lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (11/09/84)
<> At the end of the last article I suggested that the documents which record the events of Jesus life, death, and resurrection don't lend themselves to quantitative scientific investigation. The subjective element cannot be eliminated by repetition and control, the normal tools of the scientific method. This raises the question of what type of evidence we have concerning the first generation of Christianity - specifically the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. 2. Evidence for Jesus The documents we have from the First (and early Second) Century preserve a great deal of material related to Jesus. The earliest witness is in the writings of Paul, whose letters contain scattered references to "sayings of the Lord/Jesus." The way Paul interjects these into his argument generally presuppose that his readers (Christians in Asia and eastern Europe in the late 40s-early 60s) were already aware of these sayings, and, perhaps, that they were in possession of written collections of traditional teachings of Jesus. Mark's gospel stems from the mid-late 60s, most probably in Rome. Mark is certainly dependent upon earlier written sources of an "authoritative" nature (traditionally his source is the apostle Peter). Matthew and Luke show a great deal of verbatim (word-for-word) agreement with Mark, and are generally thought to have used Mark as a primary source. There are, however, a number of verbatim agreements between Matthew and Luke not found in Mark. These occur primarily in sayings of Jesus, and have led New Testament scholars to postulate a "sayings source" (called Q) that originated in Palestine shortly before the destruction of the Temple (70). An interesting discovery is the Gospel of Thomas, which is not a "biography" of Jesus as the canonical gospels, but a collection of independent sayings, perhaps in direct descent from Q. John's Gospel appears to be relatively independent of Mark or Q. Although John probably wrote in the 90s, his sources (a collection of traditional miracles - "signs" - and a collection of discourses of Jesus) appear in some ways more primitive than Mark. Finally, other sayings of Jesus are recorded in early Christian writers: other books of the New Testament; Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Papias (end of 1st Century/beginning of 2nd); Justin (mid 2nd); and some of the apocryphal gospels (2nd-5th Centuries). Traditionally, the historical study of Jesus has started with material in one of these primary documents. By attempting to trace it back to earlier sources, and by comparing this with other material traced back to different sources, the scholar has tried to show the probability that certain actions or sayings are historically authentic. This "quest for the historical Jesus" (to quote the title of Schweitzer's book) has fallen on mixed fortunes. In the 19th Century, religious romantics attempted to make Jesus into a prototype Enlightenment humanist. Schweitzer argued (quite persuasively) around the turn of the Century that Jesus was an Apocalyptic prophet who thought that God was about to set up his kingdom on earth. Because Schweitzer's work called into question the relevance of the "historical" Jesus for the contemporary church, and because even the earliest of the hypothetical traditional sources was decades removed from Jesus, Bultmann argued long and hard that the Jesus of history is all but irrelevant for Christianity. It is rather the kerygma (the preaching of a "resurrection" faith) that counted. Bultmann's view dominated post-war European scholarship (and a lot of American scholarship also). In the 60s, though, several of his former students became disillusioned, and called for a "new quest for the historical Jesus." The difference being that, now sayings of Jesus are primary to events (miracles), and the goal is to reconstruct the way Jesus understood himself in the world, rather than the details of his physical life and ministry (the concern is more with the "faith of Jesus" than the "Jesus of faith"). Given the fact that Christianity just can't get away from historical questions for long, especially historical questions about its founder, what historical evidence do our sources clearly present? Probably not much. I think a pretty tight case can be made for the existence of Jesus - a 1st Century Jewish teacher who saw in his time (and in his ministry) a turning point in history. I think a good case can also be made for the reality of his crucifixion - Jesus ran afoul of political/religious leaders and was put to death. Beyond that? 3. Evidence for Resurrection There is one other point I think the sources make quite clear: from the earliest extant documents followers of Jesus have believed that he rose from the dead in a literal way. I have already conceded that this event does not lend itself to scientific documentation (or scientific falsification). But it might be worth mentioning the types of evidence early Christians brought forward for the resurrection of Jesus. All Four Gospels all record the empty tomb. They, and their earlier traditional sources, viewed that as a strong apologetic. Evidently some Jewish writers thought it a problem also, for the story that Jesus' disciples stole the body at night is found even in the Talmud. Of course it is possible that a numerous band of well armed followers of Jesus could have surprised and overcome the Roman guards, but ... Many early Christian leaders were most certainly convinced of the reality of the resurrection. They gave up career and home. The itinerant preacher occupied a pretty low social position in the 1st Century (the local philosopher or rhetor, on the other hand, was socially respectable). Confessors were dealt with severely, and most of the first generation leadership lost their lives for their faith. Of course, there is always the possibility that these may have been masochists:-) Related to this is the phenomenon of the conversion of high officials and opponents of Christianity - most notably Paul. Paul was a rising star in civic life, probably on the fast track for a seat on the Sanhedrin. He gave up career and family on the basis of a visionary experience. Certainly Paul was in position to evaluate the evidence for the resurrection, and would, presumably, not have abandoned a fairly comfortable and powerful life for something he knew to be a fabrication. Finally, there is the appeal to living witnesses in the New Testament. Luke claims to have interviewed persons involved. Paul tells the Corinthians that there were over 500 witnesses to the resurrection - most of whom were still alive. This statement doesn't do us much good, but the thought must surely have occurred to Paul that in one of the chief shipping ports of the eastern Mediterranean, someone who heard his challenge may one day have shipped out to a Palestinian port, and may have attempted to "call Paul's bluff." What does all this prove? That Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead? Hardly! The body may have disappeared for other reasons. The early leaders of the church may have been deceived. The witnesses may have all been conveniently "unavailable." The writings of the New Testament presume that a quantitative study could have been conducted in the 1st Century (or even in the 2nd Century), but that opportunity is lost to us forever. Perhaps this is why Calvin, in discussing the basis for belief in the resurrection and in the Scriptures, finally came down to an internal criterion - the "witness of the Holy Spirit." Although this is completely un-scientific, although it presupposes faith, and although it presumes the truth of Christianity (heresy on this net, oh no!), Calvin felt there was a point where the evidence stops, and where a decision must be made to believe, to disbelieve, or to admit the permanent inconclusiveness of the argument. This brings the discussion to a different level, however, and I do not intend at this point to pursue Calvin's doctrine of the Holy Spirit on net.religion :-) Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University