In chapter 19, Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him and Why it Matters, Craig L. Blomberg presents evidence for who Jesus is from three categories.
The first is the Non-Christian Category. An inordinate number of websites and blogs without justification, claim that Jesus never existed. Many unbelievers wrote about Jesus, such as, Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian.
The second is the Historic Christian Evidence for Jesus.
The latest writings of Paul were in the 50s. The Gospels were written not before the 60s. Paul referred to Christ extensively and quoted him often.
The New Testament Gospels obviously wrote much about Christ. Liberal New Testament scholars doubt that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their Gospels. The church fathers, however, do accept their authorship.
Luke’s introduction shows he was seriously writing an accurate and historical document.
The authorial intent of the first century Gospel authors did not change Jesus into a cosmic Gentile god or the fledgling religion would have crumbled at once or as Paul puts in quite simply, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17).
Can we seriously believe that documents written no earlier than the early 60s accurately recounted the deeds and teachings of Jesus in the late 20s or early 30s? We can. Ancient Jews honed the art of memorization to an amazing extent. Some rabbis had the entire Hebrew Scriptures committed to memory. A scribe who had recently completed a new copy of the Torah would often have the most gifted or venerated local rabbi proofread his manuscript by checking it against that rabbi’s memory.
Craig L. Blomberg in discussing apparent contradictions comes close to denying inerrancy: “But if Matthew does not satisfy modern, scientific standards of precision, it is unfair to impose those standards on a first-century world that had not yet invented them. None of the differences affects the point of the story, which is the miraculous resurrection of the girl” (page 454). To this Blomberg adds, “No historian on any ancient document operates this way. A document that has proved generally reliable is not suddenly discounted because of just one demonstrable mistake.” So, Blomberg sounds like if the Bible has only “one demonstrable mistake” it is not out of step with other historical documents.
The Gospel of John
John wrote his Gospel from Ephesus to the Christian churches in and around that community, who were experiencing increasingly hostility from Judaism and an incipient Gnosticism that affirmed the deity of Christ but rejected his humanity. John stressed how Jesus was indeed the fulfillment of major Jewish festivals and rituals in John 5-10 and the Son of God establishing common ground with the Gnostics but also emphasizing how “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” in John 1:14.
Although the Gospel of John is very different from the Synoptic Gospels, Blomberg notes the “interlocking” passages. This phenomenon involves instances in which John refers to something so cryptically as to raise all kinds of questions that he nowhere else answers but that the Synoptics do, or vice versa. For example, John 3:24 refers in passing to the Baptist’s imprisonment, but only the Synoptists ever narrate the event (Mark 6:14-29 and parallels).
The critics, like Bart Ehrman, claim Jesus only claimed to be God in John’s Gospel because by that time legends had made their way into the Gospel. Jesus also claimed to be God in Mark 6:40 and 14:62.
Syncretistic Evidence
The first Gnostic Gospel, Blomberg discusses is the Gospel of Thomas which he shows not to be canonical. Ironically, scholars like Elaine Pagels, Karen King support a Thomasine or Gnostic form of Christianity because it promotes a form of egalitarianism. Thomas 114 refutes this belief:
Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.” Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirt resembling you males. For every woman who make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Other Gnostic Gospels are falsely ascribed to Philip, Mary, James, and most recently Judas. The Gospel of Judas makes Judas the hero rather than the villain. Even liberal and non-Christian biblical scholars concede there is no chance that The Gospel of Judas reflects the original version of events.
In addition to the Gnostic Gospels there are the apocryphal Gospels. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas portrays child Jesus as a “boy wonder” who fashioned birds out of clay and breathed into them the breath of life. The Gospel of Peter embellishes the resurrection account with two angels who accompany Jesus out of the tomb whose heads reached up to the heavens while Christ’s head even went through the heavens.
Remaining Issues
Critics question the text and translation of the Bible. Textual critics of almost all theological strips agree that we can reconstruct somewhere upwards of 97 percent of the New Testament text beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
The critics also question the formation of the canon. The only books accepted as canonical were the books that passed all three of the major criteria used by the early church in selecting which books they were, at times very literally, willing to die for.
1) The criteria of apostolicity (that a book was written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.
2) The criteria of coherence (not contradicting previously accepted Scripture).
3) The criteria of catholicity (widespread acceptance as particularly relevant and normative within all major segments of the early Christian community).
Miracles and Resurrection
Blomberg lists several undisputed historical facts that are very difficult to explain apart from Jesus’ genuine, bodily return to life.
Why it Matters: The Enduring Significance of the Historical Jesus
History cannot corroborate everything in these Gospels, but it can provide enough support so that a spirit of trust rather than of suspicion remains natural in those areas where more difficult questions arise.