Historical Evidence

The Christ Wiki - Why Believe in Jesus?

Is There Historical Evidence for Jesus?

© Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D./Magis Institute July 2011

Introduction

Most of the evidence that will be considered in this encyclopedia will be from the New Testament, and it will result from the application of historical criteria (given below in Section I.) to the New Testament texts (the four Gospels and the Epistles). There is a surprising amount of evidence that can be gleaned from these texts which will become readily apparent.

It should be mentioned that there are several extra testamental sources for the historicity of Jesus – particularly His ability to work miracles and His sentencing and crucifixion. The three most important sources are discussed in various Units of this Encyclopedia. Rather than explain them here, I will list them with the references to the Unit in which they are explained.

1. The testimony of Flavius Josephus (Jewish historian writing for a Roman audience in 93 A.D.) which attests to Jesus’ miraculous power and His sentencing and crucifixion (see Unit II-F, Section I.):

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles…And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross…And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

2. The testimony of the Babylonian Talmud (written between 70 to 200 A.D. in which Jesus is mentioned under four different names, several time).

One of the passages states that Jesus was accused of “witchcraft,” indicating that Jesus was known to have some kind of extraordinary and other-worldly power. (see Unit II-F, Section I.).

3. The testimony of Cornelius Tacitus (a Roman historian writing in the early second century – approximately 120 A.D.) who makes explicit reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in the Annals (15.44) when speaking about Nero’s blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. (see Unit II-M, Section I., for an explanation).

There are other kinds of external testimony to Jesus which are not in written form – such as the remarkable growth of Christianity in its first two decades even amidst complete marginalization and overt persecution. It would be difficult to believe that this occurred without an actual (remarkable) historical figure as its source. These indirect external testimonies to the historicities (and remarkable character of Jesus are discussed in Units II-C, D, E, and F.)

Of course, the New Testament goes far beyond these direct and indirect extra testamental sources, and gives a very detailed picture of both Jesus and His Jewish historical context. Wright, Meier, and other historical exegetes hold that Jesus came from a background of Palestinian Judaism, and that He overlaid this background with an emphasis on apocalyptic eschatology. Though He was undoubtedly familiar with Hellenistic thought, it was not central to His worldview. The general portrait of Jesus within this Palestinian framework is described quite succinctly by John P. Meier as follows:

…the total Gestalt, the total configuration or pattern of this Jew who proclaimed the present yet future kingdom, who was also an itinerant prophet and miracle worker in the guise of Elijah, who was also a teacher and interpreter of the Mosaic Law, who was also a charismatic leader who called disciples to follow him at great price, who was also a religious personage whose perceived messianic claims wound up getting him crucified by the Roman prefect, in the end, a crucified religious figure who was soon proclaimed by his followers as risen from the dead and Lord of all. It is this total and astounding configuration of traits and claims that makes for the uniqueness of Jesus as a historical figure within 1st-century Judaism.

But how can we be so sure that this picture of Jesus is historical? What techniques can be used to ascertain the truth of any historical texts, and in particular, New Testament texts? Why did the early Church go beyond the claim that Jesus was a man and claim that he was divine – “the Lord,” “the Son of God,” and even, “in the form of God,” and “not grasping at his equality with God”? We will discuss each of these questions in the following three subsections:

I. A Brief Description of Criteria to Establish Historicity.

II. The High Cost of Claiming Jesus’ Divinity.

III. Evidence Corroborating the Early Churchs’ Claim of Jesus’ Divinity.

A Brief Description of Criteria to Establish Historicity

What follows is a brief synopsis of the criteria and methods used to corroborate the likely validity of historical texts. It focuses primarily on the New Testament, and can be applied to Brown’s and Meier’s assessment of the historicity of the miracles (Unit II-F), as well as Wright’s, Brown’s, and Jeremiahs’ assessments of the historicity of Jesus’ Eucharist, Passion, and statements about Himself and His mission (Units II-G,L,&M). We will begin with the four most commonly used criteria of historicity:

1. Multiple attestation,

2. Discontinuity,

3. Coherence, and

4. Sufficient and Necessary Explanation

The Criterion of Multiple Attestation. Multiple attestation refers to the principle that the more often a story or saying appears in independent traditions, the more probable its historicity. Note that the converse statement cannot be deduced from the former (“the less often a story or saying appears in independent traditions, the less probable its historicity”). This falls prey to the logical fallacy of negating the antecedent.

