HISTORICAL EVENTS
Jesus Research is the term many people use for what scholars often call the third quest for the historical Jesus. Beginning around 1985 and following two earlier scholarly movements centered on the historical Jesus, it represents an academic effort to conduct a more scientific and historiographical study of Jesus within the Jewish background of His life and ministry and in light of all relevant available data, such as archaeology and primary documentary sources.
As a by-product of the Enlightenment’s intellectual skepticism in the Western world, both the Old Quest (1774–1906) and the New Quest (1953–1970) reflected several philosophical concerns. Radical rationalism that regarded reason as the sole test of truth drove generations of scholars to assume that the biblical record of Jesus was not reliable. It especially led them to reject the supernatural elements in the Gospels, such as the miracles of Jesus, either by ascribing them to unrecognized causes or mistaken observations or by regarding them as mere representations of spiritual truths.
In the first case, the feeding of the 5,000, for example, actually occurred when, impressed by the little boy’s generosity, others in the crowd decided to share the provisions they had brought with them. The second viewpoint holds that the story did not intend to report what Jesus actually did on a particular day but to claim that He is “ the bread of life” who always feeds His followers with spiritual food. An even more radical approach considered most of the Gospels’ content as having been manufactured or severely distorted for apologetic purposes as the stories of Jesus were told and retold into the late first or early second century. That viewpoint’s proponents argued that, because the resulting changes were so pervasive, we could know nothing more about the real Jesus than perhaps that He existed and was crucified. In other words, the early church would have been more concerned with idealizing a Christ whom they could then use as evidence for their beliefs (“the Christ of faith”)even if mythological— than with the real Jesus of Nazareth (“the historical Jesus”).
The Third Quest (i.e., Jesus Research), on the other hand, has completely changed the focus (and the investigative method). Led by a wide variety of experts, whether Christians or Jews, Catholics or Protestants, liberals or conservatives, it does not follow any philosophical agenda per se, but employs a broad spectrum of historical evidence in its attempt to provide a clearer understanding of Jesus within His first-century Jewish setting. The old skepticism has given way to a more positive attitude toward the Gospel accounts and other New Testament references to Jesus.
Thus the emphasis has shifted from attempting to explain inauthenticity to seeking to verify authenticity. For the first time, the study of Jesus has involved a more historiographical inquiry, the use of new methodologies (sociological, anthropological, etc.), and a systematic examination of archaeology, geography, and ancient literature. The result is that, in comparison to the previous quests, an increasing number of scholars now consider far more of the Synoptic material— that is, the material found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke—as historically authentic, though some still view the Gospel of John with reservations.
That is not to suggest, however, that the Jesus Research has reached a consensus or that its conclusions, even if only concerning the Synoptic Gospels, can be labeled as fundamentally conservative. While numerous studies have indeed shown a renewed respect for the historical nature of Jesus’ life and ministry, including His messianic consciousness, others have argued for no more than a moderate amount of historicity. Yet, increasingly scholars have begun to reject some popular assumptions behind previous attempts to find the historical Jesus, including (1) that oral tradition is not trustworthy and that none of the evangelists had access to reliable eyewitness accounts; (2) that the Gospels are theological rather than historical documents; (3) that the early church was more concerned with theology than with history; (4) that the Gospel tradition consists of different redactional layers that can be peeled apart; (5) that non-canonical sources, especially those with a Gnostic outlook (like the second-century Gospel of Thomas), are as relevant as the actual New Testament documents to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus; (6) that narratives containing Old Testament citations and allusions are necessarily late products of the early church’s reflection; and (7) that whenever the canonical Gospels differ from one another, we should pick only one account as valid, or even perhaps question both. By removing such unwarranted assumptions, scholarship has begun to bridge the chasm that previous studies had created between the Christ of faith and the historical Jesus. In fact, irrespective of their theological orientation, whether liberal or conservative, most scholars now seem to agree that it is both possible and necessary to investigate the historical Jesus without resorting to the concept of the Christ of faith, that is, through more rigorous historical methodologies.
Several other important questions continue to shape the search for the historical Jesus, such as what criteria should be used to test the authenticity of Jesus’ sayings and actions, how we should employ those criteria, what the presumed socio-religious context of Jesus’ ministry is, and what the precise nature of His message about the kingdom of Godis. Yet, by far, the most controversial issue is the miracles recorded in the Gospels, whose historicity many frequently deny under the assumption that only natural laws and forces operate in the world. Miracles are by definition violations of those laws, and so could not possibly happen. The problem with this claim is that it uses the laws of nature to explain causation. The natural system, however, only regulates the effects once the causal action is produced. That is, it has to do with the process only, not with what triggers it. It is also an open system rather than a closed (inviolable) one.
At any time, unexpected causes may disturb a process and lead to different results. If someone drops a porcelain vase, for example, the law of gravity says that it would fall and shatter. But if another person catches the vase before it hits the ground, it would remain intact. So miracles are moments in which a supernatural cause (God) suddenly intervenes in the natural course of events, bringing about a surprising turn, though still within the limits of normality.
This is what happened, for instance, to those whom Jesus miraculously healed. In most cases, their lives changed significantly after the healing, but they still died. As for the alleged impossibility of outside intervention in the natural system, we must keep in mind that this is nothing more than a hypothesis based on the human perception of reality. As science has progressed, much of what once was considered impossible has been drastically modified and revised, implying that the scope of reality is much broader than what can be perceived or measured and that much of what happens in the universe is beyond our current understanding.
