The Historical Reliability of the Gospels - Lesson 16

 This is a class on the historical reliability of the New Testament Gospels, and we are up to session 16 the most authentic parts of the synoptic tradition. In our last segment, we looked at various criteria that have been developed in the modern quests for the historical Jesus. And. We want in this segment to turn to 12 elements that. Not universally, but fairly widely across a fair, broad cross-section of scholarship. Usually not including the most liberal fringe, which sometimes is. The element that gets the greatest publicity and notoriety. But nevertheless has widespread support that if we can say. With a fair degree of confidence. The historical Jesus of Nazareth, the Jew of the first third of the first century was about the following. What would those elements be? There is widespread agreement that. John the Baptist was a historical figure. We have seen in earlier lectures that Josephus spoke about him in a lengthy paragraph in his historical writings. He is mentioned in all four of the canonical gospels. So. Widely attested, appears in numerous literary strata and forms within those gospels. In fact, it's perhaps not Bible trivia to say after Jesus himself. We know more about John the Baptist than we do about any other character in the pages of the Gospels. Although he doesn't get a lot of press in Christian circles, probably because he was the forerunner, he was the one who came in the spirit and power of Elijah, as Luke put it in Luke 117. He came with. An extreme ascetic lifestyle. He preached a fiery, apocalyptic message of repentance for the kingdom of heaven was at hand. And on the one hand, that fit in to one line of Jewish expectation. But taken to an extreme that we don't find in the rest of the first century Jewish world.

And we know that early Christianity continued a strong degree of apocalyptic hope, even though it was tempered over time with the growing realization that. The world might be around for quite a while. There was an apocalyptic element to Jesus teaching that is widely accepted. Perhaps even on the basis of the period of overlap with John's ministry and Jesus as integral to the teaching of these two historical individuals. It is reasonably widely agreed by all but a liberal fringe that Jesus called 12 disciples, 12 followers who would be his closest companions, and that he taught and lived with them, as one might have expected family members to do so. We read of the very countercultural statement at the end of Mark chapter three, verses 31 to 35 and parallels. When people said that Jesus biological family members were nearby wanting to see him and he said, Who are my mother and brothers and sisters? Whoever does the will of God. As he turned and looked at his most immediate followers and the crowds around him. He identified as his family members. Calling disciples was a standard event for an ancient Jewish rabbi. Jesus had no formal training that we know of, but he was certainly called Rabbi. He functioned as a teacher, an authoritative spokesperson for God. And so even as a self-styled rabbi, it would be completely natural and expected that he called. A group of at least slightly younger men to follow him, 24 seven, as we would call it today. But with a very important twist. Typically rabbis. Sifted among. The younger men they knew who were most eager to be their followers. Today, we might talk about sifting through job applications. We know of no such process with Jesus. Rather, he met people and B for or apart from any expressed interest.

He took the initiative. To call them. And there seems to have been a very positive and very rapid response. After Jesus life, the first Christian leaders are regularly portrayed as themselves having followers. Paul virtually never travels alone, but with coworkers. And yet, curiously. After more than 200 references. In the gospels. An ax. To the term disciple. That word appears nowhere else in the New Testament. It's as if people recognized the privilege of Jesus closest followers was unique enough. They shouldn't replicate that word. Or to take a sports analogy. They retired the numbers of their jerseys. It's widely agreed by all but the most skeptical of scholars that Jesus Kingdom teachings. Especially his 40 or so parables that we find. Pervading the Synoptic Gospels form core authentic Jesus material. God's reign was the theme of large sections of Old Testament narrative. But the actual expression Kingdom of God appears nowhere in the Old Testament. Though sometimes in inner testament Jewish literature. Parables pervaded rabbinic teaching. But always to interpret scripture. Whereas Jesus uses them to illustrate the kingdom. In the subsequent church. No one ever tells a single story in identical form to one of Jesus parables. And yet the teachings that they promote about God's compassion for the outcasts, about the need for bold and confident prayer, about the arrival of the already, but not yet fully present kingdom. Remain deeply embedded in Christian tradition. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly even. Fairly skeptical. Scholars regularly believe that Jesus. Had the power through his spoken word, through his touch, through his physical presence. To enable those who believe that they were possessed by demons to believe that they were freed from them. And to be able to cure various forms of physical malady. Sometimes this is explained in more naturalistic terms than others.

 Psychosomatic, healing the power of mind over matter. Or of positive suggestion. Sometimes it's explained in terms of overcoming the ritual, impurity and stigmatization of their society. And sometimes it's explained in more supernatural terms. There certainly are well attested accounts of other Jewish healers and exorcists prior to Jesus time. Their accounts in the Old Testament, especially surrounding the ministries of Elijah and Elijah, even to raising people from the dead. It fits the Jewish milieu. But for the first century, unique to Jesus was the directness. A spoken word was enough. There was no prayer to God, invoking him as the great healer as so often among the other Jews or Greeks or Romans of the testimonial period. And we see exorcisms and healings and acts and allusions to them in other New Testament writings. But consistently done in Jesus name. Jesus never invokes God and he never invokes himself. He doesn't say in my name, come out. But. Later Christians do. Table fellowship with sinners. Associating even over meals. With the ritually impure, but also the morally impure. The tax collectors. The prostitutes. The most notoriously stigmatized of Jewish culture, all in context that are very well and commonly known. But defying the standard social taboos. As to who to associate with. Jesus does not become unclean by associating with these people. He makes the unclean clean. And we see that tradition continuing to some degree in the early church. But the context of fellowship over meals quickly gets narrowed to the single context of celebrating the Lord's Supper. Thanks to the significance of Jesus last meal with the 12. Hopefully you are seeing the pattern already among these first five examples of the double similarity and double dissimilarity criterion being fulfilled. It's widely agreed that Jesus engaged in various legal controversies.

