Is the New Testament Reliable?

Last week's series of posts left off at a crucial point: is the Bible reliable?  Specifically, I would like to deal with the New Testament.  As I have studied and read and contemplated many philosophical/theological/scientific points and arguments, I believe the lynch pin in the whole ordeal is Jesus.

If Jesus really was raised from the dead, then that historical phenomenon changes everything.  If Jesus was who He claimed He was, well, that adds another dimension.  There are those who scoff at Jesus and the claims of the resurrection.  Rightfully so.  We are even told by St. Paul in scripture that the idea of the resurrection was foolishness and a stumbling block to many even in the ancient world.  Dead men don't just come back to life--especially those who had been crucified by the Romans.  You see, the Romans had a 100% success rate of death by crucifixion.  Once you were nailed to a cross, you were a goner.  Plain and simple.

But one can even doubt the historical veracity of the crucifixion or the historical veracity of Jesus Himself by simply saying the Bible stories about Jesus were simply made up--lies--inventions of various communities or people who were starting a new religion.  These things are actually floating around, and some have gained quite a bit of steam.  Richard Dawkins even casts doubt on Jesus as a historical figure in his book The God Delusion.

Yet, there are really no serious ancient historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.  None.  Nearly all regard Him as a historical figure.  Why?  Frankly speaking, we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for folks like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. 

There have been several lectures I have watched on YouTube from many experts in the field.  Below are several videos.  Nearly all of them are over an hour long.  If you are truly interested in the evidence, I invite you to watch them and judge for yourself:

These four videos are thorough with their presentation of the evidence regarding Jesus.  They also make a strong case for the reliability of the New Testament especially the Gospels.  A very detailed approach to the reliability of the Gospels comes from Richard Bauckham in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.   Bauckham is thorough--very, very thorough.

Mind you, none of these folks gives absolute proof that the New Testament is 100% accurate, but they are saying, quite frankly, that by the tools of ancient history, the Gospels are reliable.  They can be defined as ancient biography based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses to the events surrounding the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Eyewitness testimony is not without its faults.  It does not capture every detail of an event, and our brains tend to remember only certain points.  However, there is something quite interesting about eyewitness testimony--it begs to be accepted as long as the witness is deemed credible.  (The credibility of the eyewitnesses is dealt with very strongly, I think, by the videos.)  I mean, as I have pointed out in a sermon illustration before--if you are on a date with your significant other, and she outlines her day for you.  If you respond, "That sounds great, honey, but do you have any corroborating evidence to back up your assertions?", then your night is going to go downhill very, very fast. 

If indeed the New Testament is reliable and we can get a sense of Jesus through those writings, then we must deal with two important claims: Jesus was raised from the dead, and Jesus claimed to be God.

Time demands me to stop today.  Tomorrow is another day.

No, Marcus. Jesus was God.

Because of Facebook, I was exposed to this blog post by Marcus Borg.  The content is disturbing on more than one level, not the least of which is the heresy of Arianism which he openly preaches.  It is also disturbing because there are many within my denomination who follow Dr. Borg ideologically and embrace his teaching as the doctrine to which the church should preach and teach.

Dr. Borg is an intelligent man.  He is well read and well versed in many things, but he is completely and utterly wrong in making many of his assertions in his attempt to make Christianity relevant (dare I say palatable) to a particular group of people.

Let's simply take the following assertion from his blog post:

1. Was Jesus God? No. Not even the New Testament says that. It speaks of him as the Word of God, the Son of God, the Messiah, and so forth, but never simply identifies him with or equates him with God. As John’s gospel puts it, he is the Word become flesh – that is, he reveals what can be seen of God in a finite human life. To say, “I believe Jesus was God” (as some Christians do, or think they are supposed to) goes beyond what the New Testament affirms and is thus more than biblical. He is the Word incarnate – not the disembodied Word.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marcusborg/2014/06/a-letter-about-jesus/#ixzz36F2KfAqf

Borg would do well to remember Christianity's assertion that Jesus is the God made flesh--God incarnate, but that's not his assertion.  Borg's assertion is that the New Testament does not speak of Jesus as God.  He is absolutely wrong on this point.  Absolutely wrong, and I go beyond the statements in the Gospel of John to state my case.

