Jesus
Under Fire
(In response to an e-mail concerning the inerrancy of the scriptures, particularly the Gospels)
Dear
Friend,
I
want to encourage you in your studies and work on this subject! These
questions can be quite intimidating but that is no reason to give up.
Even though there is a substantial amount of critique over the
Gospels and Jesus' life, there is a lot of evidence on our side. I
assure you that what we believe to be true is indeed rational and not
wishful thinking.
First
things first. The Jesus Seminar proves to be bias from the beginning
by filtering whatever research that is done by them through a hyper
critical formula. In 1985 the Jesus Seminar was founded by Robert
Funk and John Dominic Crossan, they meet with a committee to discuss
the authenticity of what Jesus did, said and what was written about
him, (Slick, carm.org). They also deny, despite any given evidence,
the Deity of Christ, the inerrancy of scripture and anything
supernatural including the resurrection, saying that these things
were added to scripture later in history by Jesus' radical followers.
Another
critic about the Jesus Seminar is there flawed voting system; In
their book The
Five Gospels,
the Jesus Seminar used a showing of coloured beads to say what text
is true or not. Based on the color of the bead the text is; possible,
unlikely, not true or made up. Instead of letting the evidence speak
for itself the writers would, despite anything they find, be dogmatic
on what is possible or not.
This
quote from Robert Funk the founder of the Jesus Seminar gives us a
hint of the goal they want to achieve. Robert Funk states ‘We
want to liberate Jesus. The only Jesus people want is the mythic one.
They don’t want the real Jesus. They want one they can worship. The
cultic Jesus’, (Wilkins
and Moreland 2).
The
question of Jesus' historicity is an old one and is still most
relevant for today. The best historical Jesus we can find is recorded
in the four Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But even if we
only look for evidence outside of the bible for Jesus existence and
the life he lead there are still some really convincing documents.
Pliny
the Younger around AD 112 informed us in his letter to Trajan
10.96 ,
not about Jesus but about Christianity, giving us an idea of what the
first Christians believed. Pliny the Younger was asking the emperor
Trajan advice about what to do with the Christians; saying they, the
Christians, would not worship the image of Caesar. Pliny also
described the Christians to “recite a hymn to Christ as to a god”,
(Strauss loc884). This obviously gives us an outside look to some of
the practices of the early church and that they taught Jesus deity.
Flavius
Josuphus is another reliable source, Flavius was a Jewish historian
among many other things and recorded two passages about Jesus. One
referring to Jesus' execution that was brought upon him by the high
priest Ananus, (Strauss loc893). The second and the more famous
passage of the two, known as Testimonium
Flavianum (Testimony of Favius)
records a bold statement about Jesus and who he claimed to be.
Despite the controversy around the authenticity of this text there
has been an Arabic version recently found that is likely closer to
Josephus' original wording, (Strauss loc911). This passage tells us a
list of things about Jesus; first, that there was a man named Jesus,
he was known as a wise man, Jews and others became his disciples, he
was crucified to die under Pilate, it is rumoured that he came back
on the third day and lastly that the movement he started continued to
grow. Based on these two documents alone it is undeniable that Jesus
lived, the next question is; are the gospels that we have in the
cannon reliable? To answer this we start with answering another
question; was Luke a good historian?
Many
critics of the Gospels, including the Jesus Seminar, hold a view
called Burden
of Proof.
This is a very biased position that says that anything said or done
attributed to Jesus is inauthentic unless proven otherwise, (Strauss
loc8893). It is this kind of thinking that lead the Jesus Seminar to
believe that much of the Gospel text is false. This is obviously an
unfair bias to history. The Burden of Proof should be given to the
one that wrote it. On the other hand a General
Reliability
of the text lets the author of the text contest for himself, in this
case Luke. So the question is; was Luke claiming to be a historian?
Opening up the first chapter of Luke it is written in verse three,
'it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for
some time past, to write
an orderly account
for you, most excellent Theophilus,' (ESV). Luke is indeed saying
that he his writing history and that he had 'followed
all things closely'
giving an honest and accurate account of the things that happened.
With
this claim it would only seem fair to base the authenticity of the
Gospel of Luke on the evidence Luke provides. Colin Hemer was a world
credited historian on the writings of Luke and concluded, “that
Luke was a meticulous and reliable historian” (Strauss loc8921).
Luke had an incredible “zeitgeist” (time ghost) he gave an
account of things that only one in his time could know and record
accurately, down to the dot on the 'i'. Luke accurately identifies
governors, leaders, rulers so accurately that in comparison to today
it be if someone was to distinguish the titles like supervisor,
councilor, mayor, governor, senator, representative, speaker of the
house, vice president, and president, (Strauss loc8927). This would
make it right to say that Luke was a good historian and took things
seriously, classifying his writings with a “general reliability”.
This is a belief that if he was precise and accurate in writing these
things than we can presume he was right in other things, making
Luke's gospel a reliable historical document. Sounds great! But does
this count even for miracles?
