WHAT ABOUT THE
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS?

by Justin Cargill (BA Hons)

New Testament scholars are agreed that the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, incorporate some historical material. Some would go even further and say that these gospels are substantially or even entirely historical. Certainly they would all, at least, agree that 2000 years ago, a man called Jesus gathered around him a group of disciples, taught something about the kingdom of God, alienated the authorities and was put to death by the Romans.

But Professor George Wells doesn't grant even this. He doesn't think these gospels are remotely historical. He doesn't believe that the person around whom the gospels centre even existed.

F.F. Bruce once said, "It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories."[1] He is quite correct. Wells isn't an historian. Nor is he a theologian or philosopher. He is professor of German Language and Literature at the University of London. He is in the ironical position of having written extensively about someone who in his opinion never existed.

In 1985, Wells contributed a lengthy article to The Encyclopedia of Unbelief,[2] regarding his views on the historicity of Jesus. I propose to use his article, supplemented where appropriate by his 1982 work, The Historical evidence for Jesus,[3] as a basis to discuss the question of the historicity of Jesus and the gospels.

The approach taken by this paper is that Wells is wrong. The gospels are substantially historical. I need first of all to explain what I mean when I say the gospels are "substantially historical." Notice that I say "substantially." The most anyone can ever say on historical grounds alone is that the gospels are substantially historical. It is impossible to prove whether every single detail related in them really happened or that every detail really happened in the way that it is recorded. But we shouldn't be surprised by this. We can do no more than this for any document that purports to describe historical events.

What does Professor Wells believe? He believes Jesus never existed. He maintains that the gospels were written between AD80-100 - long after most of the New Testament epistles and that they were not based on historical material. He says that Jesus' "earthly life in 1st-century Palestine was invented late in the 1st century" (emphasis in original).[4] He believes the gospels simply flesh out a character that first emerged as myth and which remained rather obscure in the earlier epistles.

He argues that:

"Paul and the other earliest Christian writers are so vague in what they say about his life that they may well have believed that he had been crucified long (one or two centuries) before their time in obscure circumstances; and that in fact they were probably wrong in believing even this much of him. Paul does, of course, allege that Jesus' ghost had appeared recently, not in the distant past. But he does not allege that the crucifixion and resurrection were recent occurrences."[5]

Wells, therefore, believes that Paul conceived of Jesus as a supernatural being who lived a very obscure life which was ended by crucifixion possibly centuries before his own time. He also believes that "all of the extant post-Pauline epistles that are likely to have been written before the end of the 1st century (and probably before A.D.90) refer to Jesus in essentially the same manner as does Paul." [6] He identifies these early post-Pauline epistles as 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter and possibly the letters of James and 1,2 and 3 John, although he thinks these last four may have been written "slightly later."[7]

Wells argues that,

"The first Christian epistles to depict him [Jesus] in a way that shows significant resemblances to the Gospels' portrait of him are some of those which are widely agreed to have been written between about A.D.90 and 110: namely the three so-called pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), 2 Peter and, outside the canon, the anonymous letter (known as 1 Clement) ascribed to Clement of Rome, and the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch." [8]

He obviously does not ascribe the Pastoral epistles to Paul and he does not believe Peter wrote 2 Peter. He argues that it is only by the time of their writing, between AD90-110, that we start finding historical details which give Jesus an historical context and he cites as evidence for this, the reference in 1 Timothy 6:13 to Jesus being tried by Pilate.[9] He believes that the gospels represent the final stage in which a full history of the life of Jesus is presented and the details are, in his opinion, invented.

Wells supports his position by insisting that there are only eight authentic letters of Paul in the New Testament - Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon and possibly Colossians.[10] He asserts that these letters are so "silent" regarding events later recorded in the gospels that the events must have been unknown to Paul who would certainly have known about them if they had been historical. He also claims that, "one could never gather from these letters that Jesus had been an ethical teacher, even though they are full of ethical admonition," since so little appeal is made to what Jesus taught.[11]

Wells is, therefore, convinced that since the earlier epistles do not refer to the events of Jesus' life in any detail and since they do not appeal to his teaching, the implication is that it is only after these epistles were written and laid a basis for the Christian faith that the gospels were written to give Jesus some history.