Let's take look at the book of Matthew as a frame of reference.  Most biblical scholars assert that Matthew was written by a Jewish-Christian for a Jewish-Christian audience.  This is important.  Why?

Oxford scholar Richard Bauckham has argued rather thoroughly and decisively in Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity  that there was no middle ground for people of the Jewish faith.  God was God.  People were people.  There were no stages of holiness.  To worship anything or anyone other than God--the I am--was blasphemy and idolatry.  There are no instances, and I mean no instances of the worship of any intermediaries or "god like" people or objects.  Yet, the gospel writer Matthew includes three snippets:

And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’ --Matthew 14:33

Suddenly Jesus met them and said, ‘Greetings!’ And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. --Matthew 28:9

When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. --Matthew 28:17

Remember, Jews absolutely, positively did not worship anyone or anything other than God.  Yet, they were worshiping Jesus.  Conclusion: Jesus is being shown unequivocally by Matthew to be God.

Yet, it doesn't stop there.  Matthew doubles down on the notion that Jesus is God on the Sermon on the Mount.  This is found in Matthew chapters 5 through 7.  There is a repetitive phrase spoken by Jesus over and over and over, "You have heard it said...but I say to you..."

Every time Jesus says, "You have heard it said..." He refers to Old Testament Law.  And who gave the Old Testament Law--according to Jewish tradition?  Don't think Moses.  Moses merely conveyed the Law which was given to Him by...God.  God spoke the Law.  God was the initiator of the Law, and Jesus has the audacity to say "You have heard it said...BUT I say to you..."  Jesus is giving Himself quite the high place, don't you think?  He is daring to place His teachings above God's teachings.  Any Jew would have walked away from Him in a heart beat because He dared to do this--unless that Jew believed Jesus to be God--the God made flesh--the God incarnate. 

It is vitally important to recognize that Jesus was God--and is testified as God throughout the New Testament.  Grace only works if Jesus is God.  For the doctrine of grace states that God reconciled the world unto Himself through the Son.  No human being could reconcile the world unto God--only God could.  

But the reading and listening to Borg that I have done does not center on this act of reconciliation.  Borg is consumed by what Christians are supposed to do.  For Borg, Christianity is not focused on what God has done, but is focused on what we do.  For Borg, it's all about our actions, not about grace.  

It is not surprising considering his particular bias, but what is surprising, at least in my estimation, is how many folks embrace what Borg teaches when it is contrary to the New Testament, to most Christian Scholarship, and to the entire, orthodox tradition of Christianity.  He is even lifted up and advertized in my own denomination as someone cutting edge and well worth reading.  *Sigh.*

How is it possible that a scholar who preaches false doctrine is held in such esteem?  When you figure that one out, please let me know.

Interpreting the Bible Part 3

The Emergence of Another Way

Recently, I have come across in my reading another set of assumptions which I believe is more faithful as we deal with the interpretation of scripture.  It is what I call the hermeneutic of trust.  Much of my thinking has come as a result of reading Scottish scholar, Richard Bauckham’s book: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts.  Bauckham argues that the gospels are not to be seen as recorded ancient history.  They do not fall into that category of literature.  Instead, they are to be seen as ancient biographies.  The rules for writing such literature differed a bit from historical accounts, but there are some important things of note regarding the writing of such literature:

A.    The writers of such biographies believed in the importance of being as close to the subject of the biography as possible.  Fourth or fifth hand information was not considered acceptable.
B.    The Gospels were probably written 35-50 years after the death of Jesus.  Eyewitnesses would still have been alive.  The authors would have known this.  Luke admits so in his introduction.  He also admits to consulting with them.  The hermeneutic of suspicion relies on the assumption eyewitness testimonies were unimportant to the people writing the gospels–Bauckham, and others, argue vehemently otherwise.
C.    Bauckham believes the gospel writers–Matthew, Mark, and Luke–gave us clues as to who their main eyewitnesses were:

    Mark: the apostle Peter.
    Matthew: Mark’s account + the disciple Matthew
    Luke: Mark’s account + several women disciples

D.    Bauckham believes John was written by an eyewitness to the events of Jesus’ life, and the author is the beloved disciple as named in the work.

