Who was Jesus Jesus Self Identity NT Reliability

Who was Jesus? Jesus’ Self Identity

NT Reliability • Radical critics get a free pass from the press • Scholarship has changed in their view of NT reliability • Context matters to miracle claims • Jesus miracles and resurrection should be considered in context of his life and claims

Can we trust the records? • • Jesus left no writings Dependent on records of others Not unusual - Socrates left no writings Were disciples’ records reliable? Did they put words into his mouth? Are Jesus’ divinity claims made up? Investigated using standard methods of history

Modern Tools • • Textual Criticism Historical Methods Not treating the Bible as a holy book Investigated as a collection of ancient documents

Sources • External – Christian, Jewish and Roman – Say nothing new • Internal (NT) – – – Is this circular? (using the Bible to prove the Bible) Historians treat NT as collection of documents NT documents were distributed independently Only the best sources were included in the canon Do not think of the NT as a single book

Conspiracy Theories • • • Trumpet credentials of author Offer new suppressed interpretation of Jesus Derived from sources that contradict NT Interpretation is provocative and titillating Tradition Christian beliefs undermined Often based on apocryphal gospels

Apocryphal Gospels • • Eg Gospel of Thomas, Phillip, Peter etc Written after 150 AD (some claim Thomas is 1 st century) Forged under apostles’ names Legendary extensions of canonical gospels Contain no independent new material Why give precedence to secondary sources? No historically credible source outside NT

Burden of Proof • True until proven false or false until proven true? • Sceptics usually assume guilty before proven innocent

Reasons against scepticism 1. Insufficient time for legend to erase core historical facts 2. Gospels are not like folk tales 3. Jewish transmission of sacred texts was reliable 4. Restraints due to presence of eyewitnesses 5. Proven track record of reliability

1. Insufficient Time for Legend • How can we know what happened 2000 years ago? • What matters is the time between event and evidence, not time since evidence • Good evidence does not degrade with time • Most of NT written within 15 -60 years of crucifixion • Dating is controversial

1. Legend continued • • Consensus is that gospels are not bald-faced lies Not a massive conspiracy Only suggested by sensationalists Writers sincerely believed what they wrote Time gap too short for legend development Roman & Greek histories had much larger gaps For Alexander the Great the gap > 400 years

1. Legend continued • Gospels written & circulated within 1 generation after events • Legends appear in apocryphal gospels from 2 nd century • Gospels use even earlier sources – Mark’s passion story (37 AD) – Paul’s Last supper account (1 Cor 11: 23 -26) < 5 years – Paul’s resurrection account (1 Cor 15) < 5 years

2. Are gospels folk tales? • Refer to real people such as Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, John the Baptist • All recorded independently by Josephus

3. Was transmission reliable? • Ability to memorise oral tradition was highly prized • Children taught to memorise sacred texts • Scribal tradition for recording OT texts

4. Were the traditions embellished? • Eyewitnesses were still alive at time of writing • Traditions supervised by original apostles

5. Do writers have a reliable track record? • Much can be checked • Discrepancies are the exception

Luke as an Example • Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1: 1 -4)

Luke’s claims in Prologue • I (Luke) – – consulted written accounts, spoke to eye witnesses, conducted a careful investigation, and wrote an orderly account • So that you can be certain about what you have been taught.

Who was Luke? • Not an eye witness • “We” passages in Acts indicate: – Joined Paul near Troas – Accompanied Paul to Samothrace, Philippi, then to Jerusalem – 1 st hand contact with eyewitnesses in Jerusalem – Eyewitnesses were probably the women • Context in Acts has been cross-checked • Should not assume Luke is wrong unless proven right – at least a position of neutrality

Criteria of Authenticity • Signs of credibility - increase historical probability • Some criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Historical fit – fit with known historical facts Independent early sources – multiple attestation Embarrassment –awkward for Christian church Dissimilarity – unlike earlier Jewish or later Christian ideas Semitisms – traces to Hebrew or Aramaic language Coherence – fits with established facts

Characteristics of historical criteria • Positive signs of credibility • Can be used to establish but not deny (how do we falsify? ) • Absence of criteria do not mean it is false, just a position of neutrality • Criteria do not assume reliability – detect nuggets • Events evaluated independently • Not trying to prove Biblical inerrancy

Paul’s Claims • We will consider Paul’s statements prior to Jesus’ claims • Phil 2: 6 - Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped • How could a monotheistic Jew say such a thing unless Jesus had said it himself?

