JESUS CHRIST & HIS BEING Did He Even Exist: Part Two
By
Noel Coypel -
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Noel-Coypel/The-Resurrection-Of-Christ,-1700.html,
Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28274624
Internal Evidence:
The Gospel Account
3. The Objection of Unreliable Testimony
In dispute here is the belief that Mark’s attestation
about Jesus of Nazareth is unreliable as he was not even present during Jesus’
public ministry. Former atheist Clive Staples Lewis, (a.k.a. C.S. Lewis), though
born in Ireland, was a British scholar with degrees in English Literature from
Oxford and Cambridge University. Upon his conversion to Christianity, he
developed what became known as the “Trilemma” of Jesus Christ. He stated,
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God' [and thus a liar]. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be either a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. [1] (Emphasis added)
The model
of his trilemma follows a pattern of Jesus as either a liar, lunatic or Lord. However,
biblical skeptic Bart Ehrman believes there is a fourth option, that the
accounts of Jesus are merely “legend” and that He never actually claimed to be God.
But on what lofty criteria does Ehrman base this claim? German Philologist Max
Muller speculated that there was likely a period in which belief in the
mythological was non-existent but became utilized as a language tool to explain
the natural world by means of poetic rhetoric. When studying the relatedness existing
between language and Greek mythology, he discovered that people had misappropriated
poetic language of the natural world as narrative language regarding divine beings.[2] In other words, Greek mythology was written in
a poetic style language, but interpretation was misapplied as literal
narrative. By contrast, any declarations of divinity in Jesus of Nazareth,
either by himself or by others in the Greek of the New Testament, is historical
narrative, not poetic and therefore such claims are not based on Greek
mythology. His claims to deity are not legend as Ehrman supposes.
In Correspondence
Theory propositions can be either true or false, if the proposition
corresponds to reality (or to the facts), then the proposition is true, if it does
not then it is false. Jesus was either telling us the truth about His claims to
be God, or He wasn’t. So, this leaves us with three options, first, maybe Jesus
didn’t know that he wasn’t telling the truth, in which case that would implicate
him as a lunatic. Two, Jesus wasn’t telling the truth, and He knew He wasn’t
telling the truth. This would implicate Him as a liar or a deceiver. Or three, Jesus
was telling the truth, in which case He is Lord.
The Old Testament testifies to the deity of Christ, (Ps. 2:7, 45:6-7, 110:1; Prov. 30:4; Is. 9:6, 63:7-9; Zech. 1:12, 12:10, 14:16). In the New Testament Jesus Himself testifies to His own deity, (Matt. 4:10, 16:17-18, 24:35; Mk. 2:5-7; Jn. 4:25-26, 5:23, 8:58, 12:48, 14:13, 14:61-62, 20:28). Then there are others throughout scripture who testify to the deity of Jesus Christ, (Matt. 3:16, 8:29, 16:16, 17:5; Lk. 1:32, 35, 2:11; Jn. 1:1, 8:58, 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 1:16-17, 2:9; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:3,5,6,8). Of course, there are those who object to the notion that Jesus ascribed to His own deity by citing Mark 10:18 as an example of His denial, “And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, ’Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ’Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’” (Mark 10:17-18, ESV)[3] His statement here is not one of denial, but of inquiry. Jesus is attempting to determine if this young man recognizes the implications of his query. If only God is good in the truest sense of the word, and this young man truly believes Jesus is good, as he refers to Him, then Jesus is God, at least by implication. Still others will reference John 14:28 as an example of Jesus denial of deity. “You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28, Emphasis added). Again, this is not a denial, God the Father is greater in office, not in nature to God the Son – Jesus. To believe otherwise borders on Arianism which was deemed heresy in A.D. 325 at the council of Nicaea and discussed in more detail in my article at https://theologyapologetic.blogspot.com/2024/05/of-anakin-skywalker-and-jesus-christ.html . Some have attempted to argue on an intellectual level that Jesus as God and man is a violation of the law of non-contraction; you cannot have “A” (Jesus as God) and not “A” (Jesus as man, therefore not God) in the same sense to the same extent. But Jesus can be both God and man at the same time because the sense is not the same, therefore there is no logical contradiction. It is possible for someone to be both a husband and a father at the same time, but not in the same sense. Jesus has both a divine and human nature, but they are not in the same sense.
The basic
presupposition of the higher critics like Bart Ehrman is that much of the
material in the gospel accounts were contrived and never actually occurred. So,
controversy stories between Jesus and the pharisees were concocted by the early
church to address certain problem areas and then inserted back into the
narratives pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth. It was also argued that teaching
passages like the Sermon on the Mount were merely innovations to provide
instruction for new converts. Then, miracle narratives were believed to have
been inserted simply as apologetic proofs. While these views were initially confined
to the realm of academia, they have since made their way into the general population
via advocates of the Jesus Seminar. But remember that in correspondence theory the
propositions made can be either true or false and if those propositions
correspond to the facts, then the propositions are true. The question then
becomes do the propositions of the higher critics correspond to the facts or
not?