There are issues with viewing the gospels as eyewitness accounts-namely, eyewitnesses don’t exactly get their stories completely straight at times.  Details vary.  Sometimes people see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear.  Other times, they interpret events instead of simply reporting them.  Yet, Bauckham actually deals with many such objections in his book, and I will not go into those now.

What I want to delve into is approaching the gospels as eyewitness testimony.  For testimony demands an element of trust as one approaches it.  For instance, if you sit down at the dinner table with your spouse and he/she tells you, “I had a good day at work.  I finished up a major project.”  And you respond, “Do you have any corroborating evidence?”  You will probably have a rough evening.

Testimony demands to be trusted unless a witness is shown to be untrustworthy.  The ultimate question one must ask in this vein of thought is whether or not the gospels as we have them are in fact, trustworthy.  Of course, I say they are.

If we take this track for interpretation, there then is little mystery as to why the early church accepted the four canonical gospels despite their varying claims.  As with eyewitness accounts of an event, some witnesses remember certain details while omitting others.  Some eyewitnesses add some interpretive thoughts (John is especially guilty of this).  Some say the red car ran the light while others say the blue one did–yet no one disputes the crash! 

The early church believed one could take the four gospels in their totality to understand and get a full picture of who Jesus was.  They did not make distinctions based upon “what Matthew’s Jesus said” or “what John’s Jesus said or what “the Lukan community said” or what the “Markan community said.”  They were comfortable with the differences and the interpretations of events trusting the testimony of the witnesses.  Should we be any different?  That is the important question governing each of these modes of interpretation.

Is One Law More Important than Another

    While I was on vacation, I took the time to read a book I was very interested in.  It was titled: Jesus: A Very Short Introduction, and it was written by Scottish scholar Richard Bauckham.  I have begun to have a very high respect for Dr. Bauckham’s work, and it just so happened that he dealt with the parable presented in our Gospel lesson for this Sunday.

   Luke places Jesus’ parable immediately after a lawyer asks Jesus an important question, “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

    In all actuality, the lawyer knew the answer to this question.  I mean, let’s be real.  Lawyers don’t ask questions they don’t already know the answers to.  As an expert in the law of Israel, this lawyer knew the 600+ commands of God listed in the first five books of the Bible backwards and forwards.  He knew what it took to inherit eternal life.  Let’s not kid ourselves.  This is probably why he asked Jesus the question–he indeed wanted to see if Jesus knew what it took to inherit eternal life.

    Jesus doesn’t bite.  You see, Jesus knew the situation in Israel.  He knew there were several different religious groups, and they all had their understandings about eternal life.  They each had a particular slant on what it would take to enter God’s Kingdom.  The Pharisees believed it was keeping the purity of the people.  This is why they emphasized all the rituals of cleanliness listed in the Law: washing hands appropriately, wearing the right kinds of clothing, associating with the right kinds of people, etc.  The Sadducees didn’t believe in any sort of afterlife, so their understanding of the Kingdom of God was a bit different, and the question would have been irrelevant to them.  The Zealots believed in a very present reality of the Kingdom, a reality brought about by armed revolution.  The priestly class emphasized temple worship and sacrifice.  All of these groups formed a conglomeration of thought when it came to what was needed to be in God’s good graces.  Each group emphasized a different part of the law.  If Jesus were to answer straight out, He would make enemies and fast.  So, instead of answering straight-forward, Jesus turns the question around.

    “Well,” Jesus asks, “what is it that the Law says?  How do you read it?” 

    Now, what lawyer isn’t going to take the time to show off how well he knows the law?  I’ve known a few lawyers, and they always seem happy to jump in and tell you how much they know about their given area of expertise, and this guy is no exception.  Before he realizes what Jesus has done to him, he blurts out, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.  And you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

    Jesus replies that the lawyer has answered well.