One crucial difficulty with miracles is that they are unique occurrences and, as such, are not subject to scientific investigation, whose conclusions depend on observation and especially repeatability. Science is good at investigating repeatable (or reproducible) phenomena but ill-equipped to answer questions about unique events. As a result, the scientist will never be able to prove or disprove Jesus’ miracles. At the same time, the historian’s role is not to assume what could or could not happen but to find out what did occur based on the available evidence. Hence, if we can show that the Gospels are credible and trustworthy historical documents, we should then seriously take their claims concerning Jesus and His miracles. And the available evidence does support the case for the general antiquity and reliability of the Gospels.
Jesus’ ministry extended from AD 27–31. Scholars have traditionally dated the Gospels as follows: Mark, apparently the first written, around AD 60, with Luke and Matthew, in this order, between the composition of Mark and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and John, the last one, around AD 90. So all the Gospels are believed to have been written before the end of the first century. The same holds true for the other books of the New Testament as most of them were completed within 20 to 40 years after the ascension of Jesus. Only the Johannine writings (John’s Gospel, 1-3 John, and Revelation) were composed in the final decade or so of the first century, a conclusion supported by a number of both internal and external evidence.
Internal evidence. All three Synoptic Gospels report Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1-51; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36), which occurred in AD 70. None of them, however, mention the fulfillment of the prophecy. Considering the centrality of the temple in Jewish religion and the role Jerusalem played in Jesus’ ministry and the beginnings of the church, such silence is incomprehensible unless these Gospels were written before AD 70. In the book of Acts, the temple continues to be central to Judaism and to some extent also to Christianity, suggesting that Luke completed this book also before the destruction of Jerusalem. The last event that Acts records is the end of Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome in AD 62 (Acts 28:30, 31). It does not mention the apostle’s second Roman imprisonment and execution five years later (AD 67), pointing to a date before his death for the writing of Acts.
Since Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts (Acts 1:1; cf. Luke 1:1-4), and Mark before Luke, they must have been composed before Acts. John was written much later. It clearly refers to Peter’s death by crucifixion in AD 67 as a past event (John 21:18, 19), and the rumor that the Beloved Disciple would not die till Jesus returned (vv. 20-23) seems to require that some time had already elapsed since Peter’s martyrdom. Given that external evidence (see below) prevents John from having been written later than the turn of the first century, the traditional date for its composition seems warranted.
External evidence. The writings of the Church Fathers make several allusions and references to the Gospels as early as the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, including Clement of Rome (AD 96); Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (AD 109); Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (ca. AD 110); Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (ca. AD 120); and Justin Martyr (AD 150). According to Irenaeus (AD 170), Polycarp was a disciple of John, and Papias claims to have received instruction from people who had been with the apostles. All of this indicates that by the turn of the first century, the Gospels were already known in different areas of the Christian world and were considered authoritative documents on the life and teachings of Jesus. Also, the presence of oral tradition and personal reminiscences as late as the middle of the second century strongly disavows any gap between Jesus and the Gospels that might justify any alleged lack of historicity.
The discovery in Egypt of the Rylands Papyrus (P
John’s Gospel itself, the most controversial text of the New Testament because of the divine claims of Jesus and the more extraordinary nature of His miracles, was subject to such control from the very beginning (John 21:24, 25). Despite being unique events, Jesus always performed His miracles in the presence of other people, sometimes thousands of individuals, which explains why His being remembered as a miracle worker is preserved even outside the New Testament. As for Jesus’ resurrection itself, the most momentous event of His life, more than 500 people could attest to its veracity, and most of them were still alive when Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:3-8) some 25 years later.
Furthermore, archaeology has positively identified nearly all geographical and topographical references in the Gospels, which suggests an early tradition that goes back to the first generation of Christians. Because of the extent of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, only people familiar with the region before the war would have been able to provide us with such accurate and detailed descriptions of the city and its surroundings. In Luke’s case, though he was not an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, he had access to first-hand accounts (Luke 1:1-4) and has proven to be a highly meticulous historian. In Acts, he names 32 countries, 54 cities, and nine islands without error. Modern mariners have confirmed the accuracy of the details surrounding Paul’s final journey from Caesarea to Rome (Acts 27:1−28:16). Luke refers to titles of government officials, proconsuls, and tetrarchs. While some are unique, scholarship has found them to be accurate. All of this speaks for the reliability of his works.
Finally, the portrayal of Jewish life and customs, tensions between different religious parties, and political intricacies in first-century Judea are in remarkable agreement with contemporaneous extra-biblical sources such as the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, first-century Jewish literature, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such careful documentation demonstrates that, for the Gospel writers, historical accuracy and reliability must undergird the Christian faith.
The unanimity of the manuscript evidence concerning the apostolic authorship (direct or indirect) of all four Gospels provides further evidence. An identifiable and trustworthy author is necessary to explain the recognition of the documents’ authority from the very beginning. The manuscripts also bear witness to the overall accuracy with which scribes preserved the text of the Gospels (and of the New Testament as a whole). In sum, there exists a reasonable amount of evidence that supports the antiquity and historical reliability of the Gospels, and the Jesus Research movement has rightly generated a renewed dialogue about Jesus Christ as a historical figure. Though much still remains to be done, this new attempt to study the Gospels on their own terms has already produced significant results. For those who have always held the four Gospels in high esteem, such results demonstrate that the grounds for faith are more solid than ever.