SOURCE CRITICISM IN THE SEARCH FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS
A Paper
Submitted to Dr. Peter Kendrick
of the
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Course
Systematic Theology I: THEO5300
In the division of Christian Theology
Christopher C. Robinson
B.S., Leavell College, 2008
November 8, 2010
1
Introduction
Who was Jesus Christ? This question has been an important one for thousands of years.
For orthodox Christians he is not only the founder of a religion but God incarnate and the only
hope of the world. Others see him as a great teacher, a prophet, a mythological figure, or even a
fraud. The answer to just who Jesus was is important to everyone because whoever he was he
arguably influenced the world more than any other single human being. His followers grew
from a tiny group in an already small Judaism into the massive, history shaping religion that is
Christianity. Historians long divided time by the year he was born and 2,000 years after his
death people still worship him as God. This Jesus that they call Christ is a figure worth
understanding regardless of one’s religious convictions.
For Christians, understanding who Jesus was is even more important. Christians claim
Jesus as their lord and savior. If Jesus is one’s lord then knowing what Jesus taught matters
quite a bit. If Jesus is one’s savior then his existence is of the utmost importance. There has been
much debate about who Jesus was and what he was about. Scholars have searched for the
“historical Jesus” in an attempt to describe just who Jesus the man who walked on the earth
was. Atheists, agnostics, and Christians alike have undertaken the task of describing what the
life and teachings of the Jesus from history must have been like. Within Christianity today, the
search for the historical Jesus is primarily conducted by attempting to examine the Gospels—the
stories of Jesus’ life and teachings found in the Bible—in order to determine which parts of
these Gospels portray an accurate picture of the Jesus from history. Using various methods of
higher textual criticism, christian scholars attempt to decide which passages in the Gospels
came from hypothetical pre-Gospel documents. These hypothetical reconstructions of pre-
Gospel documents are then used to decide which of the passages listed in the Gospels were
actually said by Jesus. This seems like a rather enlightening process but in fact it suffers from a
few fatal flaws that render the results useless. These flaws include: the blatant misuse of source
and form criticism, the naturalistic presupposition that moves scholars to use this criticism and
skews the results they achieve, and the complete incoherence that results when the “historical
Jesus” these methods find is placed within history. Modern scholars will never actually find the
2
historical Jesus using higher textual criticism as it has been used in recent scholarship.
Delimit
This work will focus on the dangers and failures of higher textual criticism as it has been
applied in the recent quests for the historical Jesus. The purpose is to demonstrate the
unfeasibility of using source, form, and redaction criticism as they have recently been applied to
find an accurate picture of the historical Jesus. The legitimacy of higher criticism as a critical
tool will not be discussed outside the context of current historical Jesus scholarship; the focus is
not on the tool itself but on its use by modern scholars in the search for the historical Jesus. The
focus will be on scholars that would consider themselves within the realm of Christianity:
Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar, even N.T. Wright, and scholars in their likeness. The term “source
criticism” will be used in lieu of the unwieldy term higher textual criticism to refer to the use of
source, form, and redaction criticism throughout this work.1 Individual passages will not be
discussed as space limitations prevent the adequate examination of even one passage.
History of the Search for the Historical Jesus
The beginning of the modern day quest to find the historical Christ began in the 18th
century with a man named Hermann Reimarus.2 Reimarus argued that the aim of Jesus and his
disciples was to build a worldly kingdom and that the crucifixion was the result of a failed
hostile takeover of the Jewish leadership.3 The disciples of Jesus, having devoted too much
effort to the movement to abandon it, then fabricated the idea that Jesus had to die as a Savior
and wrote entire basis of Christianity back onto the life of Jesus in the form of the Gospels.4
Following Remairus there were quite a few attempts to combine rationalistic and religious
1 Both the unwieldy nature of the term higher textual criticism and the combinations of source, form, and redaction criticism that make up the majority of the historical Jesus research today make it useful to use this liberal definition of the term “source criticism.” No term exactly matches the efforts being made but form and redaction criticism as applied in the search for the historical Jesus fit under the general heading of attempting to find the original source. (The goal of the quest is to determine whether the original source was Jesus or not.) Unless specified “source criticism” will refer to the use of source, form, and redaction criticism in an attempt to discover the historical Jesus from within or behind the Gospels. For a discussion of the required overlap between disciplines see D.A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 152-60.
2 Albert Schweitzer. The Quest for the Historical Jesus (New York: Collier Books, 1968), 13-14.
3 G.E. Lessing, Fragments from Reimarus (London: Weirtheimer, Lea, and Co, 1879), 27. 4 Ibid., 29.
3
viewpoints to compose books about the life of Jesus. These varied in their opinions about the
historicity of the life of Jesus found in the Gospels, but in general, as time progressed these
writers were more aggressive in their attempts to prove that the miracles could be explained in
non-miraculous, rational ways.5 A change in the approach to finding the historical Jesus
occurred when David Strauss composed his own life of Jesus. First published in 1835 the book
worked from a completely different ideology than any previous author.6 Strauss, unlike those
before him, was willing to put the miraculous accounts described in the Gospels into the
category of myth.7 For Strauss, the previous attempts to explain the miracles as natural events
were misguided; the events themselves were written into the life of Jesus in order to portray
Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.8 According to Strauss, this happened primarily unconsciously on
the part of the authors but conscious addition of myth was also involved.9 Unlike many of his
predecessors, Strauss was not trying to explain the events in the Bible using his reason; he
doubted that the events in the Bible actually occurred. The previous debates had been primarily
about how to interpret the Gospels as they were written; Strauss attempted to interpret how the
Gospels were written based on his understanding of the events.