    The lawyer then realizes what Jesus has done.  He realizes Jesus has escaped the little snare, so he wants to save face in some form or fashion.  “And who is my neighbor?”

    Jesus tells a story–again, not a direct answer, but something which makes people think.  Now, I am going to begin sharing some of Bauckham’s insights into this story most of us know by heart.

    Jesus begins by garnering our sympathy.  A man is traveling down to Jericho.  He’s minding his own business; doing his own thing like any such traveler.  However, this guy is waylaid by bandits.  He is robbed, stripped, beaten, and left half-dead.  No one ever wants to be in this position.  The crowd gathered to hear this story has immediate sympathy. 

    It’s important to realize here that the man was half-dead.  He’s not exactly in a state of prime health.  In fact, according to Bauckham, this meant that from a distance one couldn’t tell if he were dead or alive.  This is an important detail as we shall see in a moment.

    Jesus continues the story by telling us that first a priest and then a Levi walk by.  They notice the man lying there, but then they hurry on their way.  Oftentimes, we think these two guys just couldn’t be bothered.  They feared for their life, or they were so occupied with their own thoughts and importance that they just went on their merry way.       Bauckham believes differently.  You see, there is a Jewish law concerning dealing with those who are dead.  If one even comes near a dead body, then that person is considered unclean.  The priest and the Levi work in the temple, and if they come near this man–who looks half-dead–possibly is dead, then they would be unclean.  They would be breaking a command of God to remain pure.  They would have to go through the rituals of cleanliness and they would not be able to fulfill their duties in the temple.  Therefore, rather than become unclean and break this law, they went on their way. 

    But the next person who came a long did not go on.  The next person who came along decided to break the purity law and see if the beaten man were indeed alive.  But there was a catch to this one–the next person in line was a Samaritan.  The Samaritan’s were cousins of the Jews, but they were reviled.  They essentially followed much of the Jewish Law, but the Jews felt they had warped it and were outside the true faith.  Despite this, Jesus reveals the Samaritan to be the hero.  The Samaritan is willing to break the purity code to show compassion. 

    There is a double whammy in this parable.  The first whammy, of course, is the Samaritan being the hero.  Good Jews wouldn’t like that, but it is an attention getter.  The second whammy is Jesus’ clear articulation that some of God’s laws have a higher priority than others. 

    Think about that for just a moment.  I mean, perhaps you were raised just as I was raised.  Perhaps you were told and still believe that a sin is a sin is a sin–one sin is not greater than another.  Many of us were brought up believing just this very thing, and so there is an implication in that understanding.  If a sin is a sin is a sin and no sin is greater than another, then all of God’s laws must be equal as well, correct?  It doesn’t matter which law you break, all are of equal importance since God views all sin the same.  Am I off base in this understanding of how many of us think?

    Unfortunately, Jesus’ teaching is different from what many of us have come to believe.  Jesus believes there are some laws which are more important than others.  If you don’t believe the parable of the Good Samaritan, then take a read at the other two times Jesus is asked about the most important or greatest commandments in the books of Mark and Matthew.  In Mark 12 and Matthew 22, Jesus is asked, “Which commandment is first? Or Which commandment is greatest?”  This implies a hierarchy of commandments.  It implies that there are some which are more important.  Does Jesus ever say, “All of the commandments carry equal weight.”?  No.  Not a chance.  Jesus prioritizes.  Love God.  Love your neighbor.  These are most important, and everything else follows after these two.

    The implications are important–very important.  We live in a very litigious society.  We really, really like making laws.  We try to cover each and every situation known to man with a law.  We try to write laws governing every type of situation including telling kids they cannot make pretend guns with their hands lest they get suspended from school!  It’s almost enough to make one pull out your hair.

    But the fact of the matter is, laws will eventually come into conflict with one another.  Laws cannot cover all the basis.  For instance, in the U.S. we believe we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We pass all kinds of laws interpreting these rights, but they easily come into conflict.  For instance, my pursuit of happiness may be that I like telling everyone what to do and how they should do it.  This directly impinges upon others’ right to liberty.  The two come into conflict–which one wins? 

