Finding our Way Through the Fog (Part 6)
As we have seen in previous articles in this web series, leading New Testament scholar Dale Allison is among those who believe that we simply do not have enough evidence on hand to be able to decide with any confidence whether Jesus really said or did many of the particular things that the gospels claim. Our “search” for the historical Jesus, therefore, is liable to be a largely fruitless one.
On the other hand, he recommends that historians caught up in the debate over the factual accuracy of particular gospel passages stop “missing the forest for all the trees,” so to speak. In other words, rather than engage in debates about particular gospel stories based on minimal evidence, Allison argues that the best approach is to look at the “big picture,” the broad sweep of general impressions that Jesus made on his contemporaries. Early consensus testimony about the kinds of things that Jesus is alleged to have said and done are very likely to be trustworthy:
With regard to the sources for Jesus, the traditional criteria of authenticity privilege the parts over the whole. It seems more prudent to privilege generalizations drawn from the whole than to concentrate upon one individual item after another. … In order for us to find Jesus our sources must often remember at least the sorts of things he did and the sorts of things he said, including what he said about himself. If the repeating patterns do not catch Jesus, how can he not forever escape us? ... Although this conclusion is, from what one point of view, what one might consider conservative, from another, it is not. I remain skeptical that we can very often show that any particular saying or story goes back to Jesus or does not go back to him. We need to quit pretending to do what we cannot do. (pp. 62 and 66)
In part, Allison’s recommended method here is just a matter of common sense, and it has been used to good effect before him (e.g. by John Wenham in Christ and the Bible. Guildford, Surrey: Eagle, 1993). Unfortunately, Allison does not take his method far enough: he fails to apply it to the probability issues regarding the particular things that Jesus is alleged to have said and done by the gospel writers. After all, if we can state with some degree of confidence the general kinds of things that Jesus did and taught, then that provides us with a strong probability that a particular account that fits the general type is more likely to be accurate.
Moreover, we need to step back even further than Allison does from the particular gospel stories. Does the general manner in which these accounts as a whole are presented in the gospels, and the historical circumstances in which they were initially and (for a few decades orally) preserved in the church prior to the writing of the gospels, encourage us to treat these accounts with respect as historical reportage? If so, then we have further, strong probability for the general reliability of the gospel accounts, even before we start to consider particular passages about particular events.
In the light of all of this advance work, doubts about the historical reportage value of many of the particular stories in the New Testament may begin to melt away. We may not need a great deal of evidence to justify each gospel account on its own, just because the initial probability of the general reliability of most of them will already have been shown to be so high.
In short, to escape the unfair “hermeneutic of suspicion” (that we discussed in article five of this series) we can adopt the following method in our historical Jesus research.
A. Start with open and fair philosophical presuppositions
You want to undertake your research, and view the historical evidence, with the help of the most reasonable philosophical “lens” that you can find. I would suggest here that the long tradition of philosophical “realism” (i.e., to some extent we can really know about the world beyond our own minds and subjective perceptions) as expounded in various ways by classical philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, or in new ways by contemporary Analytical Theist philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne, and William Lane Craig — these will provide us with the best framework for giving the testimony about Jesus of Nazareth a fair “hearing.” Almost all of them taught that philosophy can demonstrate the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and transcendent Creator God — the same kind of God that Jesus himself, and the disciples who wrote the gospels, actually believed in. This makes it at least possible that all of the other things that Jesus’ disciples claimed that he said and did in the name of this God might be true. Rest assured that by starting with this presupposition, you will not be prejudging the historical issues, or turning yourself into a Christian in advance. After all, there are many who believe in God who are not at all convinced that Jesus is his Son or the Savior of the world (Jews, Muslims, and many philosophical theists and deists, for example). But you will at least be giving the apostolic testimony a chance. If you find that you cannot in good conscience start there, then at least do not presuppose a kind of philosophy that “rules out of court” the apostolic testimony right from the start, a kind of ideology that makes you impervious to the real, hard evidence on hand.
B. Adhere to the basic principles of all sound historical research: for example, the presumed innocence and veracity of witnesses in a position to know what really happened.
In other words, the benefit of the doubt is given to eyewitness and close-to-eyewitness testimony, unless good reason can be given to show that such witnesses must have been lying or fabricating legends.
