Program 1: What Does Mainstream Scholarship Think about the Conclusions of the Jesus Seminar?

Introduction

Dr. John Ankerberg: The search for the historical Jesus is a hot topic in both popular and academic circles today and has drawn a lot of attention from national magazines, such as Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. Further, the media has given an undue amount of attention to the outlandish statements of the Jesus Seminar, a self-selected liberal group representing a very small percentage of New Testament scholarship. Today we will address the questions surrounding the debate over the historical Jesus and show there are a significant number of historical facts about Jesus in secular and non-New Testament sources which prove that the Jesus of history is the same Jesus of the Christian faith. My guest is world-class philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas, author of the book, The Historical Jesus and about twenty other volumes. He received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Dr. Habermas is chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty University and has written more than 100 articles, mostly on the life of Jesus, which have appeared in scholarly journals and elsewhere. Join us for this edition of The John Ankerberg Show and learn why Jesus is one of the most historically verified lives of ancient times.

Dr. John Ankerberg: Welcome. If you read the articles about Jesus in national magazines such as Time,Newsweek, or U.S. News & World Report, you know that the truth claims of Christianity are under attack. A liberal group of scholars called the Jesus Seminar have published their conclusions and stated: it is no longer credible to think of Jesus as divine; Jesus did not rise from the dead; and the New Testament is a highly biased attempt to invent Christianity. In other words, if you’re a Christian and believe that Jesus is God, that he said the things recorded in the gospels, that he died on the cross and rose again from the dead, then your faith is not credible, and you have no historical evidence to back up your beliefs. Such statements are just plain wrong. My guest today is Dr. Gary Habermas, who has a Ph.D. and has written some twenty books and over 100 articles on the life of Jesus and other subjects. I asked him what mainstream scholarship thinks about the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. Here is what he said.

Dr. Gary Habermas: Now, with respect to the Jesus Seminar, what’s bothered a lot of people, and not just conservatives, is that we’re talking about several dozen scholars here. But quite frequently in interviews or elsewhere they’ll say, basically, “We’re mainstream. We’ve got the fundamentalists over here on the right and we’ve got the people who don’t believe there’s a Jesus at all–he never existed–on the other side, and we’re in-between them, in the middle.” But they’re not mainstream, and they do not speak for even most scholars, as many have said.

Now regarding the historical facts, I think that if we do link ourselves to what history says, we’ve got a situation where we can know quite a lot of information concerning Jesus. There are dozens of facts about Jesus’ birth, his life, his teachings, his death, everything–even his burial. This especially applies to his resurrection appearances. And we’re not even short of information regarding claims that he was deity, both from material both inside and outside the New Testament.

Ankerberg: One of the most unfounded statements made by the Jesus Seminar is that there is no real historical evidence for the Jesus of traditional Christian beliefs. But that is simply false. Dr. Habermas lists some of the different sources where facts about Jesus can be found. Listen:

Habermas: Well, as far as the historical facts are concerned, the New Testament has always been and still remains the best source for the historicity of Jesus. This is the case even according to critical scholars who use it regularly. And maybe we can comment more on this later, but I think the case for the overall life of Jesus Christ can be built from the ground up.

I also think that we have to look beyond the New Testament at Christian claims outside the New Testament. We have to look at some dozen and a half non- Christian sources outside the New Testament. Archaeology chimes in on a few things here, as well, and when you put it all together, we have quite a lot of information about Jesus Christ and his life in the first century.

Ankerberg: Now, the Jesus Seminar claims that the New Testament documents are not historical biographies of Jesus but only theological reflections about him. But Dr. Habermas explains that other historical writings also contain theological ideas, without being disqualified as reporting historical information. Listen:

Habermas: One problem is the charge that the New Testament writers were theologians or worse and therefore just presenting propaganda. From the Greek and Roman historians of that time, we have very few historical accounts that do not include the supernatural. We really have very few ancient accounts where the authors are just plain “hardcore historians.” The fact is, if you study Livy or Tacitus, or if you look at Suetonius or Pliny, if you view others from roughly the time of Jesus, these Roman historians are famous for mixing omens, miracle accounts, and other supernatural stories into their histories. Tacitus has fewer of these sorts of accounts, but we can still find them in his writings. Suetonius talks rather freely about omens and the Caesars who thought that they saw their demise ahead of time, so they acted this way or that way. What do contemporary historians think about this? Sometimes they may respond with a comment like, “Well, that’s different. These writers are real historians and they’re not attempting to talk theology or religion, like the Gospels writers do.”