    Or, how about another scenario.  Let’s say you’ve fallen on hard times.  You have a family to feed, and you have been unable to obtain food for them.  Would you steal in order to feed your family?  Would you take bread or meat or other such food from someone in order to make sure your family did not starve?  I personally would if I had run out of options.

    Is such a thing wrong?  Yes.  But which is more important–making sure children don’t starve or keeping one’s record clean?  Neither is right, but life wins out.

    Jesus makes the same point.  The purity code is less important than showing compassion to one who is injured and in need of assistance.  It is better to be defiled and check to see if one is injured than to pass by just so one can fulfill one’s temple duties.

    There are circumstances in life when we come across such choices as well.  There are times when we must choose which laws to follow and which laws to break.  Jesus offers us our guide.  Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.  This is our measuring stick as to importance when faced with conflicting situations.  May we practice them without fear.  Amen.

Writer's Note: Following the sermon, one of my congregation members who studied some theology in Europe commented about this sermon, "I am surprised this was the first time you'd run into that interpretation of the Good Samaritan.  I thought it was common knowledge." 

I replied, "Hey, I was schooled in the Crossan and Borg school of theology."

She said, "We need to talk."

I agree.  It might give me a chance to vent over the rather poor biblical scholarship I received.

Coincidence?

I just finished looking over the proposed Bible texts for Sunday.

The Gospel lesson is from Luke 10: 25-37--better known as the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

It just so happens that I read a neat little commentary on this passage while on vacation from Richard Bauckham's book: Jesus: A Very Short Introduction.

Coincidence?

I think not.

Guess which lesson I will be preaching on this Sunday?  :-)

Vacation Reading

I am thoroughly enjoying Richard Bauckham's Jesus: A Very Short Introduction.  So many of the historical Jesus books which have come out fail to deal with the totality of Jesus presented in the gospels.  They literally whittle Him down in an attempt to make Him "palatable" to the authors or to their supposed readers.

Bauckham doesn't whittle down.  He deals with Jesus as presented in these ancient, historical biographies we call the gospels.

One particular sentence grabbed me thoroughly in light of all of those who keep proclaiming, "Jesus sought out the outcast and poor and was non-judgemental."  Well, that's not exactly true when reading the gospels.  Those who portray Jesus in this fashion are actually being selective.  Most of the biblical scholars I read in college and seminary portrayed Jesus in this fashion.

Therefore, it is refreshing to read Bauckham's statement:

While he [Jesus] characteristically takes the part of the poor and the weak, he unrelentingly condemns the persistently wicked.

Yep.  If you read the gospels, you see Jesus doing exactly that.  It's exactly what one would expect from one who proclaimed the kingdom of God: Law and Gospel.  Good news for the oppressed and condemnation for those who persist in breaking God's will despite knowing it. 

Testimony Versus Historicity

In this and other cases, including the Gospels, testimony asks to be trusted.  It does not consist in the presentation of evidence and argument for what only the witness, the involved insider, can tell us.  In all cases, including even the law courts, testimony can be checked and assessed in appropriate ways but nevertheless has to be trusted.  In the unique events we are considering, this is all the more true.  To insist, with some Gospel critics, that the historicity of each and every Gospel periscope must be established, one by one, with arguments for each, is not to recognize testimony for what it necessarily is.  It is to suppose that we can extract individual facts from testimony and build our own reconstruction of events that is no longer dependent upon the witness.  It is to refuse that privileged access to truth that precisely participant testimony can give us.  Ancient historiography rightly valued such testimony as essential to good history...

--Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony  p. 502

Yes.

Bauckham has definitively destroyed the underlying assumptions for the quests of the Historical Jesus by rightly defining the Gospels not as history or mythology, but as stories based upon eyewitness testimony (Mark, Matthew, Luke) and by an eyewitness (John). 

I am in agreement with Timothy Keller that this book will take a number of years to infiltrate current biblical scholarship, and it will be a new generation of biblical scholars who will carry this torch as it (hopefully) blossoms into a roaring fire.  Yeah, it's that good.