C. Acknowledge the relative closeness of at least the synoptic gospel writers to direct eyewitness testimony concerning the life of Jesus.
All three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written not more than 50 years after the death of Jesus — and arguably within 30 years of his death: in any case, within the lifetimes of many who had heard and seen Jesus in person. This gives us better access to the facts about the life of Jesus than to the facts about the life of any other figure of the ancient world.
D. Acknowledge the biographical intent of the Gospel writers
It was not their only intent, to be sure — they wanted to proclaim to their readers of the “good news” about Jesus Christ as Messiah, Son of God, and Savior of the world — but they evidently based this “good news” on “the things that have happened among us” (see Lk 1:1-4).
E. Make a general reckoning of the “kinds of things” that Jesus said and did based on these generally reliable gospel accounts.
For example, Jesus preached about the Kingdom, called God his “Father,” and healed many who were sick merely by command and or by touch of his hand (healing miracles) — there are a multitude of gospel passages and testimonies to each of these “kinds of things” that Jesus did — even before you begin to look at the evidence for any individual passage or episode. Any passage or episode that fits with the well-attested kinds of things he is reported to have done is more likely to be historically accurate.
F. Then evaluate the evidence for individual events/episodes in the gospel stories in the light of all of the above, and by applying the following additional, standard New Testament historical criteria:
Embarrassment: a story about Jesus is more likely to be historically true if it contains details potentially embarrassing to the early Christian community (because it is just not likely that the early Christians and gospel writers would have “made up” such a story): e.g., that women were the first ones to find the empty tomb, or that Jesus was baptized by John in the River Jordan.
Dissimilarity: a story that has no clear parallel either in ancient pagan or in ancient Jewish literature is more likely to be true, simply because it could not possibly have been borrowed and adapted from these sources. For example, the fact that Jesus called God “Abba, Father.
Multiple Attestation: a story that is attested in several gospels is more likely to be true than one attested in just one gospel — the principle of multiple witnesses. For example, the miracle of the Feeding of the Multitudes occurs in all four gospels. But remember that “gospels” are selective biographies: the writers did not intend to tell you everything known to them that Jesus said and did (e.g., see John 21:25)
Coherence: If a story fits well with other things that Jesus is known to have said or done, it is more likely to be true. For example, the Parable of the Prodigal Son, although attested in only one gospel (St. Luke’s) fits well with Jesus’ known teachings about the merciful love of God, and his characteristic “parabolic” style.
Enemy Attestation: If even the enemies of the early Christians agree on a historical fact about the life of Jesus, then it is highly likely to be true. For example, even the Jews admitted that the tomb of Jesus was found to be empty on Easter morning; they simply attributed this to an act of theft on the part of the apostles, rather than to the miracle of the resurrection. But the fact of the empty tomb itself was accepted on all sides.
Palestinian Jewish setting: a gospel story can hardly be fully accurate if it contradicts what we know from other sources (e.g., archeology) about the ancient geography and culture of Palestine. For example, the Parable of the Good Samaritan fits with what we know about the route from Jerusalem to Jericho in Jesus’ day. The Healing of the Centurion’s servant is probable based on what we know of the existence of “righteous Gentiles” in the ancient world in Jesus’ day.
A particular gospel story does not have to manifest all or even most of these criteria in order to be seen as largely accurate, but it does need to manifest some of them, and a contradiction of the fourth and sixth criteria would give us considerable grounds for doubting the historical reportage value of the account.
In short, following a method such as this in historical Jesus research will lead us to evaluate the historical reportage value of particular gospel accounts in a more judicious manner. It cannot help but dispel the inequitable “hermeneutic of suspicion” that has corroded the academic quest for the historical Jesus for so long, and undermined the Christian Faith of so many.
