Contents Foreword v 1
Introduction: Is there history?
1
2
The question of truth
7
3
Did Jesus exist? Early non-Christian references Roman sources Jewish sources
14 15 23
4
Fixing the timeframe
30
5
Is the transmission trustworthy?
40
6
The two witnesses
46
7
Witness one: The disciple whom Jesus loved
53
8
Witness two: Peter through Mark
78
9
Luke and Matthew
96
10 The birth of Jesus
107
11 Miracles and modern man
115
12 The resurrection of Jesus
121
13 Paul and the historical Jesus
152
14 The Acts of the Apostles
163
15 Archaeology and the New Testament: ‘Hard copy’ from antiquity
180
16 Is the New Testament historically reliable?
187
17 Who is Jesus?
199
18 Historical origins of Christianity and Islam
204
Index 217
vii
Chapter One
Introduction: Is there history? According to Leopold von Ranke, the father of modern history writers, the aim of the historian is to determine ‘what actually happened’. How feasible is that aim in regard to the New Testament events of two thousand years ago? Followers of postmodern philosophy argue that von Ranke’s aim is unattainable at any time, modern or ancient. They argue that there is no objective entity called ‘history’ but only the ‘eyes’ of individuals who left behind their impressions of ‘what happened’ in the surviving sources. The reality of overpowering subjectivity in witnesses past and present makes the concept of ‘history’ impossible and the history writing enterprise problematic. Postmodernists may be right in their observation that there is no one fixed, objective reality called ‘history’. Yet they overstate the case if they say that people and events from the past are inaccessible to present inquiry, blocked by the blinded subjectivity of the human sources of that information. SUBJECTIVITY IN ANCIENT SOURCES Scholars of ancient history have always recognised the ‘subjectivity’ factor in their available sources. It might be observed in passing, with a touch of humour, that they have so few sources available compared to their modern counterparts that they will gladly seize whatever scraps of information that are at hand. Indeed, a major difference between the two disciplines as regards availability of sources is that modern historians have feast, and ancient historians famine. 1
Is the New Testament History? Ancient historians are familiar with subjectivity in their sources, including biased motivation in writing. Josephus regards Jewish rebels against Roman rule as responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem and his accounts in his Jewish War are written from that perspective. A modern historian’s account of a military campaign is likely to be more objective, for example Antony Beevor’s Berlin: The Downfall 1945,1 telling the story of the Russian assault on the German capital. True, Beevor writes this history his own way, idiosyncratically, but he does not superimpose upon his account of the fall of Berlin the unrelenting bias we see in Josephus’ description of the events leading to the fall of Jerusalem. Does this render Josephus’ account useless? Not at all. When Josephus is describing events his account is impressive. We have a cogent, detailed narrative that finds support from archaeology at several points. Rather, it is his ‘spin’ on the facts that stands out compared to modern writers. It is part of the ancient historian’s craft to recognise, account for and accommodate the ‘special interests’ of their sources, whether in a literary text like Josephus or even in an inscription. How, then, should we regard the postmodern scepticism about history? It is an exaggerated scepticism. Do we doubt an event like the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans (in AD 70) when independent sources (Josephus and Tacitus) describe it? Is there any doubt that Jesus was a genuine figure of history when those who take opposing views about him refer to him (the Gospels and Tacitus)? Independently written accounts of an event are comparable to multiple witnesses to a motor accident; there may be discrepancies in the details but the basic fact of the event is accepted. Postmodern insights do have value. In highlighting the power of subjectivity we are reminded of our own potential biases and prejudices. While these are real and potentially skew our judgment, professional training and criticism by others focus the mind and make significant objectivity 2
Introduction: Is there history? attainable. If physicians and accountants are capable of objectivity in their respective disciplines, so too are historians of the past and the present. In spite of (extreme) postmodern scepticism, historical research that issues in intelligible conclusions is a practical possibility. LUKE AS A HISTORY WRITER History writers in antiquity were aware of potential bias and the value of reliable sources and of eyewitness evidence. Even today the ideals of the second century (AD) historian, Lucian, cannot be faulted: Facts must not be carelessly put together, but the historian must work with great labour and often at great trouble make inquiry preferably being present and an eyewitness; failing that he must rely on those who are incorruptible, and have no bias from passion, nor add or diminish anything.2
Lucian called for ‘great trouble’ making ‘inquiry’, relying on sources that are ‘incorruptible’, writing without ‘bias’, neither ‘adding’ nor omitting anything. In the previous century a man named Luke began his seventy-year history of the birth and spread of Christianity in these words: Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled among us – just as they have been handed over to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word – it seemed good to me also, who from the beginning has followed all things closely, to write to you, O excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of the things in which you have been catechised.