In the late eighteenth century the beginnings of the foundation for the modern search for
the historical Jesus were laid in the quest to solve a different problem. The majority of the
information available about the life of Jesus and his teaching comes from the four books in the
New Testament known as the Gospels. Entitled Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, these books
are all about the life of the same person so they understandably have many similarities. John is
the most dissimilar of the books; it uses different language and seems more focused on the
spiritual interpretation of the life of Jesus than the other three books. John’s dissimilarity is
made much more apparent because of how much the other three Gospels have in common. At
times they actually have exactly the same text and when they do not most of the material has a
5 Schweitzer, 9-11. 6 Ibid., 78. 7 David Friedrich Strauss, The Life of Jesus for the People (London: C. Green and son, 1879), 201.
8 Ibid., 206-7.
9 Ibid., 210.
4
close parallel.10 The question of the source of the similarities and the differences between these
three Gospels has been called the “synoptic problem.” The study of this problem has a long
history; the most important development for the current discussion is the idea of a document
containing source material for the Gospels that existed before the Gospels and was a source the
Gospel writers used in their composition. Generally called Q, this hypothetical document was
used in the composition of the Gospels as they stand today. The existence of such a document is
used to explain the similarities between the Gospels and also allows room for the differences.11
A large part of the modern scholarship that goes on in the quest to find the real Jesus
occurs in the field of source criticism. Scholars compare the sayings of the Gospels and attempt
to reconstruct Q and sometimes other hypothetical pre-Gospel documents and decide which
document individual passages originated in.12 The passages attributed to these pre-Gospel
documents are treated as more likely to represent the historical Jesus. The Jesus Seminar took
this idea a step further and view the Gospels as secondhand sources and therefore as hearsay
evidence that cannot be taken at face value.13 Scholars have developed a multitude of different
criteria to decide which passages are actually from the historical Jesus. This search is not limited
to the canonical Gospels; modern scholars often include the Gospel of Thomas in their attempt
to reconstruct what Jesus said. This gnostic Gospel was discovered in 1945 and is interpreted by
the Jesus Seminar and others like them in the same way the canonical Gospels are, and is
treated as having just as much authority.14 The Gospel of John, due both to its difference from
the synoptics and Thomas and its focus on the miraculous, eschatological, and heavenly side of
Jesus’ teaching, is almost completely denied by the overwhelming majority of modern historical
10 D.A. Carson, Moo, J. Douglas, and Morris, Leon, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 19.
. 11 William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis (New York: Macmillan Company,
1964), 36-47. 12 Robert W. Funk, Hoover, Roy W., and the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the
Authentic Words of Jesus (New York: Macmillan Company, 1993), 12. 13 Ibid., 16.
14 Ibid., 15.
5
Jesus scholars.15
The Historical Jesus Today
So what is the consensus opinion among those searching for the historical Jesus today
about what Jesus taught about himself and his purpose? Even a cursory glance at the available
material will reveal that there is no consensus to be found. The quest to find out who Jesus was
has led people to “discover” a Jesus who was a Hebrew revolutionary trying to rule in
Jerusalem, a teacher who taught decidedly un-Jewish things, and a Jewish teacher who taught
in the context of first century Judaism.16 One main point of consensus among those within the
quest for the historical Jesus today is the acceptance that Jesus must be found outside the
description found in a plain reading of the Gospels; the vast majority of scholarship operates
within the realm of source criticism in an attempt to find a historical Jesus within or behind the
picture of Jesus presented in the Gospels.
The Real Jesus
The Problem with Source Criticism
The first step in understanding just what Jesus said in the light of the thousands of
voices claiming to have found the true historical Jesus is to examine modern source criticism
and the problems and dangers that come with it. Reading almost any text purporting to have
found the historical Jesus will reveal an assumption of mistrust of the text of the Bible. A variety
of levels of mistrust and reasons for mistrust will be found but at the heart of the question is the
assumption that one must examine the Gospels and other texts available and determine which
parts of them are true. The focus of this work is on the source critical method used by many
scholars. The assumption of mistrust behind the majority of the current use of this method
should be apparent; it is obvious that the assumption of an enterprise designed to find the
“truth behind” the Gospels is that the Gospels are not true. This highlights the fundamental
problem with source criticism as it is applied to the Gospels among historical Jesus scholars.
The only source of information we have about the details of Jesus life and ministry
15 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, 10.
16 N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 4.
6
comes from the Gospels.17 Supporting information can be found in extra-biblical sources but
nothing detailed enough to even begin to reconstruct who Jesus was has been found.
Information about Jesus is also present in the rest of the New Testament. This information is
focused primarily on the existence of the death and resurrection and their theological effects.
The purpose of these documents is not to recount the life or teachings of Jesus. A reconstruction
of the life of Jesus from these sources is not feasible. If the primary source of understanding
about who Jesus was comes from the Gospels and the Gospels cannot be trusted then it seems
that finding out who Jesus was is impossible. This is where source criticism enters the equation.