Appearance in a multiplicity of independent traditions strongly suggests that those traditions go back to a common source, which would presumably be either the early Palestinian community and/or Jesus Himself. However, an absence of multiple attestation does not necessitate non-historicity, because sometimes the author(s) of particular traditions may not have heard about a particular story/saying or may have chosen to ignore it (for theological or apologetical reasons).

Prior to the discoveries of form and redaction criticism, it was commonly thought that each Gospel represented a separate tradition, and therefore multiple attestation consisted merely in repetition in the four Gospels. However, since the time of literary criticism (leading to form and redaction criticism), this simplistic view could no longer be sustained. These methods showed that Mark was very likely the first Gospel, and that Matthew and Luke relied very heavily upon it. Furthermore, it was also shown that Matthew and Luke shared a common source, namely, Q (referring to “Quelle,” meaning “source” in German), which was an early collection of Jesus’ sayings translated into Greek. Luke and Matthew had their own special sources which are not found in either Mark or Q. We know that these sources are not mere inventions of the Evangelists because many of them have the characteristics of an oral tradition developed prior to any literary tradition, and many of them do not follow the literary propensities of the Evangelists (e.g., some of Luke’s sources write in a far less sophisticated and stylized way than Luke himself – and the fact that Luke does not correct them indicates that he is being respectful of his sources). The Johannine source has long been recognized to be independent of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Thus, contemporary biblical criticism has been able to identify five independent traditions for the four Gospels, namely, Mark, Q, M (Matthew special), L (Luke special), and J (the independent Johannine tradition). We may now retranslate our principle to read, “the more often a story appears in the five independent Gospel traditions, the more probable its historicity.” Thus, if a story appears in all five traditions, it is very probable that it originated with a very early common Palestinian oral tradition and/or Jesus’ ministry itself. If it appears in three or four independent traditions, it is still quite probable. It must also be remembered that if a story appears in only one or two traditions, it does not necessitate non-historicity.

The Criterion of Discontinuity. There are two major applications of discontinuity: (1) any saying or action of Jesus which is discontinuous with the attitudes, theology, or sayings of second-Temple Judaism show signs of historicity because Jesus had sufficient authority to break with that tradition; (2) any saying or action attributed to Jesus which may be viewed as undeveloped (because the early Church’s theology had developed in light of His resurrection and gift of the Spirit) also shows signs of historicity, because there is no reason why the early Church would have preserved an undeveloped theology except in deference to Jesus’ having uttered it. This may also be extended to actions or sayings which the early Church would have found embarrassing, apologetically unappealing, disrespectful to Jesus, or disrespectful to the apostles. This criterion works particularly well in combination with multiple attestation, because multiple attestation can help to identify high probability of an origin in the early Palestinian Church or the historical Jesus; so when there is both multiple attestation and discontinuity from early Judaism and/or the early Church, it is difficult to find another source besides Jesus having sufficient authority to explain their placement within the Gospels.

Note that the converse is once again fallacious. Just because a story or saying is continuous with early second-Temple Judaism and the theology of the early Church does not mean that it is non-historical (to conclude otherwise would again be the fallacy of negating the antecedent).

We may now explore the two kinds of discontinuity in greater detail, starting with discontinuity from second-Temple Judaism. Latourelle catalogues a series of examples from Jeremias’ comprehensive study of this criterion which entails discontinuity of form and/or content from second-Temple Judaism. With respect to discontinuity of form (i.e., where a multi-attested form of a saying differs from second-Temple Judaism and so points to an origin in Jesus), scholars can identify when the form of a saying attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is discontinuous with a form of that same saying in second-Temple Judaism. For example, the way in which multiple sources attribute the use of antithetical parallelism and “amen” to Jesus is discontinuous with second-Temple Judaism’s use of these forms, and so Jeremias concludes that this way of speaking probably had its origin in Jesus.

The same holds true for discontinuity of content, particularly attitudes, from second-Temple Judaism. The New Testament clearly attributes the address “Abba” to Jesus, which conveys such a deep intimacy with the Father that it is exceedingly rare in second-Temple Judaism. So also, this holds true for Jesus’ attitude toward the Sabbath and the Law, which is completely discontinuous with second-Temple Judaism.