However, in principle, just because the New Testament has things to say about theology and faith, that has nothing to say about whether they can also report accurate history. There is a good amount of historical data in the New Testament and I think that’s recognized by the majority of scholars today.

Ankerberg: Next, the Jesus Seminar claims that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really didn’t write their gospels. Further, the Jesus Seminar has concluded that only about 18 percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were actually spoken by him. What about this? Dr. Habermas explains that, l) the traditional authors can be defended, 2) the critical scholars have conceded that parts of the gospels are historically true, and 3) you can take that evidence and easily defend traditional Christian beliefs about Jesus. Listen:

Habermas: Let me make three comments about the authorship of the gospels. First, the traditional authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, can be defended with a good deal of scholarly force and it is still being done today. Second, British New Testament scholar R. T. France stated, for example, that even if we don’t take the time to sit down and work all the way through each of the traditional authors, we can still support the authenticity of the gospels on the same ground that we do for Roman history – that these are still the earliest extended accounts about Jesus that we possess. As such, they are due the respect of being the earliest historical pieces of data on this subject and we should make use of them accordingly. Besides, time and again they have been shown to present many reliable historical reports.1

So we could argue for the traditional gospel authors. If scholars don’t like that, the gospels still remain the earliest books that depict a large portion of Jesus Christ’s public ministry, and have been shown to employ reliable traditions.

But third, I prefer another type of argument that builds from the ground up, that does not take a more common approach that these books must be totally historical before they are useful, thereby making every detail in them true. Coming at this subject from a different angle than this last one, I call my method2 the “Minimal Facts Argument” and suggest that this sort of approach is probably the strongest, in evidential terms. It employs snippets of information, basically moving one fact at a time, building a case upwards, but only when there is much factual support for each of these historical facts. It is as if we were building a wall, one brick at a time, with each historical fact being one of these bricks. Because of the large amount of scholarly confirmation for these particulars, critical scholars generally recognize that they are historical events.

As I explain to my graduate students over and over again, with critical scholars today most generally, the “authentic” Pauline epistles are almost always accepted as authoritative, while the gospels frequently are questioned. On the other hand, for evangelical Christians, Paul and the gospels are all part of Scripture. But if the critical scholars are going to grant us more than a half-dozen of Paul’s major epistles as being good sources, why don’t we take those texts and begin building a strong case—a brick wall, as it were? So I would favor taking a number of historical facts that are recognized and accepted by virtually all scholars, building up these data and showing how we can make our case, based on these few facts alone, rather than holding out for all of the New Testament. That is the chief idea behind the Minimal Facts Argument.

Ankerberg: There is a body of Pauline literature that can be accepted as historical by virtually everyone. Let me give you an example or two. G.A. Wells is the British Professor of German who has written a number of books arguing that Jesus probably never lived. G.A. Wells will still grant eight authentic Pauline letters. But that doesn’t satisfy the Christian who would like thirteen. But instead of being upset with him for what he doesn’t give us, let’s take what he does give us. Those eight Pauline epistles that Wells grants includes our most important doctrinal works, namely, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians. He gives you all those. And so since in these epistles Paul is a good source, even for somebody like G.A. Wells who argues that Jesus probably never existed, then let’s use Paul.

And when we’re talking about the resurrection of Jesus, for an example, or the nature of the gospel, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15, let’s look at Galatians 1, passages that are unanimously given. And that is precisely why the New Testament still gives us our best data, because this is all a sort of irreducible minimum or the lowest common denominator. We still have plenty of data here to talk about the Jesus of history.

Some in the Jesus Seminar may think that the Apostle Paul invented the divinity of Christ; that Paul’s Jesus is completely different from the historical Jesus. What historical evidence proves is that the Apostle Paul did not invent Jesus; rather, both he and the other Apostles viewed Jesus the same way and preached the same message? Listen:

Habermas: One of the most important pieces of information that the critical community will almost unanimously admit and allow is 1 Corinthians 15. Now, in the first two verses Paul had just said, basically, “I came to you Corinthians and I preached the gospel to you.” Paul went there in person and preached orally. We’re talking here about a date that is well-recognized as 51-52 AD. And Paul said, essentially, “I preached the words of the gospel. If you believe those, you’re saved, and if not, you’re not.” [1 Cor. 15:1-2]

Then Paul defined for them the factual side of the gospel message. He states in verse 3: “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter and then to the twelve.” [1 Cor. 15:3-5] Then he listed some of the other appearances. He added at the end, “Last of all, he appeared to me.” [1 Cor. 15:8] So this is one of the very clearest statements of the factual portion of the gospel message, as proclaimed in the New Testament.

Why do scholars take this text so seriously? First of all, it’s from an epistle that is unanimously thought to be written by the Apostle Paul. Why is that? Well, as one scholar attested, we don’t even need to discuss Pauline authorship here because both the internal and external evidence for this epistle are so strong. Like what?

Well, just prior to 100 AD, Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthians (about 95 AD). Then, just after 100 AD, Ignatius wrote seven brief epistles around 107 AD, and Polycarp wrote another one about 110 AD. These three men, writing nine short epistles, quote, cite, or refer to the book of 1 Corinthians approximately some 30 times, and do so just about a decade after the traditional close of the New Testament. That is an incredible amount of attestation from sources outside of Paul, all asserting Paul’s authority. These are just some of the many reasons that cause even skeptics to admit that Paul the apostle wrote this epistle.

So when Paul presented the report here that he received from others, namely, that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, and rose again the third day and appeared . . . .” [1 Cor. 15:3-4], he must be taken seriously. And scholars do indeed take him that way, too. Further, it is admitted virtually unanimously that Paul at least believed that he saw the risen Jesus himself, and that makes all the difference in the world.

So we’re dealing with someone here who was there very close to the beginning, who knew the other Apostles, who’s repeating the gospel that they all agreed on and which they all taught. In 1 Corinthians 15:11 Paul states that it therefore made no difference whether it was he or the other apostles who were presenting this gospel message, precisely because they were all preaching the same thing. Paul took great care–as he explained in Galatians 2:2 (another of Paul’s unanimously-recognized epistles)–to ascertain that this was the same gospel that the other apostles were preaching, too, as the others had affirmed regarding Paul just four verses later (Gal. 2:6).

This is why eminent Cambridge University New Testament professor C.H. Dodd stated it like this: “anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian Gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof.” This is the case precisely because, “Paul’s preaching represents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a point very near to its source.”3

Ankerberg: Now remember, the Jesus Seminar claims Christians have no historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection appearances, and that Paul invented the deity of Christ, but they are mistaken. These words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, accepted by almost all critical scholars, take us right back very close to Christ himself. Look at this timeline:

• In 30 AD Jesus died by crucifixion.

• Shortly thereafter, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and the other apostles preached Jesus’ resurrection and deity.

• In 32 AD Paul met the risen Christ while he was on the road to Damascus and became a Christian.

• In 35 AD Paul went to Jerusalem to meet the apostles Peter and James and to check out his gospel to see if his message contained the same truths about Christ that the other eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection also preached. The others confirmed his message.

• Then in 51 AD Paul preached the gospel orally to people in Corinth and many become Christians.

• In 55 AD Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and recorded the facts that he received from the other apostles about Jesus and knew to be true himself.

This information indicates that Paul did not invent Christ’s deity but that he was in agreement with the very same message that Peter and James also preached. Further, it’s obvious that Peter and James were preaching their message way before Paul arrived on the scene. So Paul couldn’t have invented Jesus Christ and his message.

Dr. Habermas explains why these historical facts indicate a sound foundation about Jesus and cannot be denied. Listen:

Habermas: Let’s talk about why this is so important in terms of history. 1 Corinthians 15 is nearly a given, even from people like G.A. Wells and Michael Martin, who say that Jesus probably never lived. Paul said, “I delivered unto you the gospel which I also received: Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again on the third day and then appeared . . . .” [1 Cor. 15:1-4]

Now, let’s see what this looks like on a time line. Let’s picture between my hands here a space of about 25 years: 30ish AD–the cross of Jesus; 55ish AD–the writing of 1 Corinthians. It really doesn’t make a difference if you’re a liberal or a conservative here, either. These dates remain the same, within a year or so. Now, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in 55: “I delivered it to you (orally) when I came to you.” [1 Cor. 15:1] When was that? About 51 AD. Now notice, we’ve closed the gap from 25 years to about 20 years – from 30ish to 51. Then he said, “I delivered unto you that which I also received.” [1 Cor. 15:3]

Now, the ten million dollar question here is, when did Paul receive this material and from whom did he obtain it? There’s five steps here: the cross and Paul’s epistle are the outside book ends, and the oral testimony is in-between. Then we have two stages to go: when and from whom did Paul receive this creedal testimony? Of course, the folks who passed it on to him had the material before he did.

The common consensus of recent critical New Testament scholars provides the following data: Paul most likely received this material when he visited Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem about 35 AD. How do they arrive at this year? Well, if the crucifixion was about 30, then scholars place Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus at just about one to three years later. He said in Galatians 1:18 (again, another of Paul’s authentic epistles), that he went away for three years and that, afterwards, he went to Jerusalem. That’s an average of two years before his conversion, plus another three years afterwards, which totals five years (2 + 3 = 5 years) later for this visit.

Now if Paul’s experiences came only one year afterwards, as some think, then that’s one + three = four years after the crucifixion. But 35 AD is a nice round figure. So you’ve got the cross at about 30, 1 Corinthians written about 55, and Paul’s oral teaching in Corinth about 51. He attested that he went to Jerusalem in approximately 35 and he explained that he spent 15 days talking with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus [Gal. 1:18].

There’s a helpful Greek word here, too. In English it is usually translated as Paul “getting acquainted with Peter,” or “seeing Peter” or maybe even “questioning Peter.” The Greek word is historeo. The root word is histor when transliterated into English, and it’s the root word for our word “history.” Histor is used in documents outside the New Testament as when someone travels and maps out a region, for example, showing changes in the terrain and so on. A few critical word studies from non-Evangelical authors point out that this word in Galatians 1:18 basically indicates that Paul played the role of checking the testimony he received, or even playing a sort of investigative reporter.

Now, if Paul went up to Jerusalem around 35 AD and met with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, and did some checking on these apostles’ Christian testimony, there’s one other thing to learn. What did they talk about? One of the old rules of literary criticism is that we do best to interpret a text in its context, and the passage both before and the one immediately afterwards both state that Paul was talking about the nature of the gospel message.

Does that surprise us at all? After all, when we think of it, what else would Paul rather talk about more than the gospel? He traveled all of this distance to Jerusalem in order to meet with the head apostles, including the brother of Jesus. What would your first question be if you were Paul? I think just normally Paul would ask about the gospel. But as we said, that is also the immediate context, and Paul is basically asking, “Tell me about what happened.”

Now, just a few verses later in Galatians 2:1-2, Paul stated that he went up to Jerusalem again 14 years after the first visit, or at approximately 48 AD, or some 18 years after the crucifixion. Paul went there to specifically to check out the nature of his gospel message (2:2) to see if “I was running or had run… in vain.” So now Paul is attempting to ascertain whether or not he and the other apostles were on the same “gospel page,” so-to-speak. As the passage relates later, the other apostles added nothing to his message (2:6), and responded by giving he and Barnabas “the right hand of fellowship.” [2:9]

Lastly, we mustn’t miss who gave these men this commendation: James the brother of Jesus, Peter, and this time the apostle John was present, as well. Paul calls them the “pillars” (Gal. 2:9). Along with Paul himself, no one in the early church was more influential than these four apostles. The other three basically concluded that, “Paul, you’re on the right track here. We see that Jesus called you on the way to Damascus, giving you the gospel for the Gentiles. Go for it. We’ll take the gospel message to the Jews.” That’s basically what they did in Galatians 2:6, 9. This entire sequence is crucially important.

Now, back to the original point here: 1 Corinthians–55 AD; oral preaching in Corinth–51 AD; the crucifixion–30 AD. With no further adjustment, that’s only a total of 25ish years later, and that’s quite early. But Paul got it from somebody else, and the consensus position even among critical scholars is that he most likely received it from Peter and James pretty close to 35 AD.

Now, if Peter and James gave it to Paul, then they had to have known this content before Paul did! It was their own testimony, after all, before they even met him! For years, virtually no scholars picked a date as to when these data became formalized into the early creed that we find in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7. Why not?

Probably because there was no need to do so. The date basically already extended back on top of the crucifixion itself. What this shows is that the resurrection proclamation and the factual side of the gospel message as a whole (which includes at least the Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus according to the New Testament4) was known, agreed upon, and shared.

In my opinion, many Evangelicals even stumble when they attest that the early apostles preached the gospel message immediately, pointing to texts like 1 Corinthians 15:1-19. True, that’s only a brief 25 years later. But we can teach that Paul received this message perhaps just five years later and somebody had it before he did, going right back to the cross itself.

Now, this is one of the paths to the knowledge that the factual content of the gospel, in particular, is identified in the New Testament as at least the Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as we just mentioned directly above. These are all linked to one another on exceptionally strong historical grounds. Further, critical scholars grant texts such as I Corinthians 15:1-11, and Galatians 1:18-2:10. Again, this is what I mentioned earlier—what I have called the Minimal Facts historical argument.

Ankerberg: Now, if you’re a non-Christian, let me ask you, how did the Christian religion originate? How could the early Christians proclaim to the people in Jerusalem, the very city that had watched Jesus die on the cross, that Jesus was now alive? My point to you is this: there is strong historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. It can’t be ignored. Facts just don’t disappear; and they are a sound foundation for a faith commitment to Jesus if you so decide. Dr. Habermas summarizes:

Habermas: Well, I hope this provides a better idea of the comment early in the program that believers indeed have a solid historical basis for our faith. We’re talking about the center of Christianity, too: the Deity, death, burial, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The time frame that Paul is discussing is back in the neighborhood of 35 AD, when he met with two of the central figures in the early church: Peter, the head apostle, and James, the brother of Jesus and the pastor of the Jerusalem church. This is indeed a strong foundation. So it surprises me when I hear people saying, “Hey, there’s no evidence here or there.” Believers who may wonder, worry, or doubt need to be assured of these things when their faith is questioned. Let the critics deal with these sorts of data right here, found in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians 1-2, and the strong basis for the gospel.

Once again, we’re not talking here about periphery beliefs. We’re discussing the very center of our faith. Paul proclaimed that he had met the risen Jesus on the way to Damascus. Then he proceeded to check out all these things with Peter and James in Galatians 1. As if this were all not enough, he returned 14 years later, in order to make absolutely sure that he was not preaching the wrong message and doing so in vain! But the other major, “pillar” apostles, now including John as well, assured Paul in Galatians 2 that he was on course. They attested that his message was factually-grounded and true.

Then, in 1 Corinthians 15:11, Paul testified that what they were preaching was true: “Whether it is I or they, so we preach and so you believe.” In other words, you might say that Paul was keeping watch, as well! The others had approved his message, and now he agreed with their proclamation. The wonderful conclusion is that the gospel that Paul and Barnabas preached, as well as the message taught by the other apostles, too, was one and the same. Whoever taught the message, it agreed in its core of the Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We’re on central, sacred, and very solid grounds on these themes.

It would be a good exercise sometime for us to just contemplate some of these things. Is there a historical or other sort of evidential footing for any other central religious teachings of another prominent world religious founder? Prominent critical scholar John A.T. Robinson began one of his books by saying that these are not questions that are asked in the other religions, not even in the monotheistic beliefsystems.5 One Buddhist scholar begins his book by declaring quite frankly that his religious tradition doesn’t not have anything close to Christianity’s historical foundation. The texts he edited in his volume all date from 600 to 900 years after the Buddha’s death! Thus, all attempts to know the Buddha’s original teachings are “mere surmise” and “fruitless”!6

Endnotes

1 R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, The Jesus Library, Michael Green, Series Editor (Downers Gove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986), pp. 101-111, 122-125, 133-139.

2 Incidentally, it must be noted that this approach is precisely an apologetic method rather than any sort of personal position on the truth of the New Testament proclamation. I sometimes refer to it as the “lowest common denominator” methodology.

3 C.H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, reprint), p. 16.

4 For just a few of the major references, all from early passages that date even earlier than Paul, see Rom. 1:3-4, Rom. 10:9, and Philippians 2:6-11.

5 John A.T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 7.

6 Edward Conze, Editor and Translator, Buddhist Scriptures (London: Penguin, 1959), especially pp. 11-12; cf. also p. 34.