Not so much, if at all, about the written laws of Moses, but about the oral traditions, the oral law, the uniquely ferrous sack interpretations. What in the Gospels are called the traditions of our ancestors? Especially about Sabbath keeping the inner test metal Book of Jubilees itemized a long list of things prohibited on the Sabbath far beyond anything you can find in the Old Testament. And early rabbis lengthen that list to 39 different proscribed activities. As if waving a hand and knocking all the dominoes over. Jesus has nothing to do with this kind of legal kazoo history. The controversies are exactly what one would expect in early first century Judaism. The perspective Jesus takes is more sweepingly radical than what we know of from any. Of the existing Jewish groups after Jesus life, the things over which there were controversies, which also included fasting, which also included other laws of ritual purity. Continued, but gradually legalism crept back into the movement. There was a radical nature that was not able to be preserved. It seemed, of Jesus teaching. Peter. On the road to Caesarea Philip II at the pivot of Mark's gospel, the almost exact midpoint at the end of Chapter eight. Asked by Jesus, Who do people say that I am? And other disciples said, You are Elijah, or one of the prophets. John the Baptist, perhaps. But who do you say that I am? And Peter, speaking for the 12, says, You are the Christ. You are the Messiah. And in Matthew, a fuller account is given. You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And in Matthew, Jesus praises Peter profusely for that confession, but in both Mark and Matthew very quickly. Jesus charges the disciples to tell no one. What? Isn't this the point? Tell people about Jesus.

Well, the reason for that surprising command becomes immediately apparent, because then Jesus begins to predict his passion and death and resurrection. And the disciples don't understand. They have no conception of a suffering, dying Messiah. The issue is a key one in the Judaism of the day. Jesus perspective has a distinctive twist. There is a continuity with Christianity. Paul would teach in second Timothy 312 that whoever wants to live a godly life in Christ will experience suffering. But no one would ever again. Paying atonement for the sins of the world. There was a uniqueness that was not carried over. The so-called triumphal entry into Jerusalem, what we call Palm Sunday today contrasting dramatically with the triumphal entry of pilot every Passover coming from Caesarea on the coast to watch over the Roman troops at a time when Jews might riot. Jesus comes in on a donkey, a humble animal, fulfilling Zachariah nine nine. Your king comes on a donkey in honor of a cult. The fall of a donkey. But the people miss. The implications of coming in peace. Expectations of physical liberation have. Haunted God's people before and after words. And a mission of a humble arrival. Of a servant king. Did not fit many people's conceptions, servant leadership to this day. So one of the hardest things for God's people to get their hands around. Most leaders want to rule over their kingdoms. And not a few followers want their people to be powerful, heavy handed rulers. The Temple of Cleansing, which really was a temple messing up. So we'll call it an incident. Understandable. The Court of the Gentiles turned into a place for moneychangers and the purchase of sacrificial animals so that it could no longer be a house of worship, a protest completely conceivable, and yet countercultural.

Continuity with later church practice. A respect for holiness and worship. But the mixture of. Money matters. Human. Commercial practices. And houses of worship continue to befuddle. And confuse and get mixed up. Jesus Last Supper, a Passover meal thoroughly Jewish, but invested with new meaning. This is my body. This is my blood. A meal celebrated by countless in the early church and throughout the centuries, but so overlaid with later theological debates that that simple metaphor was lost sight of. Did his bread and cup become the literal body and blood of Jesus? No, not while being held in his hand. There was no molecular inter mixture of food and skin. But the simple metaphor was often lost sight of. You will see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven. Blasphemy. They cried at Jesus trial. Or, as Darrell Bock likes to call it, his final examination. I guess that's what happens when you teach seminary for career. The son of man. Not a well-known title. Came from Daniel seven one, like the son of man who Daniel saw in a vision who was carried on the clouds of heaven to the ancient of days to receive universal kingdom and worship. No mere mortal. But he was that and more. Understandable in a Jewish background, but used by Jesus to suggest that he was somehow this same heavenly figure. Shocking. But barely is the term son of man ever used again in the New Testament? And most Christians today hearing Son of man would think, Oh, that just means Jesus humanity. Rather than recognizing it referred to a human. Who demonstrated his divinity. In a key context in Daniel. And finally. The Roman trial or examination and execution. If we have said in past talks that the most important thing about Jesus life was his death, we can also say that the most documented thing about Jesus life was His death.

Executed. Crucified under Pontius Pilot. Tacitus, Roman historian. Early second century. We've talked about that before. But why Rome? Jews had a law stone a blasphemer. John answers that question in a snippet out of the Gospel of John, widely agreed to be historical because under Rome, capital punishment was rare. Exceptions had been taken away from the Sanhedrin or ruling Council. Anyone who wants to be my disciple. Let's pick up his cross and follow me. And they did in the early church, some of them to martyrdom, but not all of them. But as time went by. The significance of the crucifixion. Was toned down. The metaphor of carrying one's cross was domesticated to. Mild annoyances. Instead of life threatening persecution. Here then, are a dozen. He features of the gospel tradition. Widely, though not universally accepted, even on historical grounds alone. Apart from presupposing any Christian faith. To be true of Jesus of Nazareth. So what kind of person? Did that make him to be?