The criterion of discontinuity may also be applied to the early Church. As noted above, it becomes relevant with respect to actions or sayings in the Gospels that the early Church would have found embarrassing, apologetically unappealing, disrespectful to Jesus, or disrespectful to the apostles. Dozens of examples can be found for this, including Jesus’ baptism (Mk 1:9-11 – which counts Him among sinners); the command not to preach to the Samaritans and the Gentiles (Mt 10:5 – which is incommensurate with the early Church’s mission to the Samaritans and the Gentiles); and all of the passages which show the apostles’ obtuseness, faults, and desertion (which is highly embarrassing to the leaders of the post-resurrection Church). We have already seen this above with respect to Jesus being accused of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons. Why on earth would the Church have ever brought this accusation to the attention of converts and prospective converts unless the accusation were true and needed to be redressed? We also saw this with respect to Matthew’s reference to the soldiers being told to say that Jesus’ body was stolen (as an explanation of the empty tomb). This is also important in our historical assessment of the miracles of Jesus, given below.

The criterion of discontinuity also applies to New Testament sayings superceded by the theology of the post-resurrectional Church. This can be seen, for example, in the New Testament use of “Son of Man.” In light of the resurrection and gift of the Spirit, the early Church had progressed beyond this title to that of “the Son of God” and “the Lord,” which make Jesus’ divinity quite clear. In contrast to this, the title “Son of Man,”(see Unit II-G) only implies Jesus’ divinity by associating him with the divine Judge, the initiator of the parousia, and possessing the glory of God (see Daniel 7:13-14). Why would the early Church have used a far less theologically expressive title for Jesus than the ones that it had already used to express the divinity they recognized in the resurrection and gift of the Spirit? The matter becomes even more curious when we see the number of times that these titles are used. The more current and theologically expressive titles are used rather infrequently in the gospels, while the title “Son of Man” is placed on the lips of Jesus (comparatively) a very large number of times (80 times). There appears to be but one logical explanation – “Son of Man” was the title Jesus used to refer to Himself.

This leads to another question – why would the Evangelists have inserted the titles “Son of God” and “the Lord” into narratives of the ministry of Jesus, if those titles only came to light after the resurrection and gift of the Spirit? The direct answer is that they used the Gospels as a means of teaching the full truth about the identity and reality of Jesus. And so they gave post-resurrectional theological interpretation to the mission and actions of Jesus and His ministry. This intermingling of history and interpretation is not unusual in the ancient world, and should not be considered a cavalier attitude toward history on the part of the Evangelists. As will be seen below, the Evangelists were very concerned with history; yet they felt free to express the full significance of these events. These post-resurrection themes can be readily identified and distinguished from Jesus’ ordinary modes of expression and attitudes.

We should not infer from this that Jesus did not make reference to His divinity. As will be seen in Unit II-G, He did – but in an indirect way. For example, He spoke about bringing the kingdom of God (with its eternal significance) to the world in His own person; He claimed to vanquish evil by His own authority; His mission was precisely the one reserved for Yahweh alone; He referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” (with its eschatological significance within second-Temple Judaism’s interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14); and He implied, in three distinct ways, that He is the exclusive Son of the Father. These indirect references to His divinity were consistent with His desire to avoid self-aggrandizement and to induce His disciples to recognize His divine Sonship through His actions and in their hearts.

The Criterion of Coherence (or Continuity, or Conformity). The criterion of coherence is used in two distinct ways. The more uncommon way was comprehensively elucidated by Béda Rigaux in 1958. He noted that the Evangelists’ accounts conform almost perfectly with the Palestinian and Jewish milieu of the period of Jesus, as confirmed by history, archeology, and literature of the time of Jesus. Latourelle summarizes several of Rigaux’s examples as follows:

[T]he evangelical description of the human environment (work, habitation, professions), of the linguistic and cultural environment (patterns of thought, Aramaic substratum), of the social, economic, political and juridical environment, of the religious environment especially (with its rivalries between Pharisees and Sadducees, its religious preoccupations concerning the clean and the unclean, the law and the Sabbath, demons and angels, the poor and the rich, the Kingdom of God and the end of time), the evangelical description of all this is remarkably faithful to the complex picture of Palestine at the time of Jesus.

This leads to the conclusion that the Gospel writers were exceedingly careful in conserving and portraying the ambiance surrounding Jesus’ ministry, even though second-Temple Judaism had progressed considerably between the time of Jesus’ ministry and the final redaction of the Gospels. This leads Rigaux and many others to the conclusion that the Gospel writers did care about historical accuracy and were careful to preserve the historical setting at the time of Jesus. If they cared that much about the cultural environment, would they have not done as much to preserve the circumstances surrounding the ministry of Jesus Himself? As we saw above, the miracle stories are remarkably restrained by comparison with the Gnostic gospels, and as we shall see, they also contain the same elements of Palestinian Judaism at the time of Jesus to which Rigaux refers. Interesting and corroborating as this might be, this use of the principle of coherence can only conclude to the general historicity of the Gospels. Its usefulness in confirming particular aspects of them is limited. However, the second use of the principle of coherence can confirm the historicity of particular aspects of the Gospels.

The second use is based on the criteria of multiple attestation and discontinuity, and proceeds in two steps. First, the criteria of multiple attestation and discontinuity are used to establish the historicity of central teachings of Jesus. The primary example of this is Jesus’ teaching about the immediate coming of the kingdom of God in His own person, which is completely discontinuous from second-Temple Judaism (which had a notion of a future kingdom at the time of the parousia, but nothing like a present kingdom, particularly one brought by a man!). It is also discontinuous with the teaching of the early Church whose theology had evolved beyond the “coming of the kingdom” to the divinity of Jesus. Once these core teachings of Jesus are established, we can proceed to the second step, namely, to show the historicity of actions or other teachings which are linked to (and dependent on) this core teaching. For example, Joachim Jeremias uses this technique to establish the validity of the parables of the kingdom which begin with “the kingdom of God is like…,” and imply the present reality of that kingdom. The parables would make little sense without presuming the present reality of the kingdom.

Latourelle gives several other examples that have been verified by extensive analytical and historical studies:

…the example of the Beatitudes, originally the proclamation of the Good Tidings about the arrival of the messianic Kingdom (analyzed by Dupont), the example of the Pater Noster, originally and essentially a prayer for the restoration of the Kingdom (analyzed by H. Schurmann, J. Alonso Diaz, R. Brown, J. Jeremias), the example of the miracles, intimately connected with the subject of the Kingdom of God and to that of conversion, the example of the triple temptation (analyzed by Dupont and Jeremias).

Another example which is more germane to our purpose of examining the historicity of Jesus’ miracles occurs when Jesus makes a remarkable proclamation after curing a dumb demoniac in the Gospel of Luke (11:20): “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” The proclamation of the immediate presence of the kingdom is very typical of the preaching of Jesus (verified by the criteria of multiple attestation and discontinuity). When this is combined with the fact that Jesus typically linked His exorcisms to the vanquishing of evil by His own authority, it is not a far stretch to conclude that He really did link “the vanquishing of evil by His own authority” to “the bringing of the kingdom in His own person” (which enjoys multiple attestation). This would seem to indicate that the historical Jesus performed exorcisms for the express purpose of demonstrating that the kingdom of God had arrived in His own person.

It should be noted here that Jesus does not say “in my own person.” This is typical of Jesus’ desire not to aggrandize Himself, and to make the listener infer it from His actions through the “right disposition” of the listener’s heart. Thus, Jesus uses His exorcisms to demonstrate first that the kingdom of God is here, now. The listener may then ask, “Well, how did that happen?” and hopefully infer (unless, through the wrong disposition of heart, he is willing to say that the kingdom of God is being brought by the devil) that it must be by the power of God in Jesus.

The Criterion of Sufficient and Necessary Explanation. Latourelle describes this criterion as follows:

If, before a considerable collection of facts or of data, which require a coherent and sufficient explanation, there is offered an explanation which clarifies and brings together in harmony all these elements (which, otherwise, would remain enigmas), we may conclude that we are in the presence of an authentic datum (fact, deed, attitude, word of Jesus).

We will see a very extended example of this criterion throughout Unit II-D, in N.T. Wright’s pursuit of a sufficient and necessary explanation for the five Christian mutations of second-Temple Judaism’s view of resurrection. John P. Meier uses it to establish the historicity of miracles in general.

The above four historical criteria are very effective in establishing the historicity of all four kinds of miracles in general because multiple attestation can be applied to multiple instances, and the criteria of discontinuity and coherence can be applied to pervasive themes. However, it is slightly more difficult to apply historical criteria to single stories or narratives (as Meier does) because multiple attestation may not be available (i.e., a particular story may have only one source in Mark, Q, M, L, or J). Moreover, instances of discontinuity (from either second-Temple Judaism or embarrassment to the Church) may become less relevant in the standardization of the form of the story. Allow me to explain.

Form criticism is a method which classifies units of scripture by literary pattern (e.g., parables or exhortations, or, with respect to Jesus’ miracles, exorcism stories, healing stories, stories about raising from the dead, or nature miracle stories). It seeks to identify its various layers of oral transmission. It begins with a formulaic presentation given in the New Testament which has consistent identifiable features. It then works its way back through the various strands of oral transmission to a very primitive form of the story which was witnessed and probably well-known in the town or district in which it occurred. Thus, form criticism assumes that as an account is orally transmitted from the time of its historical core, it takes on accretions which correspond to the teaching needs of its transmitters in the early Church. Finally, it takes on a standard form with particular identifiable elements, which is then fashioned into a written account, which again may take on further accretions from one of the Evangelists or their literary sources. This last set of accretions are termed “redactions,” which reflect the favorite themes of Evangelists or teaching concerns within their audiences and churches (e.g., Matthew’s Jewish audience or Luke’s Gentile audience). The attempt to identify these redactions is appropriately called “redaction criticism.”

The job of the exegete is first to peel back the layer of redactions and then peel back the layers of the oral tradition to reveal the primitive core story which would have been witnessed and popularly known within a particular district. If the exegete is fortunate, there may be some clues to this, such as Semitisms which reveal an early Aramaic narrative (which, in turn, reveals an early Palestinian origin). There may be other clues which the above-mentioned historical criteria can reveal. For example, the criterion of discontinuity (e.g., an incident which is embarrassing to the apostles or early Church, or would seem to undermine the reputation of Jesus) may be present, which very probably indicates an early origin, because it can hardly be thought that such incidents would be added to the oral tradition or to the written tradition. Why would any of the Evangelists add an incident which undermines Jesus’ reputation to a story which originally did not have it?

Now let us return to our problem of historical criteria (such as discontinuity or coherence) becoming less relevant with the standardization of the form of a story (as detected by form criticism). This can be explained through an example taken from Jesus’ exorcisms. The criterion of discontinuity can verify the historicity of Jesus’ exorcisms by His own authority – in general, because this is a clean break from second-Temple Judaism where exorcisms would have been worked through the authority (power) of God. This unique approach to exorcism by Jesus enjoys considerable multiple attestation which shows that it was very probably common practice for the historical Jesus. Good as this may be for establishing the historicity of Jesus’ exorcisms by His own authority – in general; it tends to make the criterion much less effective for establishing the historicity of particular narratives, because once a particular characteristic becomes part of the standard form of a story, the historian can no longer tell whether it was included in the tradition behind the Gospel story because it really occurred or because it was part of the standard form. This means that ascertaining the historicity of a particular story must take a more circumlocutious path then ascertaining the historicity of Jesus’ exorcisms, healings, or raisings from the dead in general.

How might historians approach this more difficult task? It may be done in two steps. First, they take a standard miracle story (say, an exorcism story), and then peel back the redactions (the Evangelists’ favorite themes and teaching concerns) that may have been added by the Evangelists. Secondly, they attempt to move from the standard form of the story through the various layers of oral tradition to get to the primitive core story. Without going through the enormous nuance of this second step (which John P. Meier does extensively), I will give a brief explanation of five techniques for identifying historicity after literary redactions have been removed.

Technique #1 - Identification of nonstandard parts of a story. Stories which have several parts not falling within the standard form of, say, exorcism stories, reveal a very complex and lively development within oral tradition which probably have a primitive origin. This is not to say that stories which fall strictly within the standard form are not historical (recall the fallacy of negating the antecedent given above). However, the absence of nonstandard elements makes their development more difficult to trace, and therefore makes them less historically verifiable. Thus, we may generalize by saying that longer, detailed stories which include multiple elements falling outside of the standard form are more historically verifiable than ones that strictly follow the standard form.

Technique #2 - Unusual facts in material falling outside the standard form. In some narratives with extensive materials falling outside the standard form, there are unusual or unique facts that would not have ordinarily been included in a miracle story and serve no redactional purpose (i.e., they are not the favorite theme of an Evangelist, and do not serve a catechetical need or teaching need that might have added to the story). These unusual or unique facts would seem to require some personal connection of witnesses to the actual occurrence – for example, four friends of a paralyzed man going up to the roof of a building in which Jesus is preaching, carving a hole in the roof and lowering the paralyzed man down (Mark 2:1-12 parr.). This long detail does not seem as if it would have been added by any re-crafter of an oral tradition or by any literary redactor because it serves no apologetical, catechetical, or teaching purpose. Since it also requires the personal connection of a witness to remember it, there is some likelihood that it goes back to an historical occurrence.

Technique #3 - Historical details that are irrelevant to the standard form. These would include names of people and/or names of towns, for example, the town of Nain which is quite small and would have absolutely no pedagogical or catechetical purpose for the authors of traditions or the Evangelists. Why include it? Because it was probably attached to the original story. Again, names like Lazarus or Mary Magdalene have no pedagogical or catechetical purpose, and would seem to be relevant only if they were part of an original story.

Technique #4 - Semitisms. When Aramaic words (such as “talitha koum”) appear in a Gospel text, we assume that their authors did not gratuitously introduce them into stories which were already translated into Greek. Rather, they represent an earlier stage of the tradition going back to its Palestinian origins. The same holds true for Semitic forms of speech which can be detected underneath Greek translations. Semitic substrata are revealed by very awkward Greek phrases which become quite coherent when translated into Aramaic. Joachim Jeremias was particularly adept at identifying these Semitisms.

Technique #5 - Instances of discontinuity which occur in material falling outside the standard form. When discontinuity occurs within the standard form (e.g., Jesus exorcising demons by His own authority, which makes a clean break from second-Temple Judaism but falls within the standard form of every exorcism story), it may well be historically true, but it can’t be used as evidence of historicity of a particular story because it falls within the standard form. However, if discontinuity occurs in material falling outside the standard form, then historians do have evidence of historicity, because they can be reasonably sure that the Evangelists did not include this simply because it was part of the standard form. It was therefore probably part of a primitive core tradition which was retained throughout the tradition’s development precisely because it was historical. Historians can be reasonably sure that these discontinuous elements were not added at a later period in the development of the tradition because it makes no sense to introduce elements which break from Judaism or embarrass the Church into a narrative that was more apologetically appealing in its original form.

For example, Mark’s story of Jesus’ exorcism of a demoniac boy includes a part about the apostles being unable to cast out the demon. This is not part of the standard form of exorcism stories, and it presents an embarrassment to the apostles (which is not relevant to Mark’s teaching or catechetical purpose, and so is unlikely to be a Marcan redaction); therefore historians may reasonably conclude that it was not gratuitously added to the exorcism story, and very likely goes back to a primitive tradition grounded in history.

The above five techniques are used in Unit II-F (on Jesus’ miracles) and Unit II-G (on Jesus’ self-revelation). The criterion of sufficient and necessary reason will be used in Unit II-D with respect to Jesus’ resurrection. These techniques can be used in other New Testament contexts, and can be applied to other non-biblical historical texts.

Is There Evidence for Jesus’ Divinity?

The most powerful historical manifestation of Jesus’ divinity comes from His appearances to His disciples after His resurrection. These appearances had three features: (1) embodiment manifested as a human form which could be witnessed by many people simultaneously through their physical senses; (2) transmateriality which was not controlled by or subject to the laws of physics (it could pass through closed doors, take on a variety of forms, and disappear from view); and (3) characteristics which appeared to reflect the glory of God.

As N.T. Wright implies, it would have taken something of this magnitude to move the apostles from the status of believers in a dead and humiliated master to a force which ultimately converted the Roman Empire and became a world Church:

It launched a claim on the world: a claim at once absurd (a tiny group of nobodies cocking a snook at the might of Rome) and very serious, so serious that within a couple of generations the might of Rome was trying, and failing, to stamp it out. It grew from an essentially positive view of the world, of creation. It refused to relinquish the world to the principalities and powers, but claimed even them for allegiance to the Messiah who was now the lord, the kyrios.

Jesus’ risen appearance was experienced as divine power in human history, and unequivocally implied His divine status. Paul’s recounting of an early Christian kerygma (proclamation) makes this connection between resurrection and divinity quite clear:

the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord…. (Rm 1:3-4)

Does Jesus’ transformed embodiment and glorified appearance exhaust the evidence for His divinity? Though it is very powerful evidence, it does not. As the above passage from Romans implies, the apostolic Church had access to another entrance of God into history, namely, the Holy Spirit, who was experienced as the personified power of God, and was possessed by Jesus during His ministry, given by Jesus after His resurrection, and connected with the name of Jesus to this very day. James Dunn notes in this regard that:

“wonders and signs” are attributed variously [by Luke in Acts] to the Spirit of God, the name of Jesus and the hand of the Lord, without any attempt being made to explain the relationship of these concepts of power.

Though the early witnesses had a privileged access to Jesus’ divinity in their experience of His risen embodiment and transformation, Christians today still have an experiential access to the personified power of God in the Holy Spirit. If the millions of accounts of healings, particularly those without any known physical explanation, and other charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit are not to be totally discounted; and if all the internal manifestations of the Holy Spirit (such as a peace beyond all understanding, the ability to call God “Abba,” the inspiration to understand and articulate truths beyond our ordinary human knowledge and wisdom, the curious energy which draws us toward new opportunities when other doors have been closed, the insight into the heart of Jesus which transforms us in a humble, self-sacrificial love) are likewise not to be totally discounted, then we too have access to the very Spirit of God that constituted a vital piece of the evidence for Jesus’ divinity, and more importantly, constitutes the vehicle through which we can be animated disciples of Jesus and transformed into His image.

When the Christian Church reflected on these two entrances of the divine into human history (which occurred through Jesus alone), they found themselves drawn toward an inexorable conclusion, namely, that Jesus is the power and glory of God. The earliest witnesses could not help but believe that Jesus was “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead” (Rm 1:4).

But was Jesus made Son of God at His resurrection? The apostolic Church had excellent reason to believe that this was not the case, and furthermore, to believe that He was not made Son of God during His ministry or at His birth. He was not made Son of God at all. He was Son before all creation.

What made the apostolic Church so certain about this? A confluence of four of Jesus’ deeds and claims during His ministry: (1) He manifested divine power in himself by exorcizing demons, healing the sick, and raising the dead without recourse to the divine name (in contrast to the other great profits such as Elijah and Elisha who did this through God’s name)—see Encyclopedia Unit N; (2) He claimed to bring the kingdom of God in his own person, to defeat evil by his own power, and to change Torah and forgive sins by his own authority (deeds reserved to Yahweh); (3) He claimed to fulfill the mission reserved to Yahweh alone through himself; and (4) He implied and claimed that He is the exclusive Son of the Father with power and access to the Father which are uncreated (co-eternal): “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22)—see Unit II-G.

The apostolic Church recognized a remarkable parallel between Jesus’ Sonship, and the personification of Wisdom (Sophia) in the books of Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom. This gave rise to the Christological hymns. One can feel how easily the Colossians Hymn (1:15-17), for example, could have emerged:

[The beloved Son] is an image of the invisible God [the Father]

supreme over all creation,

because in Him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth,

the visible and the invisible,

whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities;

all things have been created through Him and for Him

and He is before all things

and in Him all things are held together.

The early Church probed this truth more deeply in the Philippians Hymn:

[Jesus], subsisting in the form of God

did not deem equality with God

something to be held onto

but emptied Himself

taking the form of a servant. (Phil 2:6-7)

Other early Church writers also made use of the Wisdom tradition to express the divinity of Jesus in the remarkable hymn in the prologue to the Gospel of John (which predates the Gospel by many decades and was probably used as a liturgical hymn):

In the beginning was the Word [the Son],

And the Word was with God [the Father]

And the Word was God [the power of God]. (John 1:1-2)

The early Church felt that these remarkable proclamations were corroborated by God in the resurrection appearances and by the Holy Spirit.

Units II-C-G will set out the evidence for the above claims, and show the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, gift of the Holy Spirit, miracles, and claims about Himself. This evidence shows that Jesus is Emmanuel, and simultaneously that God is unconditional Love. Not surprisingly, this is precisely what Jesus claimed about His Father and about Himself.

The High Cost of the Apostolic Church’s Proclamation of Jesus’ Divinity

The attribution of divinity to Jesus cost the apostolic Church dearly, because it seemed to run contrary to the strict monotheism of second-Temple Judaism and was viewed as blasphemous and repugnant to most Jewish audiences. This eventually led to Jewish Christians being banned from the Synagogue (which they did not want), a loss of social and financial status, and even persecution and death.

At the very least, the proclamation of Jesus’ divinity was apologetically unappealing. Jewish audiences would not have been attracted to an apparent blasphemy, and both Jewish and Gentile audiences would not have been attracted to the proclamation of a crucified man as divine. Why would the apostolic Church have selected a doctrine which would have been viewed so unfavorably by the very audience which it wanted to attract?

As Joachim Jeremias remarks, this was wholly unnecessary, for the apostolic Church did not have to proclaim or even imply that Jesus was divine in order to bestow great favor upon Him within the culture of the day. They could have proclaimed Him to be a “martyr prophet.” This would have allowed converts to worship at His tomb and to pray through His intercession. He would also have been listed high among the “holy ones” and would have therefore been much more palatable to (if not popular among) both Jewish and Gentile prospective converts.

Why, then, did the apostolic Church go so unapologetically and dangerously far to proclaim (ardently) that “Jesus is Lord?” Why didn’t they make their preaching more apologetically appealing? Why did they suffer social and financial loss, and even persecution and death, when it all could have been avoided by simply giving up the implication of His divinity? I think the only reasonable and responsible answer is that they thought He really was divine.

So why did the apostolic Church believe Him to be divine (and even to share a unity and co-equality with the Father in all eternity)? How could they be so sure of this radical proclamation which had so many negative consequences, when they could have taken the “easier road” in proclaiming Him to be a martyr prophet? Was it simply because Jesus indicated His divine Sonship with the Father? I would submit that the early Church believed in Jesus’ lordship (divinity) for four reasons:

1) Jesus’ bodily-glorified resurrection (Unit II-C&D),

2) Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit – experienced as “the power of God” (Unit II-E),

3) Jesus’ miracles – experienced as divine power through his own authority (Unit II-F),

4) Jesus’ proclamation of Himself as the exclusive Son of the Father, the Bringer of God’s kingdom, and the Fulfiller of the mission reserved to Yahweh alone (Unit II-G).

If the combination and interrelationship among these four sources reasonably and responsibly grounds the assertions in the Philippians and Johannine hymns, then it would seem that Emmanuel has truly come among us and continues to be with us.

Footnotes

Josephus 1965, 18:3.3.

See Babylonian Talmud; “Sanhedrin” 43a.

Cited in Kirby 2006.

Meier 1999, pp. 476-77.

Since the time of Aristotle, it has been widely known that the following syllogism is fallacious. “If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B.” So also the syllogism, “If multiple attestation, then historically probable. Not multiple attestation. Therefore, not historically probable.”

See McArthur 1969(b), pp. 139-140.

This criterion is used with respect to second-Temple Judaism in Wright’s argument for the historicity of the resurrection in Unit II-D.

Latourelle notes the universal acceptance of this criterion by the entire spectrum of exegetical interpretation: “It is accepted by Bultmann, Kasemann, Conzelmann, Bornkamm, Jeremias, Perrin, McArthur, Dahl, Mussner, Trilling, Shurmann, Rigaux, Cerfaux, Leon-Dufour, Caba, Lentzen-Deis, de la Potterie, Calvert, Zedda, Lambiasi, McEleney and Schillebeeckx” (Latourelle 1979, p. 223).

Latourelle 1979, p. 224. See also Jeremias 1971, Chapter 1.

See Latourelle 1979, pp. 224-225, and Jeremias 1971.

See Latourelle 1979, p. 225.

See Unit II-D.

Raymond Brown asks the logical question: “Why was this title so massively retrojected, being placed on Jesus’ lips on a scale far outdistancing the retrojection of “the Messiah,” “the Son of God,” and “the Lord”? (Brown 1994(a), p. 90).

Rigaux 1958.

Latourelle 1979, p. 227.

Even Bultmann and Perrin acknowledge that this use of the criterion of coherence is valid in limited ways. (See Bultmann 1960; and Perrin 1967 and 1976.) In so doing, they also acknowledge the validity of the criterion of discontinuity. Joachim Jeremias gives the most thoughtful and comprehensive use of this criterion in his groundbreaking analysis of the historicity of the parables of the kingdom. (See Jeremias 1972.)

Latourelle 1979, p. 228.

Latourelle 1979, p.229.

Form criticism was originally developed for Old Testament exegesis by Hermann Gunkel. It was further supplemented by Martin Noth and Gerhard von Rad (for the Old Testament) and then was applied to the Gospels by Karl Ludwig Schmidt, and later by Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, C.H. Dodd, and others. It had some excesses in its early formulations which have been tempered and corrected by sound historical analysis, particularly by C.H. Dodd, Joachim Jeremias, and more recently by John P. Meier and N.T. Wright). Detailed descriptions of the contributions of each of these well-known scholars may be found in any standard introduction to the Old or New Testament.

Wright 2003, p. 729.

Dunn 1975, p. 170.

For a general context in which these events occurred, see Dunn 1991, Hengel 1980, and Wright 1996.

Jeremias 1958 and Küng 1978, p. 371.