It stands in sharp contrast to those who have undertaken the quest for the "historical Jesus."  Those who undertake this task approach the gospel narratives with a skeptical nature--that they are narratives which include embellishment and perspectives of communities of faith instead of the reports of individual, eyewitness testimony.  The task of the person/scholar searching for the "historical" Jesus is to wade through the mud and the muck in order to find the true jewels or authentic sayings and deeds of Jesus. 

This Jesus historian then must reconstruct Jesus based upon those nuggets.  So, you have a book like Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time and The God We Never Knew.  In each of these books, Borg reconstructs Jesus and God giving us a picture of a Jesus we never knew and a God we never knew. 

Well...

Of course we never knew THAT Jesus and THAT God.  They are Borg's reconstructions of Jesus and God.  As such, they are Borg's Jesus and Borg's God not the God of scripture.

Plenty of folks have met Jesus through the Gospel accounts.  Plenty of folks have met God through the biblical account, but they haven't met Borg's God and Borg's Jesus for obvious reasons.

Yet, Borg and others like him have garnered a hefty following in certain Christian circles.  It's not surprising.  (See: How Do Bad Ideas Continue to Stick Around)  

Bauckham turns the tables and argues quite successfully that the Gospels demand to be approached with trust instead of skepticism--just as a person approaches another's testimony with trust unless given a reason to the contrary.  Changing the assumption of how one approaches these documents changes the game--completely.

How do Bad Ideas Continue to Stick Around?

I usually don't take work home with me, but right now, I cannot help it.  Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony has me hooked.  Last night, as I read in my recliner at home, I found myself enlightened and bewildered at one and the same time.

As I wrote yesterday, I was taught biblical criticism which had its roots in form criticism.  As I read through Bauckham's thoughts on this matter, I found myself sitting right back in Theology 101 and New Testament 301.  "This is exactly what I was taught," I thought.

And then Bauckham began listing the criticisms of form criticism.  These criticisms had never seen the light of day in my theological education--and they were enlightening.  There were no less than nine criticisms which effectively shattered the assumptions form criticism were built upon relegating this form of biblical study to the academic scrap heap--at least one would think it would have done so.

But Bauckham writes something very, very telling (bold emphasis mine):

Even a few of these criticisms would be sufficient to undermine the whole form-critical enterprise.  There is no reason to believe that the oral transmission of Jesus traditions in the early church was at all as Bultmann [one of the movement's chief proponents] envisaged it.  It is remarkable that this is not more widely acknowledged explicitly, though, once one is aware of it, it is not difficult to see that many contemporary Gospel scholars acknowledge it implicitly by ignoring form criticism in its classical form.  But what form criticism has bequeathed as a long enduring legacy is the largely unexamined impression that many scholars--and probably even more students--still entertain: the impression of a long period of creative development of the traditions before they attained written form in the Gospels.  The retention of such an impression is not defensible unless it is justified afresh, for the arguments of the form critics no longer hold water.  pg. 249

I can attest to the truth of the bold statement.  And it made me wonder two things: 1) why weren't the criticisms noted by Bauchham taught by my professors?  and 2) Why does this stuff continue to stick around even though it has been thoroughly debunked?

The first question, I cannot hazard to guess as I do not know the hearts and minds of my professors.  Perhaps one day I will get the gumption to ask, but at this point, it doesn't really matter.

The second question is a bit more troublesome because I have an educated guess.  Mind you, it is educated, but it is still a guess.

The reason this particular idea has stuck around for so long is that it gives a theologian who is taught in this manner the permission to explore "what Jesus really said" and slough off anything he or she perceives as added by a particular community.

Paraphrasing the infamous words of Depeche Mode, it allows a person to build his or her "own personal Jesus."

One of the things I remember most about attending Texas Lutheran University in the theology department was the deep seeded distrust and animosity toward "Fundamentalist Christians."  Particular animosity was directed to the exclusivity of said "Fundamentalist Christians."  There were many at TLU who didn't like anything which proclaimed to be exclusive, and great pains were taken to be extremely inclusive.

However, this does pose a bit of a problem when studying the Gospel stories of Jesus--especially when traveling through the Gospel of John.  Jesus makes numerous exclusive claims in this book most notably the claim read at many, many funerals from the 14th Chapter of the book of John, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me."

