Is the NT Reliable? Part 4: Historiography
What follows is a continuation of a talk I gave at RTS Washington’s Sed Contra series. The series of is intended to be a casual space for conversation about difficult or controversial topics. Since I decided to write up my presentation “conference style,” I thought I’d chop it up into bits and post it on the blog. Here’s part 4 (and links for the other parts should appear above).
Introduction
These reflections bring us, then, to our last issue under the “general” reliability of the NT, its historical reliability. As with the previous topics, there are too many particular issues to consider here to handle one by one. Critics are found of mentioning the two temple cleansings, or the problems with the speeches in Acts, or seeming contradictions when it comes to dates or wording or causes. There are answers to these dilemmas, but it bears repeating that we don’t need to answer these questions in order to establish the general reliability of NT historiography.
So here we make our case as a whole, and our case as a whole is fairly straightforward. What needs to be true for the NT to be historically reliable? We can answer this question by reference to our previous reflections on the common creed of NT religion. The faith of Christianity depends on the matters summarily described in the Apostle’s Creed. We need to establish that a man named Jesus lived, claimed to be anointed by God as his divine Son for the salvation of Israel, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, that he died and was buried, and was risen from the dead.
We need not spend much time on a number of these claims. That Jesus of Nazareth lived is not under serious dispute. That he claimed to be a Jewish Messiah is likewise not under dispute. That he died is obvious, and that he died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is likewise well documented inside and outside the NT. The matters of dispute are (1) that he claimed to be God’s (divine) son and (2) that he was raised from the dead. Let’s take each of these in turn.
The Claim to be God
First, then, that he claimed to be one with the Father—not just Messiah (no one seriously disputes that any more), but preexistent Son. We could take the NT as sufficient witness that he claimed such of himself. After all, John certainly believes this to be the case, putting frequently into the mouth of Jesus explicit teaching that he and the Father are one (John 14-17). Likewise, Paul affirms the eternal deity of Jesus (Phil. 2:5-11), and as we will see in a moment he likely believed that Jesus made such a claim even before he believed it himself. We can easily make the argument from Hebrews as well (1:1-5), alongside 2 Peter (1:15ff) and Jude (1:5). What is more, while an older generation of scholarship argued that the idea of preexistent sonship was lacking in earlier NT works, such as Matthew and Mark, the evidence presented by contemporary scholars such as Gathercole and Bauckham sufficiently discredits that hypothesis. And, well, that’s the entire NT accounted for, with the one exception of James. If the NT is admissible as evidence, then we have a plurality of witnesses claiming that Jesus claimed to be the preexistent Son of God.
But let us reject all of this testimony, some of which is eyewitness testimony, and ask if such a claim—the claim that Jesus claimed to be God—is warranted and believable apart from NT evidence. The crucifixion, which again is not a matter of dispute, is itself sufficient evidence. Let us ask this question: why did the Judean leadership, the High Priests and governors, feel it necessary to crucify this man Jesus? The Romans, of course, have good reason to crucify him if he’s at the head of a rebellion and claiming to be a king, but what of the Judeans? On what grounds? Jesus’ claim to be Messiah is not, in and of itself, sufficient; such a claim was not uncommon and is easily outsourced to Roman justice. There’s something unique about Jesus, and it seems to be his enormous and unignorable popularity and infamy. One does not obtain this level of notoriety–the kind of renown that requires a response–as an ordinary wisdom teacher. It’s not the call to love that engenders this level of jealousy, nor the call to obedience or sacrifice; it’s his claims that he is “greater than Moses” (Matt. 5-7), that he is greater than the temple, that “before Abraham was I am” (John 9), that he has the authority to forgive sins and pronounce judgement and speak for God (Mark 2). We cannot escape these claims in the teaching of the Jesus, even on the most minimalist reading of the Gospel witness. These claims are embedded in everything he says and does, and it is precisely these claims that make him, as N. T. Wright puts it, “crucifiable” by both Judean and Gentile alike. To the Romans he was just a poor fool, not worthy of a fair trial; to the Sanhedrin he was a blasphemer, worthy only of death.