Wells doesn't, however, think that the gospel writers were liars or frauds:

"This argument does not impute fraud to the Christians of the late 1st century. Those who lack understanding of the process whereby myths are formed are apt to argue that either a tradition is true or else it must have been maliciously invented by cynics who knew the facts to be otherwise available."[12]

Wells' whole argument appears to be based primarily on the fact that the earlier epistles have so little to say regarding Jesus' earthly ministry. If a satisfactory response can be made to this, Wells' argument is seriously undermined.

What precisely then does Wells say? He points out, for-instance, that Paul's epistles make no reference to Jesus' parents, to the virgin birth, or to Jesus' place of birth. They do not mention John the Baptist or Judas or Peter's denial of Jesus. They do not refer to Jesus' trial before Pilate, or to the fact that he was executed in Jerusalem. They mention none of the miracles he is said to have performed and they do not record his teaching.[13]

What sort of response can be made to this?

The fact is that Paul does give a number of historical facts about Jesus' life and he uses standard rabbinic vocabulary to explain how he acquired at least some of the information. In 1 Corinthians 11:23 and 15:3, Paul speaks of receiving and delivering material. The words "receive" and "deliver" are traditional terms referring to the transmission of a sacred trust. The words refer to the rigidly controlled transmission of material.

Regarding Jesus' earthly life, Paul makes the following specific points in those epistles which Wells does believe were written by Paul:

1. Jesus was a real man - "born of a woman" (Gal. 4:4)

2. He lived under the Jewish law - "born under the law" (Gal. 4:4)

3. He was a descendant of Abraham (Rom. 9:5) and of David (Rom. 1:3)

4. He had brothers, one of whom was called James (1 Corin. 9:5; Gal. 1:19)

5. He was a poor man (2 Corin. 8:9, cf. Rom. 15:3, Philippians 2:6-8)

6. He was meek and gentle (2 Corin. 10:1). This echoes Jesus' words in Matthew 11:29

7. He was betrayed (1 Corin. 11:23) 

8. The night he was betrayed, he instituted a meal of bread and wine to be taken as a memorial (1 Corin. 11:23-25)

9. He was crucified (1 Corin. 1:23; 2:8; Gal. 3:1, etc.)

10. The Jews were primarily responsible (1 Thess. 2:14-15).

11. On the third day after he was buried he was raised and appeared to many (1 Corin. 15:4-8)

Thus the broad outline of Jesus' earthly life appears in Paul's epistles. The reality of an earthly Jesus was clearly a presupposition in Paul's thinking and some background knowledge of Jesus' life would appear to be necessary if this data was to have any meaning for Paul and his readers. Whilst it is perfectly true, for-instance, that Paul nowhere refers to Judas, he does refer to Jesus having been betrayed (1 Corin. 11:23) and it is difficult to think of Paul alluding to this, or expecting his readers to make intelligible sense of it, unless they all had some background knowledge of the event.

It might be instructive to see how Wells deals with this particular passage. In his book, The historical evidence for Jesus, Wells argues that, "The Greek does not have betrayed but delivered up, and there is no reference to an arrest or betrayal in a particular and known historical situation. Jesus is simply said to have been, like the Suffering Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah, delivered up for our sins" (emphasis in original). [14] Wells quotes Romans 4:25; 8:32 and Galatians 2:20, where Paul refers to Jesus being delivered up because of our sins and he concludes, "Not until the gospels is the 'delivering' given a historical context." He thinks our reading of the gospels has influenced our understanding of what Paul meant.[15]

But Paul must have had a particular historical event in mind because he adds the detail that the delivering up or betrayal (either meaning is possible in the Greek) took place at night. Wells attempts to account for this detail. He thinks that Paul says the event took place at night in order to link it with the Eucharist because he wants to criticise the kind of Eucharist that was being practiced by Christians at Corinth. Elsewhere, Paul says that Christian teachers were preaching "another Jesus" (2 Corin. 11:4) and Paul is here taking an opportunity to criticise these rival preachers. Wells says,

"In placing the origin of the Eucharist on the night when Jesus was delivered up, he [Paul] clearly means to link it with his death, while the Corinthian Eucharist he is criticizing is likely to have linked it with his resurrection and to have celebrated not his death but his presence in all his power..The Corinthian Christians would have believed that, through participation with the risen Christ in the sacrament, they were themselves made powerful and translated to a sphere higher than that of earthly things - to the realm of the redeemer. Paul, however, acknowledged.only shame, humiliation, and pain in Jesus' earthly life and thought that these qualities ought to be reflected in the lives of Christians. His theology is in this sense a theology of the cross, and he goes on to say, in this same context where he gives Jesus' eucharistic words: 'As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.'...In sum, Paul's statement that the Eucharist originated on the night when Jesus was delivered up is not historical reminiscence but an attempt to discredit a rival interpretation of eucharistic efficacy" (emphasis in original).[16]

So Wells attempts to explain why Paul says the delivering up of Jesus took place at night. But his argument founders on four points.