From the
perspective of the historian, the interval of time from Jesus to the recording
of the events of Mark’s gospel was so brief there would not have been adequate
enough time to develop the so-called fictional manufacture of those events
concerning Jesus as the Son of God and all that He said and did, His death and
resurrection, if they were not actually true. Firstly, Titus Livius, more
commonly known as Livy, was a Roman historian and penned a report of “the Law
of the Twelve Tables” based on Roman civil law and Plutarch’s chronicling of
the life of Alexander the Great, were both written 400 – 450+ years after the
events took place. Secondly, despite the disparity in the time interval, they
are still valued as reliable key sources. By contrast, the events of Mark’s
gospel, whom liberal scholars argue is not truly reliable, has a time differential
of just 25 – 30 years from the time of their occurring to the time their transcribing.
When taking into account correspondence theory, that propositions are true if
they correspond to the facts, or square with reality, then the composition of Mark’s
gospel and the events it records should be considered even more reliable than
what we have for Livy or Plutarch.
In reply to
the declarations of the higher critics regarding oral tradition. An ancient Egyptian
artifact was discovered which indicated an inquiry by three men requesting to
be accepted as deacons by the Coptic (Christian) church dated 3rd –
4th century. In order to be considered, those men had to memorize
the gospel of John by the time of Pentecost (lit. the fiftieth day) and perform
a recitation before the congregation. Furthermore, there is an account of a
pastor requiring a deacon at the time of ordination to memorize 25 Psalms, two
letters from Paul and a portion of any gospel. So, orality was standard
practice. Very few people had access to scrolls in the ancient world to read. When
letters were sent to the churches, the pastors of those churches would read
them to the assembly, so parishioners had to commit to memory what they heard,
or read if they were able to do so.
The
internal evidence provided by Mark’s gospel argues against his gospel existing
as a document simply made up to portray a positive picture of someone who was
not very glamorous in this life. The primary scriptural reference on this
subject is found in John’s gospel, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your
remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26, Emphasis added) Verbs
function as past, present, or future, active, or passive. Passive verbs are
those in which the subject is the one being acted upon; active verbs are those
in which the subject is the one performing the act. The Greek verb ὑπομιμνήσκω
(hypomimnēskō) meaning “to remind” or bring to remembrance”, is a future
tense, active verb. The subject and direct object of the verb is determined by
the case endings. Case endings can be either nominative or accusative in the
Greek. If the case ending is nominative, it is the subject of the verse, if the
case ending is accusative then it is the direct object of the verse. The
pronoun ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) translated “he” (lit. that one) has the
nominative case ending indicating it as the subject of the verse. But who is
“that one”? Locating an earlier nominative case ending we find it in the
adjective,
ἅγιος (hagios) translated “Holy”. It’s followed by the noun πνεῦμα
(pneuma) translated “Spirit”, also nominative. The plural pronoun σύ (sy)
translated “you”, speaking of the disciples, is accusative indicating it as the
direct object of the verse. Therefore, this verse points to a time in the
distant future in which the powers of recall, if you will, will be impressed
upon hearts and minds of the disciples (direct object) via the working of the Holy
Spirit (subject) when it came time for the writing of the gospel account.
Remember
that I mentioned earlier that higher critics like biblical skeptic Bart Ehrman
believed that controversy stories between Jesus and the pharisees were
concocted by the early church to address certain problem areas and then
inserted back into the narratives pertaining to Jesus of Nazareth. That is, Mark’s
gospel does not simply contain what Jesus really said and did, rather it
contains a lot of details regarding controversies that were occurring during
the era between the events of the gospel and their actual recording of those
events. But if that’s all true then we ought to find them in Mark’s gospel. The
problem is that the proposition doesn’t square with the facts, the claim doesn’t
correspond with reality, to what’s actually true. Firstly, there are many topics
we know of which went unaddressed in the book of Acts and throughout Paul’s
letters. Secondly, what few controversies existed, neither Paul nor Luke, in
the books of Acts, employed any of the sayings of Jesus in order to resolve
them. They were not referring back to what Jesus taught in order to settle
those issues.
Furthermore,
Mark’s gospel includes some rather uncomplimentary portrayals of Jesus. In doing
so however, this indicates that Mark was willing to tell us the truth about
Jesus. Why provide details that are unflattering if you’re trying to prop up
some religious conviction? You wouldn’t, you would attempt to portray positive
aspects, not seemingly negative ones. For example, Mark’s gospel states that John’s
baptism was “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Mark 1:4)
While v.9 states that, “Jesus…was baptized by John in the Jordan”. Why would a
sinless saviour need to be baptized? Mark further indicates that Jesus couldn’t
do any miracles in his hometown save for a few ill people (6:5). Matthew echoes
Mark saying that Jesus did not do many miracles there (Matt. 13:58). Doubtless
there are those who believe themselves to be pretty good people. But Mark
records Jesus as saying, “No one is good except God alone” (10:18). If Mark
really wanted to portray a complimentary picture of Jesus, he would not have
included these details. But this indicates his willingness to give us the truth
about Jesus. In 16:1-8 of Mark’s gospel he indicates that three women discovered
the empty tomb. If Mark was making up this account, he would not have included
women as the first witnesses to the resurrection. But again, Mark is willing to
give us the truth.
