 7) and Pannenberg, Jesus — God and Man (p. 91).
21Donald Guthrie surveys the recent state of Gospel studies on this issue, in his New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), pp. 53-56, 84-89, 125-131, 297-303.
22Grant, Jesus: an Historian’s Review, pp. 183-189.
23Wells, “Was Jesus Crucified Under Pilate?” p. 26.
24See Appendix 1 on the nature of historical methodology.
25Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, pp. 199-200.
26Cf. John Drane, Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986), chapter 12; Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977); Robert M. Grant, An Historical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Collins, 1963); Henri Daniel-Rops in Daniel-Rops, ed., Sources; Archibald Hunter, Introducing the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957).
27These subjects will be addressed further in chapter 5 below.
28Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1991), chapter 2.
29Ibid., pp. 59, 65, 85, 90-91, 95-96.
30Ibid., p. 37. Martin concludes: “Wells’s argument against the historicity of Jesus is sound . . . .” (p. 67).
31Ibid., p. 67.
32Ibid., p. 59.
33Ibid., p. 85; cf. pp. 65, 67.
34Ibid., pp. 95-96.
35Ibid., pp. 53, 85.
36See Rom. 16:7; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 2 Cor. 11:4-5; 12:11; 1 Thess. 2:4-7.