The Resurrection
Which brings us to the elephant in the room, the most unbelievable thing: the resurrection. Surely this is mythological fancy? Surely this is the belief of primitive and superstitious men, desperate to believe anything after the death of their Rabbi and mentor?
Yet that does not fit the evidence. The Gospels do not read like mythology. Luke (and the other Gospel writers), as Bauckham has pointed out, is particularly careful to includes sources in his documentary. He dates events. He provides names of eyewitnesses. He adds in unnecessary details like travel itineraries and historical markers and background information. He includes, to put it in a word, material that is falsifiable and, strictly speaking, unnecessary. These things can be proven not true. He does not place the stories about Jesus or his resurrection into a mythological realm (as mythology does); he does not put it behind a veil that only the eyes of faith are able to see (as the Gnostic gospels do); he does not treat the miracles of Jesus or his resurrection from the dead as something normal and ordinary and magical. On the contrary, it is both real and weird.
Neither the Judeans nor the Greeks are dumb. They do not believe that men rise from the grave. They are skeptical about the miraculous, just like us. They trust their eyes and ears, just like us. They are inquisitive and thoughtful and calculated and reasonable, just like (many of) us. And yet hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands believed. Why? One very reasonable explanation: because they saw Jesus after he died. Because when he was raised Jesus did not appear privately to one individual, but publicly before crowds of his former followers. Because after he was raised many remembered his miracles and his claims, and now, given they resurrection, were forced to believe that what he claimed about himself must have been true (which seems to be Paul’s story). Because there was a great crowd of witnesses that both the faithful and the skeptic could interrogate about what really happened, and not a few of them found their testimony compelling. The most reasonable explanation for why so many people believed that the resurrection happened is that the resurrection happened.
A Unique Challenge
It’s worth noting before concluding that this need of orthodox Christianity to establish the general truthfulness of the Biblical testimony is a unique challenge for our religion. Other religions do not have this problem. Other religions don’t need to spend much time arguing about historical claims because other religions don’t stand or fall on this or that event in space and time. Other religions are centered on ideas, or on experiences, or the present-tense of divine intervention. For us, however, the words of Paul appropriately describe the stakes.
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
1 Cor. 15:17-19
For Christians, theology and history are inextricably linked. Our theology and our way of life is described precisely in terms of what happened. What is the solution to human suffering? That God came down to share in that suffering and obtain the victory over it. Where do I go to deal with my guilt and shame? To the resurrection of Jesus, where our Lord was justified, vindicated, and glorified. How should I live my life? What is the path of human flourishing? To take up your cross, with an assured hope of glory, in imitation of the life of Jesus. Who Jesus was, what he did, how he died, and that he was raised are the core of our faith; “if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules reknit, the amino acids rekindle, the Church will fall” (John Updike). Or, back to Paul: “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20).
Conclusion, and a Reading Strategy
In sum, if we are to judge the NT by the ordinary standards of reliability, we must conclude that it meets them. That is not to say you can’t come up with another explanation of what really happened; that is perfectly within your rights. But it does mean that something happened, and the something that happened was momentous enough to turn the whole world upside down, and it was verifiable enough that ordinary people were compelled to believe it. The NT presents a compelling explanation of what happened and, what is more, bears all the marks of reliable testimony.
So, we are now at a turning point in our argument. We are about to turn to the “hard” problem, and don’t worry, it’s much shorter. But before we do, I would like to suggest to the skeptic a reading strategy. If there is compelling evidence that we should receive the NT documents as generally reliable, then I would suggest reading them “as if” they were true. This is what we call “charitable” reading, so I’m not asking for special treatment here. We should read all claims charitably, which is best done when we immerse ourself in the reading, looking at our world through the lens it presents to us, trying to think the thoughts of its author, all before we then subject the claim to scrutiny.