It is as if Luke knew about and was following Lucian’s guidelines before they were given! Luke, who declares that 3
Is the New Testament History? he was not an eyewitness, received texts from those who were. He has followed ‘all things closely’ and has ‘written’ so that his reader Theophilus can be ‘certain’ about the events in the narrative that will follow. In other words, Luke is writing according to ‘best practice’ of those times. Luke’s was a stunning achievement in those times. His narrative spans the period from the birth of John the Baptist in the last days of Herod the King, through the public ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus into a second volume describing the birth of Christianity and its spread to the Gentiles, ending with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome c. AD 62. If there are shortcomings in Luke’s history, for example, his lack of chronological markers at every point, then we must judge him not by modern standards but by those of his era. By those canons Luke was an exceptional historian. Many noted ancient historians have given Luke high praise, including those who are not Christians. Luke is the most important historical contributor to the New Testament on account of the great span of years he narrates. WORLD HISTORY AND SMALL MOVEMENTS Evidence from Graeco-Roman antiquity, in which the New Testament was written, is fragmentary and generally devoted to ‘important’ people and events. Ancient studies are sure-footed in their inquiries into high profile people like emperors and kings. Their respective chronologies, policies and achievements are understood. Accordingly, when information about lesser people or movements comes to light, a context and environment is at hand in which to locate the smaller thing. There are several exceptions to this generalisation. One is the Qumran movement. The cache of texts discovered in 1947 near the NW shore of the Dead Sea and the subsequent excavations uncovering the remains of a settlement nearby created great excitement. These 4
Introduction: Is there history? discoveries provide a contemporary window into a small and ‘unimportant’ Jewish sect that occupied the site for about two centuries but left otherwise small imprints in the histories of the day that have come down to us (mainly in Josephus). Another small movement, at least at its beginnings, was the ‘sect of the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24:5) in Jerusalem in the thirties of the first century. Like the Qumran-ers the early Christians were also known (sparsely) from external sources. Josephus and Tacitus refer to a movement begun in Jesus’ day that was current in their own times, decades later.3 Unlike the Qumran-ers, however, the early Christians survived the dangers of history that might just as easily have destroyed them. One matter on which an external source from ‘world history’ (Tacitus) and internal sources (Paul and Acts) agree is that the birth of Christianity occurred as a burst of energy soon after Jesus’ death. Tacitus states that following Pilate’s execution of Christ the ‘pernicious superstition broke out afresh in Judaea’ (Annals xv.44). ‘World history’ (about ‘important’ people) is important since it provides a more or less stable context into which ‘unimportant’ movements like the Qumran-ers and the early Christians can be located. The preoccupation with ‘important’ people is one reason ‘world history’ has so little to say about Jesus. Had he led a military rebellion against the Romans, like Judas the Galilean in AD 6, Jesus may have left a greater imprint in history. But a harmless Jewish rabbi from a distant minor province accompanied by only twelve followers, who met his death by crucifixion, would not inspire much interest among the history writers of that day. HISTORY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Our argument throughout is that Jesus and the first Christians are genuine figures of history and that they are 5
Is the New Testament History? faithfully and truthfully written about in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. These documents were written close in time to the events. They are historical and geographical in character. I am convinced that we are able to read these texts assured of their integrity and authenticity. At the same time, it would be unreasonable to measure them by modern canons of history writing. They are good products of their age and take their place with the best historical writing of that era, in particular the works of Luke in his Gospel and book of Acts. The remainder of the New Testament consists of Letters, which are doctrinal and practical in nature rather than narratives. Yet even here we have a writer and readers, time and place. So, even the Letters of the New Testament (including the Revelation, which is cast in letter format) are historical. FURTHER READING: E.H. Carr, What is History? (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964). G.R. Elton, The Practice of History (Sydney University Press: Sydney, 1967). R.J. Evans, In Defence of History (Granta: London, 1997). NOTES: 1 Viking: London, 2002. 2 Quomodo 47. 3 See later, pp.18–26.
6