If the Gospels cannot be trusted as they are then perhaps some truth can be gleaned by
attempting to discover the form and contents of the pre-Gospel documents. This has led many,
Bultmann is the obvious example, to attempt to strip the Gospels of their religious nature which
is viewed as compromising their historicity.18 The validity of this attempt to remove religious
language will be discussed below. The focus here is on the practice of source criticism itself and
the difficulties that come with its current use when applied to the Gospels.
Source criticism in the Gospels is not an exact science. It cannot be. The only real
information available with regards to previous forms of the Gospels comes from within the
Gospels themselves. The imprecise nature of the entire proceeding can easily be seen in the fact
that the one almost undisputed pre-Gospel document, Q, has absolutely no physical evidence to
support it. 19 This document, accepted as one of the “pillars of scholarly wisdom” by the Jesus
Seminar who argue that “empirical, factual evidence” is the controlling factor in making
judgments, has only theoretical evidence to support it.20 Whether Q is real or not, this
acceptance demonstrates the large margin for error present within Gospel source criticism
today. The “sources” in question have never been seen, read, or decisively proven. The entire
17 Martin Kahler, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988), 48.
18 Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 370-1.
19 Funk, Hoover and the Jesus Seminar, 12-3. 20 Ibid., 13, 35.
7
effort of the Jesus Seminar is to decide which parts of the Gospels they have and can read might
fit into the document they argue exists.21 The valid parts of source criticism, such as attempting
to understand the length of time that the Gospels stayed in oral form, how the theology of the
early church affected the Gospels and even what the first documents contained, suffer from this
same weakness. The only documents actually available are the Gospels in their final form.22
Barring the physical discovery of new manuscripts every source critical statement has its basis
only in the land of the hypothetical.
This is not to demolish source criticism as a practice but simply to point out that the
practice is not exact. This can be seen from the extreme disparity of viewpoints extolled by the
members of the Jesus Seminar.23 Scholars within a single group use the same method to confirm
viewpoints quite different from each other. One reason for this is the relative obscurity of the
very early Christian community. While there are descriptions in the Bible of a church primarily
made up of Hebrew Christians gradually adding more and more Gentile Christians this picture
does not serve the interests of many historical Jesus theories. In lieu of the acceptance of this
picture many different groups have been theorized in order to explain the Gospels. A quick
survey reveals arguments for the existence of a large group of very early Gnostic Christians, a
sharp distinction between Palestinian and Hellenistic Jewish Christians, and groups of
Christians containing various mixes of paganism, Gnosticism, Hellenism, and Judaism. 24 There
is not enough evidence to disprove these groups so their existence is often argued in order to
explain a particular passage that seems to appear a bit too early for the traditional
understanding of the spread of Christianity in order to comply with a scholar’s argument for
who Jesus was. This reliance on theoretical communities to explain the theoretical existence of
theoretical documents does not necessarily make those arguing incorrect. It does, however,
21 It should be noted that the existence of Q should in fact be a part of their argument instead of a pillar of scholarly wisdom; the seminar’s ‘pillars’ often have this problem.
22 John W. Drane, “Patters of Evangelization in Paul and Jesus,” in Jesus of Nazareth Lord and
Christ, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1994), 282-3. 23 Alan H. Brehm, “Will the Real Jesus Please Stand? Evaluating the ‘Third Quest of the Historical
Jesus,’” Southwestern Journal of Theology 38 [June 2006]: 7-8, http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001014517&site=ehost-live [accessed 5 November 2010].
24 Martin Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (London: Fortress Press, 1983), 33-5.
8
demonstrate the questionable practices and imprecise nature of the entire endeavor. Using this
method to search for the historical Jesus could possibly result in finding him; it is not however
the best or only method and should a scholar guess correctly it will be rather difficult to prove
that his estimation is the correct one.
Objectively looking at the dubious nature of any results source criticism can claim brings
one back to the starting point. How can one know anything about the life of Jesus? The modern
source critic undermines the majority of the only texts used to know anything about Jesus. In
effect the entire modern search for the historical Jesus is about chipping away at the only
information available about him. The idea that a scholar 2,000 years removed from Jesus will be
able to read four descriptions of his life then decide that they cannot be accurate and present a
new edited version that accurately represents him is preposterous. No new information has
been added and only sources of dubious origins have been found. Even Jesus Seminar scholars
reject the majority of the new material from the gnostic Gospel of Thomas; it cannot be the
source of this new-found understanding of Jesus.25 Scholars who attempt to find Jesus by
eliminating the very Gospels that contain the vast majority of the available information about
him should quickly notice that the ground they are standing on is shaky. If the Gospels do not
represent an accurate picture of Jesus then it is highly unlikely that any picture of Jesus is
recoverable at all.
The Problem with Presuppositions
If it is true that the rejection of the Gospels as a reliable source makes it unlikely that any
accurate picture of the Jesus from history will be found then the next step must be to examine
the source of the presupposition that rejected the Gospels in the first place. What required the
use of source criticism? Why were the Gospels initially rejected? The assumption that requires
the use of source criticism to find the truth about Jesus is the same assumption that guarantees
that modern scholars will never use source criticism to find the historical Jesus.