Jesus’ Explicit Claims • Messiah • Unique Son of God • Son of Man

Messiah • Expectation: – Israel’s ancient hope = Anointed One – Descendant of David – king over Israel – Spiritual shepherd over Israel • Early Christians referred to Jesus as Christ (Messiah) • Where did they get this from? – He did not establish David’s throne – He was crucified – No connection between resurrection and Messiah

Mark 8: 27 -29 • 27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am? " • 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets. " • 29 "But what about you? " he asked. "Who do you say I am? " • Peter answered, "You are the Christ. " • Is this historical?

Answer to John the Baptist • Matt 11: 2 -6 When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else? “ Jesus replied, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me. " • Also in Luke 7: 19 -23 -> from Q = early source • Criteria of embarrassment – John doubted • The “one who was to come” coheres with Jesus’ baptism

Triumphal Entry • Asserted independently (Mark 11: 1 -11 and John 12: 12 -19) • Deliberate fulfilment of Zech 9: 9 • Claiming to be promised King of Israel

The Trial • Mark 14: 61 -62 Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? " "I am, " said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. " • Is this historical? • The Jewish leaders need a capital charge for Jesus to be executed. • A claim to be Messiah could be construed as an act of treason against Rome.

King of the Jews • The title “King of the Jews” was on the plaque nailed to the cross Mark 15: 26 and John 19: 19 • Title is not used by Christians • Meets criterion of dissimilarity • Supports that he claimed to be Messiah

Son of God • Did Jesus claim he was the Son of God? • What we will cover: – Parable of the Wicked Tenants – Explicit claim Matt 11: 27 – Explicit claim in Mark 13: 32

Parable of Wicked Tenant • • Mark 12: 1 -9, Matt 21: 33 -41, Luke 20: 9 -16 In this parable Jesus claims to be the unique son Matthew and Luke copied Mark, but is it historical? Also in gospel of Thomas (65). Independent confirmation. Recognised by sceptical scholars as genuine. • Contains typical Jewish imagery & Semitisms • Unique son, distinct from the prophets

Explicit claim • Matt 11: 27 All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. • Repeated in Luke 10: 22 -> from Q (early) • Contains Aramaisms • Embarrassment – no one knows the son (unknowable) • Jesus thought of himself as unique son and only revelation of Father.

Explicit Claim • Mark 13: 32 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. • Embarrassment – ascribes ignorance to the Son • Luke omits it • Matthew includes it but it is dropped by some copyists

Son of Man • Used frequently in gospels but only in Acts 7: 56 and twice in Revelation after that. • Term did not arise in later Christianity • Meets criteria of independence and dissimilarity

What did Jesus mean? • Did he mean just a person • He referred to himself as “the Son of Man” not just “a son of man”. • Aligned himself with divine figure in Daniel 7: 13 -14 • Ambiguity prevented premature revelation of messianic status • Jesus had a sense of unsurpassed authority

Mark 14: 60 -62 • Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you? “ But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. • Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? " • "I am, " said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. " • Here all 3 terms come together

Implicit Claims • Apostles would judge 12 tribes of Israel. Who is king? • Teaching style: – Did not quote other authorities – Overrode previous authority – You have heard it said, but I say. . . – His own authority was greater than divinely given law – “Truly, truly I say to you” is heretical to a Jew. He ought to have said, “Thus says the Lord”.

Other implicit claims • Claimed to exorcise demons by own authority • Authority to forgive sins. Fellowshipping with outcasts was exercising forgiveness in practice. • Acted and spoke as if he had divine authority • Believed himself to be a miracle worker • He believed our attitude to him will determine our fate on the day of judgement

Conclusion • Jesus’ Self perception – – – – Messiah Unique Son of God Daniel’s Son of Man Worker of miracles Authority over evil powers Authority to forgive sins Authority to overturn divinely given law Each person’s destiny is dependent on their attitude to him • Was crucified for blasphemy and treason

CS Lewis’ Trilemma • 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. " That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be 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 patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.