Who was Jesus?
Jesus’ Self Identity
NT Reliability
• Radical critics get a free pass from the press
• Scholarship has changed in their view of NT
reliability
• Context matters to miracle claims
• Jesus miracles and resurrection should be
considered in context of his life and claims
Can we trust the records?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jesus left no writings
Dependent on records of others
Not unusual - Socrates left no writings
Were disciples’ records reliable?
Did they put words into his mouth?
Are Jesus’ divinity claims made up?
Investigated using standard methods of history
Modern Tools
•
•
•
•
Textual Criticism
Historical Methods
Not treating the Bible as a holy book
Investigated as a collection of ancient documents
Sources
• External
– Christian, Jewish and Roman
– Say nothing new
• Internal (NT)
–
–
–
–
–
Is this circular? (using the Bible to prove the Bible)
Historians treat NT as collection of documents
NT documents were distributed independently
Only the best sources were included in the canon
Do not think of the NT as a single book
Conspiracy Theories
•
•
•
•
•
•
Trumpet credentials of author
Offer new suppressed interpretation of Jesus
Derived from sources that contradict NT
Interpretation is provocative and titillating
Tradition Christian beliefs undermined
Often based on apocryphal gospels
Apocryphal Gospels
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eg Gospel of Thomas, Phillip, Peter etc
Written after 150 AD
(some claim Thomas is 1st century)
Forged under apostles’ names
Legendary extensions of canonical gospels
Contain no independent new material
Why give precedence to secondary sources?
No historically credible source outside NT
Burden of Proof
• True until proven false or false until proven
true?
• Sceptics usually assume guilty before proven
innocent
Reasons against scepticism
1. Insufficient time for legend to erase core
historical facts
2. Gospels are not like folk tales
3. Jewish transmission of sacred texts was reliable
4. Restraints due to presence of eyewitnesses
5. Proven track record of reliability
1. Insufficient Time for Legend
• How can we know what happened 2000 years
ago?
• What matters is the time between event and
evidence, not time since evidence
• Good evidence does not degrade with time
• Most of NT written within 15-60 years of
crucifixion
• Dating is controversial
1. Legend continued
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consensus is that gospels are not bald-faced lies
Not a massive conspiracy
Only suggested by sensationalists
Writers sincerely believed what they wrote
Time gap too short for legend development
Roman & Greek histories had much larger gaps
For Alexander the Great the gap > 400 years
1. Legend continued
• Gospels written & circulated within 1 generation
after events
• Legends appear in apocryphal gospels from 2nd
century
• Gospels use even earlier sources
– Mark’s passion story (37 AD)
– Paul’s Last supper account (1 Cor 11:23-26) < 5 years
– Paul’s resurrection account (1 Cor 15) < 5 years
2. Are gospels folk tales?
• Refer to real people such as Herod, Pilate,
Caiaphas, John the Baptist
• All recorded independently by Josephus
3. Was transmission reliable?
• Ability to memorise oral tradition was highly
prized
• Children taught to memorise sacred texts
• Scribal tradition for recording OT texts
4. Were the traditions embellished?
• Eyewitnesses were still alive at time of writing
• Traditions supervised by original apostles
5. Do writers have a reliable track record?
• Much can be checked
• Discrepancies are the exception
Luke as an Example
• Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the
things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they
were handed down to us by those who from the first
were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated
everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to
me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent
Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the
things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
Luke’s claims in Prologue
• I (Luke)
–
–
–
–
consulted written accounts,
spoke to eye witnesses,
conducted a careful investigation, and
wrote an orderly account
• So that you can be certain about what you have
been taught.
Who was Luke?
• Not an eye witness
• “We” passages in Acts indicate:
– Joined Paul near Troas
– Accompanied Paul to Samothrace, Philippi, then to
Jerusalem
– 1st hand contact with eyewitnesses in Jerusalem
– Eyewitnesses were probably the women
• Context in Acts has been cross-checked
• Should not assume Luke is wrong unless proven
right – at least a position of neutrality
Criteria of Authenticity
• Signs of credibility - increase historical probability
• Some criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Historical fit – fit with known historical facts
Independent early sources – multiple attestation
Embarrassment –awkward for Christian church
Dissimilarity – unlike earlier Jewish or later Christian ideas
Semitisms – traces to Hebrew or Aramaic language
Coherence – fits with established facts
Characteristics of historical criteria
• Positive signs of credibility
• Can be used to establish but not deny (how do we
falsify?)
• Absence of criteria do not mean it is false, just a
position of neutrality
• Criteria do not assume reliability – detect nuggets
• Events evaluated independently
• Not trying to prove Biblical inerrancy
Paul’s Claims
• We will consider Paul’s statements prior to
Jesus’ claims
• Phil 2:6 - Who, being in very nature God, did not
consider equality with God something to be
grasped
• How could a monotheistic Jew say such a thing
unless Jesus had said it himself?