How does one reconcile this passage with inclusivity?

Easy enough if you subscribe to the form criticism assumption that it was communities of faith who put together these stories after a long period of time to state the community's thoughts instead of what Jesus supposedly, really said.   One could say, "This snippet from the book of John reflects more the community's thoughts about Jesus instead of the actual words of Jesus." 

And in one fell swoop, one can discount what Jesus reportedly said in this book so that one can maintain his or her ideology surrounding inclusivity.

Of course, this doesn't have to be limited to Jesus' claims of exclusivity.  If someone doesn't like Jesus' teaching about wealth, one could use the same methodology to point out that this was what the community's thoughts of Jesus were and not what Jesus actually said.  Of course, that won't do for those who believe Jesus really did say stuff about wealth and privilege, so therefore, they have to come up with ingenious ways of discovering the historical nuggets of what Jesus really said embedded in the Gospels.

But, as I pointed out yesterday, it is striking how the historical nuggets most often come to reflect the personal biases of those who seek to "discover" them.

Yet, this is not surprising.  We all would like Jesus to confirm our particular way of life and how we look at the world, and we're not too comfortable when His teaching confronts us and shows us to be in error.  Early Christian thought and teaching called a person to repentance when such a thing happened--but today, it's much easier to explain that teaching away instead of actually following it.

This is why, in part, I believe the impression left by form criticism has stuck around--even though the technique itself has been thoroughly shown as bad.  Will it ever go away?  Not likely--especially if people can continue to construct their own images of Jesus instead of seeking to be transformed into His.

Rethinking What You Thought You Knew (or at least what you were taught)

Every once in a while a book will come along which will change the way you think--or, at the very least, it will challenge the orthodoxy of that which you were taught during the education you received.

Perhaps it is a blessing (or a curse) that in the past three or four years, several books have done this very thing to me:

Timothy Keller's The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism
Dallas Willard's compilation of several Veritas Lectures titled A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions
C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity

These titles gave me some much needed tools to wrestle with my faith in a manner that was not given to me by the liberal education that I received in theology and philosophy.  For once, I was able to wrestle with my faith from an orthodox perspective, and this wrestling helped me deal with the major points I found lacking in my previous theological education.

Currently, I am reading another book which promises to do the same thing in the area of biblical scholarship that the above books did in theology/philosophy.

The book is by Richard Bauckham, a Scottish scholar, and it is titled Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.  Thus far, (I am approximately 1/4 of the way through a 500 page tome) it is turning everything I learned in college and seminary upside down.

Revisiting the Past

During my college and seminary years, the third Quest for the Historical Jesus was well under way.  Some of you might remember the famous or infamous Jesus Seminar from the mid to late 90's.  I remember it well as it was another culmination of a particular way of doing biblical studies introduced to me by Dr. Norm Beck at Texas Lutheran University.  I'll never forget the distinction he made between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith.

How does one go about making such a distinction?

Well, first one must approach the Gospel stories in the New Testament with  certain assumptions:

The Gospels originated in communities of faith who wrote down the stories of Jesus years after the death and resurrection of Jesus.  These stories were first passed down as oral traditions, and over time, they became embellished.  Certain things were added to the stories to make Jesus seem more powerful and attractive.  There are kernels of history still included in the Gospel narratives, but these must be weeded out from the faith statements/embellishments added by the various communities in which the Gospel stories originated.

How can one go about distinguishing the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith?  Good question.  Certain scholars have come up with numerous sets of criteria to accomplish this task.  These vary of course from scholar to scholar and from methodology to methodology.  The Jesus Seminar was quite ingenious in that they had a vote by color scheme to decide what was "authentically Jesus" and what was embellishment.  Such methodologies could be applied in the following manner, and I will use two of the most important events surrounding Jesus: the crucifixion and the resurrection.

The crucifixion of Jesus is found in all four canonical gospels.  It is also attested to by extra-biblical sources.  The crucifixion would also be considered an embarrassment to the early Christian community as their leader was executed as a public criminal.  To include this in the works despite the embarrassment means there is a very high likelihood that the event actually took place.  Ergo-the crucifixion is definitely something that happened in the life of the Jesus of History.