This fundamental problem with the current state of Gospel source criticism has been
25 Robert J. Miller, “The Jesus Seminar and the Search for the Words of Jesus," Lexington Theological Quarterly 31, no. 2 [June 1996]: 111, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001020565&site=ehost-live [accessed 5 November 2010].
9
present since long before source criticism came to be en vogue; the very beginning of the search
for the historical Jesus contained the same error that leads modern source critics astray.
Remairus, and the lives of Jesus that followed him, began with the presupposition that the
Gospel accounts were untrue. Remairus’ goal was to convince his readers that the Jesus
described in the Bible was not the historical Jesus. The beginning of the quest for the historical
Jesus was not an attempt to learn more about the Jesus of faith; it was an attempt to describe a
Jesus from history that would destroy the faith of those who accepted it.26 Some of the authors
of lives of Jesus after that may have had more admirable goals (Strauss for example) but they all
maintained the same presupposition: the Gospels cannot be an accurate record of events.27
This presupposition is held for various reasons but one reason seems to stand above the
others in that it is held almost universally among historical Jesus scholars: the vast majority of
scholars refuse to admit the possibility that the miraculous events described in the Bible actually
occurred. The search began due to the assumption that the Jesus of history could not walk on
water, could not rise from the dead, and most certainly was not actually God. It is no
coincidence that the eighteenth century brought the rise of this quest for the historical Jesus;
events in philosophy during this time brought about the worldview that made this quest seem
necessary. Empiricism, a worldview that values experience as the primary source of knowledge,
rose to prominence in the seventeenth century.28 While much of philosophy quickly moved on
to new ideals the idea of empiricism resonated enough with much of the thinking world to
leave a lasting impression. Ultimately anyone who does an experiment is operating from an
empiricist point of view. Statements like “I know gravity exists because every marble I have
ever let go of has fallen” exhibit the worldview of an empiricist. The source of knowledge is
experience. This eventually led to scientific empiricism and positivism, which stated that factual
knowledge must be connected to experience in a verifiable way.29 While there were many other
philosophical movements that combined to give Remairus and his contemporaries the idea that
26 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 16.
27 Ibid., 87.
28 Dictionary of Philosophy (New York: Philosophical Library, 1942), s.v “Empiricists.” 29 Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. “Scientific Empiricism,” “Positivism.”
10
miracles could not have happened it seems that this reliance on experience is a key factor. This
acceptance of experience as the source of truth had obvious repercussions on the way 18th
century people read the Bible. An empiricist reads about water turning to wine and cannot find
an experience that supports this occurrence. Walking on water is not something people in the
eighteenth century could observe or experience. For Remairus, the fact that in his experience
axe heads do not float, people do not come back from the dead, and no one can walk on water
clearly makes the miracles in the Bible untrue. Remairus attempted to use this to disprove the
Bible and move people away from religion. Many of the rationalist lives of Jesus after him
attempted to find ways to interpret the miracles as less than miraculous so that the Bible would
line up with their experience. The Jesus Seminar continues this today. They consider themselves
critical scholars and define a critical scholar as some one who “make[s] empirical, factual
evidence—evidence open to confirmation by independent, neutral observers—the controlling
factor in historical judgments.”30 Other modern scholars attempt the same thing for basically the
same reason; different terminology is used but ultimately the reliance on what can be verified
by experience remains a major stumbling block for the acceptance of the Gospels. This
assumption that denies the Gospels also denies that there is anything miraculous or
supernatural about the historical Jesus. Notice that this first limitation on who Jesus might be—
that he is nothing but a normal man—did not come through searching for the historical Jesus
but was implicit in the assumption that moved scholars to search in the first place.
Another factor that keeps many in the search for the historical Jesus from believing that
the Jesus of the Gospels is the historical Jesus is the fact that the Bible is clearly a religious work.
The Gospels are clearly written by religious people for religious people. They are arranged in a
specific way in order to convey a decidedly religious message. Some scholars attempt to cut
through the religious language to find the historical Jesus using what is called the “criterion of
dissimilarity.” This criterion is used to argue that the passages that are not like the Jewish
heritage before Jesus and the Christian church after him are most likely to be actual
30 Funk, Hoover, and The Jesus seminar, 34.
11
representations of Jesus.31 There are multiple problems with this argument, but for now, it will
suffice to point out the assumption that if something is religious, either Jewish or Christian, it is
necessarily not attributable to the historical Jesus. This disdain for religious language is
common to many historical Jesus scholars. Many argue that this religious bias stains any piece
of information the Bible has to offer.32 This perceived bias on the part of the biblical authors is
generally portrayed in contrast to the claimed objectivity of the researcher. The problem with
this is of course that the researcher, every researcher, operates from his or her own worldview,
has his or her own biases, and without fail will only see the world through his or her own eyes.