Jesus’ Explicit Claims
• Messiah
• Unique Son of God
• Son of Man
Messiah
• Expectation:
– Israel’s ancient hope = Anointed One
– Descendant of David – king over Israel
– Spiritual shepherd over Israel
• Early Christians referred to Jesus as Christ (Messiah)
• Where did they get this from?
– He did not establish David’s throne
– He was crucified
– No connection between resurrection and Messiah
Mark 8:27-29
• 27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around
Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people
say I am?"
• 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah;
and still others, one of the prophets."
• 29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
• Peter answered, "You are the Christ."
• Is this historical?
Answer to John the Baptist
• Matt 11:2-6 When John heard in prison what Christ was doing,
he sent his disciples to ask him, "Are you the one who was to
come, or should we expect someone else?“ Jesus replied, "Go
back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind
receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured,
the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is
preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away
on account of me."
• Also in Luke 7:19-23 -> from Q = early source
• Criteria of embarrassment – John doubted
• The “one who was to come” coheres with Jesus’ baptism
Triumphal Entry
• Asserted independently (Mark 11:1-11 and John
12:12-19)
• Deliberate fulfilment of Zech 9:9
• Claiming to be promised King of Israel
The Trial
• Mark 14:61-62 Again the high priest asked him, "Are
you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am,"
said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at
the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the
clouds of heaven."
• Is this historical?
• The Jewish leaders need a capital charge for Jesus to
be executed.
• A claim to be Messiah could be construed as an act of
treason against Rome.
King of the Jews
• The title “King of the Jews” was on the plaque
nailed to the cross Mark 15:26 and John 19:19
• Title is not used by Christians
• Meets criterion of dissimilarity
• Supports that he claimed to be Messiah
Son of God
• Did Jesus claim he was the Son of God?
• What we will cover:
– Parable of the Wicked Tenants
– Explicit claim Matt 11:27
– Explicit claim in Mark 13:32
Parable of Wicked Tenant
Mark 12:1-9, Matt 21: 33-41, Luke 20:9-16
In this parable Jesus claims to be the unique son
Matthew and Luke copied Mark, but is it historical?
Also in gospel of Thomas (65). Independent
confirmation. Recognised by sceptical scholars as
genuine.
• Contains typical Jewish imagery & Semitisms
• Unique son, distinct from the prophets
•
•
•
•
Explicit claim
• Matt 11:27 All things have been committed to me by
my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father,
and no one knows the Father except the Son and those
to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
• Repeated in Luke 10:22 -> from Q (early)
• Contains Aramaisms
• Embarrassment – no one knows the son (unknowable)
• Jesus thought of himself as unique son and only
revelation of Father.
Explicit Claim
• Mark 13:32 No one knows about that day or hour, not
even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the
Father.
• Embarrassment – ascribes ignorance to the Son
• Luke omits it
• Matthew includes it but it is dropped by some copyists
Son of Man
• Used frequently in gospels but only in Acts 7:56 and
twice in Revelation after that.
• Term did not arise in later Christianity
• Meets criteria of independence and dissimilarity
What did Jesus mean?
• Did he mean just a person
• He referred to himself as “the Son of Man” not just “a
son of man”.
• Aligned himself with divine figure in Daniel 7:13-14
• Ambiguity prevented premature revelation of
messianic status
• Jesus had a sense of unsurpassed authority
Mark 14:60-62
• Then the high priest stood up before them and asked
Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this
testimony that these men are bringing against you?“
But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
• Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,
the Son of the Blessed One?"
• "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man
sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming
on the clouds of heaven."
• Here all 3 terms come together
Implicit Claims
• Apostles would judge 12 tribes of Israel. Who is king?
• Teaching style:
– Did not quote other authorities
– Overrode previous authority – You have heard it said, but I
say...
– His own authority was greater than divinely given law
– “Truly, truly I say to you” is heretical to a Jew. He ought to
have said, “Thus says the Lord”.
Other implicit claims
• Claimed to exorcise demons by own authority
• Authority to forgive sins. Fellowshipping with outcasts
was exercising forgiveness in practice.
• Acted and spoke as if he had divine authority
• Believed himself to be a miracle worker
• He believed our attitude to him will determine our fate
on the day of judgement
Conclusion
• Jesus’ Self perception
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Messiah
Unique Son of God
Daniel’s Son of Man
Worker of miracles
Authority over evil powers
Authority to forgive sins
Authority to overturn divinely given law
Each person’s destiny is dependent on their attitude to him
• Was crucified for blasphemy and treason
CS Lewis’ Trilemma
• I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people
often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but
I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A
man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral
teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on a level with the man who says he is
a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your
choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or
something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and
kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.
But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great
human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.