The resurrection cannot be attested to by science or reason.  Extra-biblical sources comment that Jesus' followers say He rose from the dead, but there are no other witnesses other than those followers.  Such comments are not objective and are not historically verifiable.  Ergo, the resurrection is an event which is faith based and belongs to the Christ of Faith.

Now, this type of hair splitting can be rather concerning to many Christians.  There is a sense of "this is what really happened" versus "this is what was made up" lurking very near.  But, professors are usually not willing to totally destroy someone's faith.  They quickly point out the difference between reason and faith and that faith isn't something reason can confirm or deny.  There is no danger from entering into this process.

However, there are more than a few issues with this process:

1. Even though professors (and others) try to comfort believers by pointing out the difference between faith and reason and saying there is nothing to worry about; a good chunk of folks set faith and reason at war with one another.  There is a tendency to elevate one particular type of knowledge above the other, and this has led to all sorts of issues for the Church and for society.

2. When dealing with the Jesus of History--if you actually think you can whittle down to it--one must be able to make the Jesus of History as powerful as the Christ of Faith.  If the Christ of Faith developed later as an embellishment of oral history, then there must have been something quite powerful about the Jesus of History to initiate a movement based upon Him and His teachings.  Have Jesus of History scholars had to do their own embellishment to make the Jesus of History as appealing as the Jesus which appears in the Gospels?  Not sure on that one.

3. There is an oddly peculiar thing that happens in this quest for the Jesus of History.  Whenever a scholar "reconstructs" Jesus, then that Jesus seems to share many of the same passions, inclinations, and concerns as that particular biblical scholar.  So, one must ask whether or not the scholar is truly objective or is simply trying to make Jesus into a mirror image of his or her own beliefs?

Revisiting the Basic Assumptions

Bauckham makes such problems irrelevant. 

How?

He challenges the basic assumptions of such biblical scholarship.

Bauckham begins by building a case that the Gospel narratives were NOT based upon oral histories and traditions that developed over time and were embellished.  (That's an important statement.  Read it again.)  Rather, Bauckham builds his case that each Gospel narrative was written based upon the eyewitness testimony of individuals who both saw and heard Jesus in person.  Each Gospel writer uses different eyewitnesses with at least one primary one, and three of the Gospels actually give indications as to who the primary eyewitness(es) was.

Mark's primary eyewitness was Peter.
Luke's primary eyewitnesses were several women who were disciples.
John was written by an eyewitness--the Beloved Disciple.

As I mentioned earlier, I am only 1/4 of the way through the book, but Bauckham's arguments are thoroughly researched, grounded, and documented.  There are multiple footnotes on just about every page.  He is very, very thorough.

Consequences

If indeed Bauckham is correct in his challenge of the basic assumptions of the formation of the Gospel narratives, then we have just entered into a whole new world of understanding the stories about Jesus.  These are not the stories of legend, but the recollections of people who were there.

Now, one can say that these folks are making all the stuff up.  It's a reasonable thing to say.  However, these are multiple witnesses recounting many of the same stories without too much difference.  In fact, knowing the way our brains work and the details they remember, it might even be safe to say that the differences we encounter in many of the biblical stories are there because these eyewitnesses remember certain details over others--much like eyewitnesses who testify to a jury differ in their details.  In no way does it discount the truth of the events!

Furthermore, the dualism of distinguishing between the Jesus of History versus the Christ of Faith is no more.  The Jesus of History IS the Christ of Faith  (basically, this was the same thing Luke Timothy Johnson said during the whole Jesus Seminar hullabaloo; however, Bauckham is much, much more thorough).  The Gospels are stories based upon individual testimony and not compilations put together by particular communities.  And, if Bauckham is correct about the Gospel of John, we have at least one narrative written by a person who witnessed the life of Jesus, His death, His resurrection, and His appearances after the resurrection.

Fascinating, exciting stuff!!!  Stuff that makes you rethink everything you thought you knew or at least what you were taught.