Moreover, there
exist a multiplicity of independent witnesses to the events recorded in Mark’s
gospel, in addition to an early, high Christology. The claims of the higher
critics are first, it took many years to develop that high Christology and two,
those independent sources for the gospels had very different views of Jesus. However,
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians not only shows a high Christology but also
has this writing being dated at ca. A.D. 51 – 52. “For I delivered to you
as of first importance what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3, Emphasis
added). A view held by many scholars both liberal and conservative are that
independent witnesses like John, Q, M, and L show evidence of early, high
Christology without being in collaboration with one another. 90% of what is
recorded in Mark is also in Matthew, often word-for-word in the Greek. Due to
this observation, it is believed that Matthew utilized Mark as a source. 60% of
what is in Mark’s gospel is also in Luke’s gospel. Again, often word-for-word
in the Greek. It is therefore believed that Luke used Mark’s gospel as a
source. This would also indicate that there is information in Matthew and Luke
that is not in Mark and are unique to them. For that information not found in
Mark, it is believed Matthew and Luke utilized an alternative source referred
to as “Q” from the German word quella meaning “source”. There are also some things that appear in
Matthew that are not in Mark or Luke. In that case it is believed Matthew used
a third source, “M”. Likewise, there are some things in Luke that do not appear
in Matthew or Mark. In this case it is believed Luke used a third source, “L”.
While many
scholars ascribe to “source theory” some do not. The reservation here is that
it creates some confusion on where the work of the Holy Spirit comes in, which
of course is a legitimate concern. In Independence Theory it is argued that
the synoptic gospels originated independently without borrowing from one
another. Rather, the similarity of the accounts is the result of the work of
the Holy Spirit which is a valid argument. However, could it be that the similarity
between the accounts is due to borrowing while the mystery sources of “Q”, “M”
and “L” are actually the work of the Holy Spirit? If Mark’s gospel was the
first written, as the majority of scholars believe, then the entirety of Mark’s
gospel would include no other source than that of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless,
there were still multiple independent sources writing with no collaboration.
Yet they all show evidence of a high Christology. Luke’s gospel makes reference
to multiple accounts. “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a
narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us” this suggests multiple
sources were circulating. “Just as those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us”.
These sources based their accounts on eyewitness testimony and those involved
in the ministry. “It seemed good to me also, having followed all things
closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you,
most excellent Theophilus”. Luke was not new to the subject and completed a
detailed analysis of the information he had access to. “That you may have
certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Lk. 1:1-4, Emphasis
added) This phrase shows Luke’s purpose in writing his account. For the purpose
of surety and to preserve the oral accounts in a documented form.
New
Testament scholar John A.T. Robinson places the writing of Matthew’s gospel at
A.D 40 – 60, Mark’s gospel at A.D. 45 – 60, Luke’s gospel at A.D. 57 – 60, and John’s
gospel he places at A.D. 40 – 65. This would indicate a time differential of just
7 – 12 years between the crucifixion and composition of the some of the gospels.
(Geisler 2002, 474) Furthermore, Spanish paleographer Jose O’Callahan observed
that some of manuscripts found at Qumran were of Mark’s gospel and of the
passages discovered each was dated at A.D 50. The date of those manuscripts has
never been disputed as it aligns with other ancient manuscripts discovered at
Qumran. The use of Greek uncials in the writing indicates the work as an early
first century document. Scholars estimate the crucifixion of Christ to be in
the vicinity of A.D. 26 – 33. If correct
it would corroborate Robinson’s time differential to within just a few years.
Noted Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White has indicated that,
Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth - making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.[4]
This is a further
indication that even if there was an oral tradition to speak of, which some doubt
due to the time frame, the gospel accounts cannot be legend as the evidence
does not square with the facts or correspond to what’s actually true in
reality. What the evidence shows is that the accounts given fall well within a
single generation and therefore do not qualify as myth or legend because the time
necessary to develop such, is simply not available. The NT account of the life
of Jesus is factually true given the evidence. But there is more available. In
part three, I will address the External Evidence for the existence of Jesus
Christ. Those references which exist outside the biblical text.
[1]
C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2015), 52.
[2] Winfried
Corduan. In the Beginning God: A Fresh Look at the Case for Original Monotheism.
(B&H Academic Publishing, 2013), 21-2.
[3] Unless
otherwise indicated, all scriptural references are from The Holy Bible. English
Standard Version, with Strong’s Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).
[4] A.N.
Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1963), 190. Quoted in Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 (Minneapolis
MN: Harper Collins Press, 2002), 476.
Comments
Post a Comment