The “objectivity” of the researcher is only seen as objective by those who accept his
presuppositions. Does this mean that everyone’s opinion should be thrown out? Do our own
worldviews drown out the possibility that truth can be known? Should the Bible be discarded
simply because its authors operated from within their worldview? Surely not! Being biased one
way or the other has literally no bearing on the veracity of someone’s statements or opinions. A
pacifist who states “people are going to die if we go to war; we should not go to war” is no less
correct because he is biased. His bias should be taken into consideration when attempting to
understand his statement; his pacifism could lead him to support peace even when war will
yield less total loss of life. His bias may lead him to say something untrue but the veracity of his
statement is independent of his biases. In the same way the Gospel writers bias—their
allegiance to Christ and theological beliefs about Him—is not an indicator of the truth of their
words. A bias can move the researcher to question the validity of a text but the bias itself can
have no bearing on the results they find. The researcher should keep in mind his or her own
biases as well. The goal is not to free oneself of one’s worldview in order to be truly objective; it
is to recognize the bias and take it into account when interpreting results.33 The same truth must
be applied to understanding any text including the Bible. Removing anything written from a
biased perspective will not inherently reveal the truth in any statement, including those found
31 R.S. Barbour, Studies in Creative Criticism: Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels (London: Talbot Press, 1972), 6.
32 Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus seminar, 7-10. 33 N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 88-91.
12
in the Gospels.
Unfortunately, the bias that comes with the positivism associated with modern science
and therefore modern biblical scholarship includes the presupposition of empiricism. It is
therefore biased against the phenomenal, the eschatological, and the religious. It views itself as
objective and anything that disagrees with its views as biased by some other factor and
therefore untrue. This lack of intellectual honesty has led to the assumptions that come with the
positivist worldview being unquestioned and, as a result, any historical Jesus that is found must
be shaped to fit this ideology.
This is the source of a major flaw in the much of the quest for the historical Jesus; the
majority of scholars have already decided what sort of Jesus is acceptable to them. A good
example of this can be found in Jesus by Marcus Borg.34 In his attempt to describe what Jesus
actually said, Borg gives criterion to decide which parts of the Gospels are true.35 Borg’s two
main criterion are: multiple attestation and coherence. If a passage is present more than once in
the Gospels, especially if two of those statements are made independently of one another, and if
that passage is coherent with other statements attributed to Jesus then that passage has a strong
claim to be historical. 36 This seems to be a reasonably objective way to search for the true Jesus.
It does seem that a similar statement made by multiple, independent observers is more likely to
be true than a statement made by one person alone. Four eyewitnesses who without consulting
each other make the same claim about a robbery are less likely to be lying or wrong than one
eyewitness. Our judicial system would trust the witness of multiple, independent witnesses
over a single witness or multiple witnesses who had reason and opportunity to corroborate
their story. Unfortunately in addition to his reasonably objective criteria Borg also gives three
factors that should be used to interpret these criteria. Borg argues that if a passage does not
seem to line up with the environment it was written in, shows evidence of “a demonstrable
34 Marcus Borg, Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary (New York: HarperOne, 2006).
35 Borg uses the terminology pre-Easter Jesus because of the combination of adoptionism and
pure rejection of any Christological language that was not redacted into the text by later Christians he espouses in this book. For Borg, pre-Easter Jesus is the Jesus of history and post-Easter Jesus is the product of his followers mostly misguided beliefs. See Borg, 44-50.
36 Ibid., 70.
13
tendency of the developing tradition,” or contains spectacular events then it is probably not
historical.37 The environment issue has some validity. If a Gospel recounted a story in which a
disciple approached Jesus and asked for his advice on whether to purchase a hybrid automobile
it would be fairly convincing evidence that the passage in question was edited in at a later date.
However, the criterion of environment must be used cautiously, because the environment in
which Jesus lived is both well known and unknown. There is a lot of information about it
available but to make definitive statements about what ideas and information Jesus did or did
not have access to is almost impossible. This idea also implicitly carries with it a denial of any
chance that Jesus possessed special knowledge. If Jesus had special knowledge, if prophecy is
possible, then a statement made referring to hybrid cars is not out of the question.38 In denying
“spectacular events” Borg denies anything miraculous or supernatural occurring in the Gospels.
This is evidence of the complete acceptance of positivism referenced above, but it is mentioned
here to point out that by arguing that any passage that contains a miracle is untrue Borg is
clearly paving the way to find the sort of Jesus he is looking for.
Borg’s statements go beyond just the rejection of the miraculous. When Borg says, “a
demonstrable tendency of the developing tradition,” he means any Christological reference,
anything that lines up with the early church’s teaching, and especially anything that might line
up with Paul.39 Following Borg’s guidelines, any passage that references Jesus as anything but
what Borg thinks Jesus was like must be eliminated; any hint of the Jesus described by the early
church was obviously placed there by the early church. It is impossible for Borg to examine the
scriptures using his methods and find anything but confirmation for his own opinion! The
exegetical impropriety involved should be obvious. Like the majority of those in the historical
Jesus movements, Borg takes a reasonably objective method and interprets the results
subjectively based on what can or cannot be true in his opinion. This same tendency can be
37 Borg, 71-3. 38 It is interesting that the opposite of this very idea is also used to disprove the Bible. Biblical
authors, writing in their context, that refer to a morning star and an evening star, to the sun rising and setting or who approximate pi as 3 are used as evidence that the Bible is not true. According to Borg’s ideas these statements are evidence that it is!
39 Ibid., 71.
14
found in the Jesus Seminar proper. They vote on which passages did or did not come from Jesus
using a system of colored beads. A red bead means a passage did come from Jesus, pink means
it probably came from Jesus, gray means that the ideas may have come from Jesus but he
probably did not say it, and black means that neither the statement nor the idea behind it came
from Jesus.40 This ends in the same result that Borg’s plan does; the Seminar will undoubtedly
find a Jesus that is identical to the idea of Jesus that the majority of its members are looking
for.41
Herein lies the problem with the current movement in the search for the historical Jesus.
This “search” was over before it started. The people involved decided what Jesus they were
looking for and then used source criticism as a vehicle to cut out any evidence that did not
support their pre-existing idea. The idea of the criterion of dissimilarity is a great example. In
order to use this method to determine what Jesus said one must first eliminate all references
that are particularly Jewish, and then eliminate all references that are particularly Christian.
What is left after this process is the historical Jesus. Unfortunately, adherents to the criterion of
dissimilarity never admit the possibility that Jesus could perhaps have been Jewish or Christian.
The Jesus they find is necessarily neither Jewish nor Christian because they start with the
assumption that he cannot be either. They search for a non-religious Jesus and they find him.42
Scholars look for and find a Jesus who is just an image of their own ideals.43 Even Schweitzer, a
major player in the historical Jesus quest, recognized that the result of the majority of inquiries
40 Funk, Hoover, and The Jesus seminar, 36-7. 41 The results are actually weighted towards the negative however. A 53% vote for red and pink
can result in a gray compromise. See N.T. Wright, “The Five Gospels but no Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1999) 83–120.
42 This tendency to find the Jesus we want to find applies not just to historical Jesus scholars,
however. Borg and others are right to question the many orthodox Christians who have looked for and found a Jesus who condones their wealth, laziness, and immorality. Within orthodoxy this is often done with creative hermeneutics instead of textual criticism. Christians have made many fantastical hermeneutical leaps in order to avoid taking Jesus at his word. In this respect many within the historical Jesus movement (e.g. Borg) have a better understanding of and willingness to follow Jesus’ teachings than many people who would claim to be “people of the Book.”
43 Thomas Scott Caulley, “What’s Right with the Jesus Seminar?” Resoration Quarterly 40, no. 4
[January 1998]: 238-318, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN= ATLA0001002523&site=ehost-live [accessed 20 October 2010].
15
into the historical Jesus found nothing more than a projection of the person searching.44 Surely
this is not the path to finding the Jesus from history.
The Discontinuity of a Jesus who was not Christ
Another major flaw in the current application of source criticism to the Gospels in the
search for the historical Jesus is the huge gap it leaves between the Jesus of history and his
followers. If Jesus did not claim to be God, did not teach most of the things that he taught, and
did not rise from the dead then by what phenomenon did Christianity get its roots? This
question is important for any evaluation of source criticism in the search for the historical Jesus
and is particularly important given the broader definition of source criticism being used in this
work. If it is assumed that the early church redacted the phenomenal back into the Gospels, it
must be explained how the early church first came to believe that Jesus was God, did miracles,
and thought of himself as the Messiah. This is a major question that cannot be glossed over.
Very, very early Christians were worshipping Jesus as God. Scholars may try to write Paul off
by arguing that his teachings do not represent Christ but they still have to deal with how to get
from their view of what Jesus was about and the faith Paul and other early Christians
expounded in Jesus as the Christ. Even if it is accepted that Paul’s letters are not authoritative
they surely describe a fairly developed Christological worldview that was active relatively soon
after the death of Christ.45 The source critic must seek to find the Sitz im Leben—the situation in
the lives of the authors—that led to the composition of both the original pre-Gospel documents
and all four finished Gospels that fits with the Jesus he or she expounds.46 In the case of much of
the quest for the historical Jesus such a Sitz im Leben did not exist.
There is much evidence to support this early Christology and the rapid expansion of the
Christian faith. Jesus’ death occurred sometime in the early thirties. Paul’s conversion has been
dated as sometime between AD thirty-two and thirty-four and the Apostolic Council at
Jerusalem occurred around AD forty-eight. Paul’s letters were being composed throughout the
44 Schweitzer, 10. 45 D.A. Carson, Moo, J. Douglas, and Morris, Leon, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 242, 282, 294, 309, 322. 46 Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1964), 27.
16
sixties and the years surrounding them. These dates are fairly widely accepted given a variance
of a few years. This places the fully developed Christology present in Paul’s letters only twenty
years after the death of Christ. This becomes even more problematic for those who argue a huge
gap between Christ and Paul given the fact that Paul’s missionary visits to these churches
occurred before his letters. In his letters Paul presupposes Christological terms and ideas even
as he clarifies them. It took less than twenty years for this fully developed Christology to come
into being and be spread across a fairly wide geographical area.47 This Christology was not just
attributable to Paul, as the church in Rome at the time Romans was written was not started and
had not been visited by Paul.48 Extra-biblical evidence for the early spread of this Christology
abounds. Polycarp claimed to have been a Christian since AD seventy.49 Pliny, a pagan Roman
governor, knew that Christians worshipped Christ as if he was a god in the very early part of
the second century.50 How this widespread religion based on Christ came into existence so
quickly is a question that must be answered by anyone who rejects the orthodox interpretation
of the Gospels in their quest for the historical Jesus.
There are various opinions about how this might have occurred. Remairus argued that
Jesus crucifixion was the result of a failed attempt to take over Jerusalem and that his disciples
fabricated the resurrection and then wrote the Gospels to support the lie that Jesus had been
working for a different kind of kingdom all along.51 Evan Fales, an atheist thinker, would argue
that the Gospels were written as mythology—that the original writers did not intend for the
stories to be understood literally— and as the story came to be accepted as true people’s
devotion to it increased until it became the religion known as Christianity today.52 This and
other arguments based on an intentional lie hold little weight however because of the
47 Hengel, 31.
48 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 2-3. 49 Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 348. 50 Pliny Letters 10.97. 51 Lessing, 27-29. 52 Evan Fales, “Taming the Tehom: The Sign of Jonah in Matthew,” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus
Beyond the Grave, ed. Robert M. Price and Lowder, Jeffery Jay (New York: Prometheus, 2005), 311.
17
persecution Christians faced quite early in their existence.53 That the apostles would refuse to
recant of the lie they made up in the face of death is simply not reasonable. It is also
unreasonable that the Gospels openly composed and treated as a myth would so quickly be
treated as true. Neither explanation deals with the obviously altered lives depicted in the New
Testament and in extra-biblical literature or the rapid spread of Christology presented as truth.
The growth of the scripture from a myth into acceptance as truth can explain the actions of
Christians hundreds of years after Christ but not those responsible for the creation of the
supposed myth. Source critics must completely ignore the presence of eyewitnesses to the life,
ministry, and death of Jesus when they argue that it was completely fabricated or that the
Christology that developed was not even remotely representative of the Christ these witnesses
saw. The disciples who walked with Jesus during his life were not immediately taken to heaven.
They lived on in the Christian community and were a part of the formation of the Christology
that is argued to have been antithetical to the actual teachings of Jesus. It seems quite unlikely
that none of them would have spoken up when lies were being spread about the person they
served and eventually died for.54
Other explanations for the rapid development of this Christology rely on theoretical
groups of early Christians who developed, agreed upon, and expounded their views and
eventually won the day. This is sometimes referred to as a pre-Pauline tradition; scholars
attempt to demonstrate that Paul actually drew on a tradition before him.55 This explains very
little and does not actually provide support for those arguing a break between Jesus the man
and the Christ of Paul. It explains little because it simply moves the same argument back a step
and it actually provides support for an orthodox interpretation because it moves the
development of this Christology closer to the date of Jesus’ death, making it less likely that it
was unrelated to the Jesus of history. A viable explanation for a complete dichotomy between
Jesus and the church after him has not been offered.
53 Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity: The First Five Centuries (London: Eyre & Spottiswood, 1939), 9.
54 Vincent Taylor, 41-3. 55 Hengel, 48.
18
The evidence actually works in favor of a more orthodox interpretation. A continuous
development of the perception of Jesus is much more likely than a discontinuous one. A
complete break between Jesus and the movement attributed to him is less plausible than a
continuity in thought.56 Putting this concept in a modern context may help explain the absurd
lengths scholars have gone to in an attempt to disprove the Jesus from Christian tradition. If
four biographies of some theoretical person were found that seemed to be written in order to
convince the reader that the person was about idea X, and then some writings of people who
claimed to be disciples of this person were found that claimed that the person was about X and
expounded on what he meant in his teaching, then the logical conclusion would be that the
person in question actually was about X. This would not be proof that X was true, but simply
that the person in question likely talked about X. In this context, historical Jesus scholars would
attempt to argue that the person was not about X but instead the entire idea of X was created by
his followers. It is possible that this could happen, but it is much more likely that the stated facts
are true. In any case the burden of proof lies on the person arguing that the most likely
conclusion cannot in fact be true. Birger Gerhardsson described this well, “The high Christology
cannot be disconnected from the impression made by Jesus on his disciples, and furthermore it
must have some original connection with Jesus’ own view of his work, of his position, and of
himself. The opinion expressed by so many scholars, that the Christology of the N.T. is
essentially a creation of the young Church, is an intelligent thesis, but historically most
improbable.”57 Indeed it is more likely that the Gospels represent Jesus more or less accurately
and that the tradition that arose afterwards actually stemmed from him than that there was a
complete dichotomy between Jesus the person and the tradition that arose regarding him.
The problem of discontinuity applies not only in the tradition moving from Jesus to his
followers but also in the followers supposed redacting of later theological elements back onto
the Gospels. The early church faced quite a few problems in its first fifty years. Paul’s writings
56 Aloys Grillemier, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, trans. J. S. Bowden (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964), 5.
57 Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabinnic
Judaism and Early Christianity (Copenhagen: Enjar Munksgaard, 1961), 325.
19
reference struggles with the Gentile mission, with circumcision, with Gnosticism, and quite a
few other problems.58 There is no evidence of these problems in the Gospels. Even Bultmann,
who argues that the Gospels are almost completely a product of later tradition, finds it
noteworthy that there are no evidences of answers to the problems the early church faced
within the Gospels.59 If the Gospels were being composed and shaped to suit the needs of the
early church throughout the entire first century then some explanation must be made as to why
no references to the actual needs of the church were included.60
There are many problems that stem from even a cursory evaluation of the Sitz im Leben
that would lead to the creation of the Gospels as a whole. If the Gospels were written with no
claim to historical accuracy then it seems odd that the early church made no attempt to portray
its founders in a positive light. The disciples of Jesus seem confused, mistaken, and off base
throughout the Gospel narratives. If these accounts are fiction then why would the authors not
choose to portray the heroes of the faith in a more positive light? If the historicity of Jesus was
not important then why would the Gospels contain so much historical narrative? If the words of
Jesus could be altered to convey the message needed then why were they not altered to combat
the heresies and problems the church was dealing with at the time? It is highly unlikely that
Christians who were simply creating the Gospels with little concern for historical accuracy
would create the Gospels in their current form. It is difficult to construct a situation that leads
people to create the Gospels as a myth about the founder of their religion that does not address
their problems but does address problems not relevant to their day, that is written as a history
but composed with little regard to history, and that describes the heroes of the faith as
bumbling idiots. It is impossible to find in history a people who would want or need such a
document; it seems just as likely that the existence of such a people may be the real myth.61
58Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2006), 234. 59 Rudolph Bultmann,”The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” in Form Criticism: Two Essays on New
Testament Research (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962), 16. 60 Wright,The New Testament and the People of God, 421.
61 Ibid., 435.
20
Conclusion
Source criticism itself is not the reason historical Jesus scholars will not find the Jesus of
history with their current methods. It is simply a method that can be used to better understand
a text. It is not the method used that prevents modern scholars from finding Jesus; it is the
presuppositions that led scholars to apply the method. The entire search for the historical Jesus
is based on the assumption that if there is a God he cannot act in ways that the scholar cannot
prove empirically. Assuming that nothing supernatural, nothing Messianic, nothing religious
that is contained within the Gospels could possibly originate with Jesus leads one to find a
completely natural, un-Messianic, unreligious Jesus. This is the only Jesus scholars in the search
for the historical Jesus are willing to find. No one who attempts to find an unreligious,
unmiraculous, completely secular Jesus from the completely religious and miraculous writings
about him will succeed. If it is true that the Gospels do not convey Jesus as he was then finding
an accurate picture of him is no longer possible. There is no reason to make this conclusion,
however. The simple answer, the answer that does not require conspiracy theories or
hypothetical documents, is that the Gospels as they are present an accurate picture of the Jesus
from history. Accepting this may require the submitssion of one’s dedication to empiricism to
faith, but it does not require the complete rejection of rationality or logic in general. Once one
accepts that there is or even that there may be a God who can act within history, the miraculous
no longer needs a rational explanation and Jesus’ claim to be the Christ no longer needs to be
rejected. The Gospels once again become the source for information about Jesus, and finding
“the historical Jesus” requires simply reading the stories about his life. No amount of dissecting
the Gospels will lead to an accurate understanding of Jesus Christ. When faced with a choice
between an unknowable Jesus and the Jesus described in the Gospels, the best choice is the one
Christians have made for centuries: to take the Gospels at their word and believe that Jesus was
who he said he was.
21
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbour, R.S. Studies in Creative Criticism: Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels. London: Talbot Press, 1972.
Borg, Marcus. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary. New
York: HarperOne, 2006. Brehm, Alan H. “Will the Real Jesus Please Stand? Evaluating the ‘Third Quest of the Historical
Jesus.’” Southwestern Journal of Theology 38 [June 2006]: 4-18. http://search.ebscohost.com/loginaspx?direct=true&db=rfh& AN=ATLA0001014517&site=ehost-live [accessed 5 November 2010].
Bultmann, Rudolph. ”The Study of the Synoptic Gospels.” In Form Criticism: Two Essays on New
Testament Research. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962. ———. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. New York: Harper &
Row, 1963. Carson, D.A., J. Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Carson, D.A. Collected Writings on Scripture. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. Caulley, Thomas Scott. “What’s Right with the Jesus Seminar?” Resoration Quarterly 40, no. 4
[January 1998]: 238-318. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001 002523&site=ehost-live [accessed 20 October 2010].
Drane, John W.“Patters of Evangelization in Paul and Jesus.” In Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ, edited by
Joel B. Green and Max Turner, 281-96. Grand Rapids: Eerdman, 1994. Evans, Craig A. Fabricating Jesus. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2006. Fales, Evan. “Taming the Tehom: The Sign of Jonah in Matthew.” In The Empty Tomb: Jesus
Beyond the Grave, edited by Robert M. Price and Jeffery Jay Lowder, 307-48. New York: Prometheus, 2005.
Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan Company,
1964. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The Search for the
Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Company, 1993. Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabinnic
Judaism and Early Christianity. Copenhagen: Enjar Munksgaard, 1961. Grillemier, Aloys S.J. Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon. Translated
by J. S. Bowden. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964. Hengel, Martin. Between Jesus and Paul. London: Fortress Press, 1983. Kahler, Martin. The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1988.
22 Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of the Expansion of Christianity: The First Five Centuries.
London: Eyre & Spottiswood, 1939. Lessing, G.E. Fragments from Remairus. London: Weirtheimer, Lea, and Co., 1879. Miller, Robert J. "The Jesus Seminar and the Search for the Words of Jesus." Lexington Theological
Quarterly 31, no. 2 (June 1996): 103-133. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct =true& db=rfh&AN= ATLA0001020565&site=ehost-live [accessed November 5, 2010].
Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest for the Historical Jesus. New York: Collier Books, 1968. Strauss, David Friedrich. The Life of Jesus for the People. London: C. Green and Son, 1879. Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. London: Macmillan, 1964. Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. ———. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. ———. “The Five Gospels but no Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar.” In Authenticating the Activities
of Jesus, edited by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, 83-120. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 1999.