Miracles
by definition are outside the natural laws of science. It was the
famous work of David Hume (1711-76) which probably led to today’s
skeptic view of miracles. Hume's main argument was “that human
experience confirms the certainty and inviolability of the laws of
nature” (Strauss loc10507). A modern scientist holding this view,
would conclude that any miracle is a mere delusion. This assumption
is held by the Jesus Seminary and the as well as many modern
scientists and skeptics today.
Because
miracles are not so common it would be wrong to not think critically
about them. It would also be wrong to make the assumption that just
because we do not experience them they cannot be true, especially
when there are reliable sources giving evidence of such cases.
Philosophically
speaking the possibility of miracles are not ruled out, especially
when there is no evidence given that would rule out there being
another force outside of the natural laws. Now being good historians
we should approach all miracle accounts with an open but cautious
perspective (Strauss loc10538).
Historically
“as far back as we can trace, Jesus was known and remembered as one
who had extraordinary powers” (Strauss loc10543). Friend or foe
there are historical accounts attributing “magic powers”,to
Jesus, (Strauss loc10560). Some critics of the bible, including the
Jesus Seminar, say that the bible has been changed by the radical
Christians that followed Jesus. It would seem fair to address this in
looking at other ancient documents and look at the parallels linked
between them and Jesus' miracles. In Mark Strauss concludes in Four
Portraits One Jesus
that “the parallels between Jesus miracles and those found in the
writings or stories in His day are unconvincing, making it unlikely
that the church created the Gospel miracle tradition in imitation of
these” (loc1076). If anything, it is more convincing that the first
century miracle accounts were 'borrowed' from the gospel accounts of
Jesus. Jesus miracles were unique to Him and further illustrate His
point in bringing the Kingdom of God. His miracles symbolized the
power of the kingdom over the power of sin and Satan. In
conclusion the only way to “disprove” the miracles of Jesus is to
deny the possibility of them from the beginning.
The
research for these questions are not exhaustive, and I assume that
the critics have a response to everything but this does not excuse us
in our defense of the faith. Let us not succumb to a “blind faith”.
I have once heard someone in the church say that Christianity is just
a “leap of faith” and that “faith is not supposed to make
sense, it is irrational and we just have to believe.” Sadly I
believe if we settle for just “blind faith” eventually it will be
apparent in the way we live. Fortunately we serve a rational God who
provides rational answers.
God
is the author of wisdom, knowledge, and reason. Nowhere found in
scripture are we told to just “jump off a ledge of reason into the
arms of faith.” On the contrary, scripture honours the Jews in
Berea who “examined the
scripture to see if these things were true” (Acts17:11 ESV). And to
“be prepared to make a defense to
anyone that asks for a reason for the hope that is in us.” (1 Peter
3:15 ESV) Further in Acts 17 Paul is described in going into the
synagogues and reasoning,
explaining
and proving
his case for Christ.
All
the italicised words above come with a lot of work behind them. It is
not only meticulous and hard but also the world stands against us in
our proclamation of Christ. The world has a disposition much like the
Jesus Seminary, claiming that the Jesus' claims are false unless
proven otherwise.
Although
this can feel like a daunting task, facing the scholars and
intellectuals of today (or perhaps just friends), we are still none
the less only giving evidence in a finished argument. Jesus has the
final say and fortunately for us most arguments against Jesus' claims
have already been attended to.
I
would encourage you to read the works of William Lane Craig, Ravi
Zacharais, R.C. Sproul and John Lennox, who have fought victoriously
for the faith in these last years. Their work depicts an honest view
of Jesus and his claims. In their debates with skeptics one can
imagine the amount of work that goes into defending the Faith but
also be encouraged with the work that has been done.
Much
of, or perhaps all of our work, will in the end be more beneficial
for ourselves than for the offenders. We are made to reason and have
intelligence, for us to believe in something fictional is against our
true calling and character. People with “false, naive, misinformed
beliefs that help them because they are living in a fantasy world of
their own mental creation and not because the beliefs themselves are
true” (Wilkins 6), leads to a dangerous façade belief-system. This
placebo belief-system could only deteriorate after a given amount of
time. We need something concrete, a good foundation, and it will be
in the reasoning of our faith that will triumph many of life’s
battles.
In
conclusion lets work together under the greatest boss, giving an
honest image of who He is that more people will come to know Him.
Whether the fight be for the existence of God, the reliability of the
Bible or the evidence of salvation in our life let us count it all
joy...
Count
it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for
you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And
let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and
complete, lacking in nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask
God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be
given him
(James 1:3-5 ESV)
Works
Cited
ESV:
Study Bible : English Standard Version. ESV
Text ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Bibles, 2007. Print.
Slick,
Matt. "Jesus Seminar." CARM.
Web. 9 Feb. 2015. <https://carm.org/dictionary-jesus- seminar>.
Strauss,
Mark L. Four
Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2007. Print.
Wilkins,
Michael J. Jesus
under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment