Historical Jesus - Lesson 2

Dr. Mark Strauss
Historical Jesus
nt315-02
Rationalists vs. Supernaturalists
Lesson Transcript

Welcome back to our study of the historical Jesus. For the first 1500 years of church history, the gospels were viewed almost universally as historically reliable accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. If you wanted to know who Jesus was, you read the biographies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

This perspective, however, changed dramatically in the 18th and 19th centuries, during the period of European history known as The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment saw the rise of the scientific method, where truth came to be viewed as the empirical observation of cause and effect relationships.

The philosophies of naturalism and rationalism dominated the intellectual scene. Naturalism assumed a non-supernatural worldview. Rationalism claimed that reason, what can be logically understood by the mind, was the sole test of truth. Anything that could not be explained in a rational manner, according to the laws of nature, was rejected.

In this context, The Bible came to be viewed not as the divine revelation from God, but as fallible human reflections, no different from any other literature in the world. Supernatural elements in the Bible in particular came to be viewed with skepticism and disbelief.

The religion of deism was the order of the day. Deists believed in a sovereign God who was the creator of all things, but God did not intervene in the natural world or in human affairs. Instead, he allowed the world to operate solely under the laws of nature.

The prime analogy of deism was a watchmaker. Just as a watchmaker makes a watch with components that operate independently, then winds it up and lets it run on its own, so God created this universe with certain unchanging laws of nature. He now allows it to run according to those laws, never intervening in supernatural ways.

In this intellectual climate, attempts were made to explain Jesus from a purely rationalistic perspective. This led to what has been called the 19th century quest of the historical Jesus. That name came from a book published in 1906 by Albert Schweitzer called The Quest of the Historical Jesus. The title in German was "Von Reimarus zu Wrede," From Reimarus to Wrede.

That's because Schweitzer identified the beginning of this rationalistic quest for Jesus with a scholar named Hermann Reimarus, who lived from 1694 to 1768. Reimarus, a professor of oriental languages in Hamburg, Germany, wrote a series of articles defending a rationalistic approach to the Bible. His claims though, were so controversial that he didn't publish them. Instead, he circulated them anonymously to friends.

But after his death, they were obtained by Gotthold Lessing, who published them with the title, Fragments. In one of these, called On The Intention Of Jesus And His Disciples, Reimarus challenges the church's traditional understanding of Jesus and his mission.

He claimed that Jesus's primary message, which was the kingdom of God is at hand, could have been understood only one way in first century Judaism, as the claim to be establishing a political kingdom on earth. According to Reimarus, Jesus had no ambitions or aspirations to establish a new religion. Rather, he considered himself to be a human messiah who would free his people from Roman oppression, and establish the kingdom of God in Jerusalem.

Jesus' hopes were dashed however, when the kingdom failed to materialize. He was arrested, tried, and crucified. His disciples, however, were intent on continuing his mission, so they stole Jesus's body and began proclaiming that he had risen from the dead.

So according to Reimarus, the Christian faith began not through God's vindication of Jesus at the resurrection, but through the lies and deceit of the disciples who faked his resurrection.

While Reimarus' claim that Christianity began through a massive act of fraud has been almost universally rejected by scholars today, his work set off a flurry of research trying to explain the historical Jesus on purely rationalistic grounds. The many books written over the next century-and-a-half did not usually attribute such deceptive motives to the disciples, but many sought to explain Jesus in a non-supernatural manner.

One of the most famous of these was a book by Heinrich Paulus, who lived from 1761 to 1851. In 1822, Paulus wrote a book whose title could be translated as the Life of Jesus as The Basis of a Purely Historical Account of Early Christianity. By a purely historical account, Paulus meant of course a rationalistic one.

For example, Paulus attributed Jesus's healings to psychosomatic cures, or to Jesus's use of secret medicine known only to him. Other miracles could be explained from unrecognized causes. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 was not the result of the supernatural multiplication of loaves and fishes, it was rather a miracle of sharing.

When the crowd became hungry, Jesus began to share his provisions and those of his disciples. The wealthy people who were present saw this example and began to share the food they had secretly brought.

Other miracles were the result of mistaken observation. Following the feeding miracle, Jesus only appeared to be walking on the water, when in fact he was walking near the shore with a mist covering his feet. Even Jesus's raising of those who were dead could be explained rationally.

The raising of Lazarus, Paulus suggested, was actually Jesus's rescue of his friend from a premature burial after he had fallen into a comatose state. A similar theory was proposed for Jesus' own resurrection. Jesus passed out on the cross from exhaustion and exposure, but only appeared to be dead. After his body was placed in the tomb, the coolness of the tomb and the aromatic spices revived him.

Now, few scholars today would propose such outlandish explanations for Jesus's miracles. Yet rationalism is alive and well in historical Jesus studies, and many scholars are reluctant to accept any account of the supernatural. Philosophical naturalism continues to assert that the world is a closed system of cause and effect without outside intervention.

The problem with this claim is that it assumes its own conclusion, a closed system in which miracles cannot occur. But this confuses the scientific method with a naturalistic worldview. As a philosophy or worldview, naturalism or materialism asserts that all reality can be explained through natural laws. The scientific method, by contrast, examines specific cause and effects relationships using experimentation, observation, and repeatability.

While science assumes that the world of matter and energy behaves in a consistent manner, it does not address the philosophical question of whether any reality lies outside of this material world, or whether normal patterns of nature are ever interrupted by an unexplained causal agent like a supernatural force or being.

While miracles are outside the realm of strict scientific investigation, they're not outside the realm of historical inquiry. The question of miracles must first be addressed philosophically, asking the question, are they possible? Then they must be examined historically asking what is the evidence that a miracle has actually occurred?

So let's start with the philosophical question. Can miracles occur? One of the most important advocates of naturalism in Western civilization was the 18th century enlightenment philosopher, David Hume. Hume's primary argument for naturalism was that human experience confirms the absolute consistency of the laws of nature. Since miracles are by definition violations of these laws, it would take an impossibly high standard of proof to confirm any particular miracle. Belief in miracles is therefore irrational.

As mentioned before, one serious problem with this argument is that it assumes its own conclusion, that the laws of nature are absolute and inviolable. But these so-called laws are really observations and hypotheses, human perceptions of how energy and matter work. As science has advanced, many of these hypotheses have had to be modified.

Consider physics, for example. Isaac Newton's laws of physics have had to be qualified by Einstein's special theory of relativity. Physicists don't view the universe today the same way they viewed it a hundred years ago. Not only are Hume's laws of nature not necessarily absolute, but nothing in Hume's argument rules out the intervention of an outside force to alter the expected pattern of nature.

Hume, however, gave four additional arguments to support his claim. "First," he said, "No miracle has ever been attested by a sufficient number of educated and rational witnesses to be proven true. Second," he said, "There is a human tendency to believe the spectacular, things that cause wonder and surprise. Third, most reports of miracles occur among ignorant and barbarous people. And fourth, claims of miracles occur in all religious traditions, thus nullifying one another."

None of these arguments is decisive. It's not just ignorant people who report miracles. There's a great deal of historical evidence from credible witnesses attesting to miracles throughout history. Craig Keener has compiled a large amount of evidence, both ancient and modern, in his two-volume work called Miracles, The Credibility of The New Testament Accounts, published in 2011.

For example, in First Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul refers to 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. Certainly not all of these were irrational or delusional. Nor is it true that in a pre-scientific age, people were so gullible that they would believe anything. We have many statements from ancient writers and historians expressing the same kind of skepticism toward the miraculous that we hear today.

On the other hand, even in the rationalistic Western world, most people still believe in God and the possibility of the supernatural. While Hume is certainly right that human beings are attracted by the spectacular, and crave things that cause wonder and amazement, this says nothing about whether miracles are possible.

We could present an equally strong counter-argument that people are generally quite skeptical of supernatural claims. All sides agree that caution must be exercised when judging a claim of a miracle.

Finally, it is certainly true, as Hume claimed, that miracles occur in various religious traditions. But again, no one is suggesting that all claims of the miraculous are true, or that fakes and charlatans do not exist. But the existence of fakes tells us nothing about whether miracles ever occur.

So if we cannot rule out miracles out of hand, how should we approach reports of them? The answer is that although the study of miracles is outside the realm of strict scientific investigation, miracles are not outside the realm of historical research. Which depends on the critical examination of written and oral reports, and the study of archeological evidence.

The historian's role is not to assume what could or could not have happened, but to find out what actually happened. Which is more objective, to assume miracles cannot occur, or to keep an open but cautious perspective? Based on our human experience, we might say miracles are unusual, uncommon, and outside the realm of everyday experience. But we should not rule out in advance that they are possible.

A miracle should be believed if there is enough historical evidence to accept it, with a high degree of probability. New Testament scholar, Raymond Brown writes, "Historicity should be determined not by what we think possible or likely, but by the antiquity and reliability of the evidence."

So we turn finally to the question, did Jesus perform miracles? You might be surprised that there is a nearly unanimous agreement today, among both liberals and conservative scholars alike, that Jesus was viewed by his contemporaries as a healer and an exorcist.

The gospel tradition is permeated with the miraculous. Rationalistic quest for the historical Jesus sometimes claim that miracle stories were developed by the church as they gradually deify Jesus over time.

Yet, peeling away the supernatural to find a non-supernatural core of gospel tradition is like peeling an onion. When the last peel is removed, nothing is left. Miracles appear in every strata of the gospel tradition identified by scholars.

They appear in all four gospels, but also in the sources that have been proposed to lie behind the gospels. They appear in Mark, widely viewed as the earliest gospel. They appear in the so-called Q, or the Synoptic Saying Source, which is the source or sources which Matthew and Luke share in common.

They appear in the source called M, which is Matthew's unique material. And in L, Luke's unique material. They also appear in the tradition sometimes identified behind John's gospel, such as the sign source proposed for the miracles in John, chapters two through 11.

References to Jesus's miracles also appear in a variety of gospels genres, including miracle stories themselves. But also pronouncement stories, controversy stories, sayings, parables, commissioning accounts, the passion narratives and summaries of Jesus's activities.

Jewish sources outside the New Testament also refer to Jesus's miracles. The Jewish historian, Josephus, states that Jesus was a "Doer of startling deeds." A probable reference to his miracles.

The Babylonian Talmud claims Jesus was executed because he practiced magic and led Israel astray. While this passage in the Talmud is a strong attack on Jesus and Christianity, the reference to magic confirms that Jesus was viewed by his contemporaries as a miracle worker.

The early church leader, Origin, similarly quotes his second century pagan opponent Celsius, as claiming that Jesus worked certain magical powers that he had learned in Egypt. Again, this is an admission by an enemy that Jesus was viewed as a miracle worker. While this data does not prove that Jesus actually performed miracles, it confirms that he was widely acclaimed as a miracle worker. Even among his opponents.

As we've noted, this cannot be dismissed as merely the ignorant superstition of antiquity. The people of Jesus' day could be as skeptical as people today. The Gospels treat Jesus's miracles not as commonplace, or his expected norm, but as surprising and astonishing to those who witness them. Jesus's powerful teaching in his miracles produced a profound impact among his disciples, convincing them that he was indeed the Messiah and the Son of God.

In conclusion, if we are to enter into dialogue, those who are skeptical of the supernatural must be willing to set aside their skepticism, and at least acknowledge the possibility of the miraculous. On the other hand, those who affirm the miraculous must be willing to examine the evidence carefully and weigh whether or not any particular miracle has sufficient evidence to confirm its authenticity.

In many cases, we must be willing to acknowledge that there is simply not enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion. To judge any particular episode, we need a set of agreed-upon criteria. In our next session we'll discuss the so-called criteria of authenticity that historical Jesus scholars have developed to test the words and actions of Jesus.