Again, this does not mean that those who follow such a method can neatly or easily sweep away all reasonable doubt about any and every gospel account. For example, did Jesus really pull a coin out of the mouth of a fish? Only Matthew tells us so, and it hardly fits with the pattern of most of his miraculous deeds: it is not in line with the kind of things he generally did. Did he really send a mob of demons into a herd of swine, who then committed mass suicide by running over a cliff? The place called Gerasa where this was alleged to have taken place has never really been found, and again, it does not fit with the style of the other exorcisms performed by Jesus; besides, it was hardly fair to the owner of the pigs. If Peter really attempted by faith to walk on water at the invitation of Jesus, it is not easy to understand why only Matthew relates this remarkable aspect of the walking-on-water story. Similarly, as Allison points out, if “many” corpses of devout Jews really rose from the grave at the time of the crucifixion of Jesus and “appeared to many,” as Matthew tells us (Mt 27:54), it is a bit hard to understand why none of the other gospel or New Testament writers mention this extraordinary fact: one would have thought that it would have become an important part of the earliest Christian apologetics and evangelism. Perhaps we do see in the gospels just the beginning of the process of the formation of “haggadic fiction” about the life of Jesus (and not surprisingly, most often in St. Matthew’s gospel, which is the one most steeped in Jewish literary tradition).
Then there are the discrepancies between the gospel accounts, some of which cannot easily be explained away.
For example, in the story of the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem in Matthews’s gospel, Jesus rides into the city on two donkeys, in fulfilment of a prophecy that might be interpreted to mean two, whereas Mark and Luke mention only one donkey.
In the story of Jesus walking on the water, Mark tells us at the end that the disciples were utterly “astounded”, because they had not understood what Christ’s feeding of the multitudes meant, and therefore their hearts were “hardened,” so that they were also unable to grasp the meaning of his walking on the water (Mk 6:51). In Matthew’s account of the same incident, however, the apostles respond to Jesus walking on the water by “worshipping” him and saying “Truly, you are the Son of God” (Mt 14:33).
Moreover, how did Judas actually die after betraying Jesus? — the gospel writers do not seem to agree on the details of his suicide. And how many times was the cock supposed to crow before Peter denied Jesus three times on the night of his arrest? And what did Jesus say before the Jewish high court that led to his condemnation for blasphemy? And what did the Roman centurion at the foot of the cross actually say the moment after Jesus died? Again, there are discrepancies between the gospel accounts. And how many women actually came and found the tomb empty on Easter morning, and which ones came? And how many angels did they see at the tomb? And did they immediately run back and tell the apostles what they had found — or did they keep it to themselves at first? Again, gospel reports of these incidents are not easy to harmonize in every detail.
In short, historical research always deals with probabilities, and sometimes the probabilities do not line up in favour of the historical reportage value of the details of some of the gospel accounts, even when no “hermeneutic of suspicion” is employed.
But two things to bear in mind here.
First, notice that almost all of these seeming historical “errors” in the gospel accounts concern matters of minor importance. As we shall see, the main story line of the gospels, and the main events of the life of Jesus are historically well founded.
Second, to say that there are historical difficulties and improbabilities regarding some of the gospel accounts is not to establish with certainty that they are in error. On historical grounds alone, it may still be possible (although not probable) that the accounts are accurate.
In fact, one may have other (and arguably reasonable) grounds for over-riding one’s doubts even in difficult cases, but those grounds would arise partially from theological commitments rather than strictly historical ones. For example, if you believe Jesus was the divine Son of God incarnate, and you find evidence that he made promises to his apostles of the extraordinary guidance of the Holy Spirit, then this might insure that the apostolic testimony recorded in the New Testament cannot contain historical “errors,” nor any devout embellishments of historical facts. Initially improbable harmonisations of discrepancies between the gospel accounts begin to look a lot more probable from this vantage point. Such theological commitments, however, would not fall within the purview of historical Jesus research alone, and are therefore not our concern here.
All this serves to remind us, however, of something important: that historical research is not necessarily the only way to seek for the truth about Jesus of Nazareth. Divine revelation given to the apostles, and personal and corporate religious experience of Jesus in prayer and worship — all these can have their place as well. As long as these extra-historical sources do not blatantly contradict what solid historical research can tell us, and as long as the historical evidence is found at least to suggest what these extra sources tell us, then we are simply creating a harmonious mosaic of the truth about Jesus from a variety of angles, with a variety of tools, and not just those of the historian. Chances are that such a multi-faceted approach can give us a true picture of Jesus of Nazareth that far surpasses what any one of these angles can do on its own.
Next Time: What is a “Gospel”?
Robert Stackpole, STD
© The Mere Christian Fellowship, 2017
