Recently on his Misquoting Jesus Podcast, skeptical New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman shared the following as an April Fool's Joke:
"In an absolutely shocking turn of events, Bart has learned of a first-century Gospel that will overturn everything scholars think they know about Jesus, showing that he was a charlatan exposed by the Roman government for duping the Jewish crowds by sophisticated works of magic. The Gospel, set to be published this week by the NY Times, details how Jesus deliberately faked his famous miracles in an effort to seek fame and fortune. How did he go from magician-for-hire to Son of God, and was the crucifixion a tragic illusion gone wrong?"1
I certainly found the joke entertaining, but it did bring to mind the many times in the past various people have come forward claiming to have discovered a reconstructed view of Jesus, most often based on late, biblical writings or discoveries.2
As Dr. William Lane Craig shares in his helpful book On Guard, Professor Luke Johnson, distinguished New Testament scholar at Emory University, points out that all of these claims to have uncovered the "real" historical Jesus typically follow a predictable pattern:
1. The book begins by trumpeting the scholarly credentials of the author and his prodigious research.
2. The author claims to offer some new, and maybe even suppressed, interpretation of who Jesus really was.
3. The truth about Jesus is said to be discovered by means of sources outside the Bible that enable us to read the gospels in a new way that is at odds with their face value meaning.
4. This new interpretation is provocative and even titillating, for example, that Jesus married Mary Magdalene or was the leader of a hallucinogenic cult or a peasant cynic philosopher.
5. It is implied that traditional Christian beliefs are therefore undermined and need to be revised.3
What does Dr. Craig advise we do if we recognize books following this familiar pattern? He writes:
"...your critical antennae should automatically go up! You are about to be duped. For the fact is that there is no historically credible source outside the New Testament that calls into question the portrait of Jesus painted in the gospels...despite all the hoopla, the documents contained in the New Testament are our primary sources for the life of Jesus."4
As followers of Christ, we should be open to evaluating new finds that inform us about the historical Jesus; however, when these finds (or claims) crossover from scholarship to sensationalism, let us not be duped!
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnote:
1. Taken from here.
2. Past examples of this vary in absurdity and/or sophistication, but a few examples can be seen here, here or here.
3. As quoted by Dr. William Lane Craig, On Guard, p. 187.
4. Ibid; Dr. Craig comments on this further here.
Related Posts
What Can We Learn about Jesus (and the Reliability of the Gospel of Mark) from the Apostle Paul?
Neil Shenvi on Non-Christian Corroboration for the Gospels
Gary Habermas and Mike Licona Answer the Claim that, "There is a Huge Mountain of Probability Against an Event Ever Being an Act of God."
Comments