1. Paul is not, as Wells supposes, criticising a rival interpretation of the Eucharist which has been given by rival teachers. The fact that the Corinthians are not treating the Eucharist soberly does not mean they think they are participating with the risen Christ rather than celebrating his death. If they thought that by participating in the Eucharist they were translated to a sphere higher than earthly things, as Wells suggests, this would hardly account for each going ahead with his own meal, leaving others hungry and humiliating those who have nothing which is the basis for Paul's complaint (11:21-22).

Paul is not condemning a rival interpretation of the Eucharist but the attitude of those participating in it. This is why he says, "When you meet together it is not the Lord' supper that you eat." (11:20). They are participating in an unworthy manner and this is why Paul says they must examine themselves (11:28). The Corinthians have obviously forgotten the significance of the Lord's supper because of their indulgence and greed. This is why Paul tells those who are likely to be hungry to eat at home before they come together (11:33-34).

2. Even if Paul did deliberately place the Eucharistic meal on the night when Jesus was delivered up so as to link it with his death, why did this delivering up have to take place at night? If Paul was thinking of the crucifixion specifically, for it was then that Jesus was delivered up for sin, Paul would not have thought of this taking place at night.

3. The idea that Paul simply created the detail that Jesus' delivering up took place at night because it suited his purpose attributes fraud to Paul. 

4. If Paul was capable of inventing such detail when it served his own polemical or apolegetic ends, then why didn't he do so more often? Wells' argument is that Paul has little biographical material regarding Jesus and he does not appear to cite his teaching. But if Paul was capable of inventing material because it suited him, why didn't he create precisely the material Wells thinks is lacking?

This focus upon Well's interpretation of this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 gives some idea as to the lengths he sometimes has to go in order to explain away a passage. It also shows how Wells' own arguments can at times be turned against each other.

But to return. It is obvious that Paul was referring to a particular historical event when he spoke of Jesus' betrayal taking place at night and as I observed earlier, it is difficult to think of Paul mentioning this event or expecting his readers to make intelligible sense of it, unless they all had some background knowledge of the event.

In sum, Paul certainly believed that Jesus had really existed and we find in his epistles reference to core historic facts without which his interpretation of Jesus would have been impossible. Without the background knowledge of these facts his readers would have made little sense of what Paul was saying. These core historic facts also establish a broad framework regarding Jesus' life which corresponds to that presented in the gospels.

But the question arises as to why Paul didn't include more detailed biographical material about Jesus than he actually did and why he didn't appeal to Jesus' teaching more often?

To take the first part of the question first: why didn't Paul include more detailed biographical material about Jesus? There are at least four reasons why Paul had little desire or motive to communicate in his epistles biographical material about Jesus.

1. Like his companion, Luke (Luke 1:1-3), Paul would have known of attempts by others to compile accounts of Jesus' life and he would have realised that they were better equipped than he was, given that he never knew Jesus during his earthly ministry. He was able to pick up details of Jesus' life from his visit to Peter and James at Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal.l:18-19) but others would be better able to write about Jesus' life.

2. Paul's epistles were not intended to give a detailed account of the facts of Jesus' life, ministry, or teaching. They were addressed to communities or individuals who already knew the gospel story. The facts of Jesus' earthly life were presupposed. Paul interpreted them, but the facts about Jesus were sufficiently familiar to his congregations so Paul was obliged to do no more than allude to them.

Wells recognises that some have suggested that Paul is silent concerning much of what the gospels record because he was writing to people who did not need to be reminded of such matters. However, Wells asks,

"why, then, does he [Paul] again and again mention his [Jesus'] death by crucifixion, with which, in the terms of the case, they were equally familiar? And why do his many references to this event nevertheless give no indication of where, when, or under what circumstances it occurred? Although he says that the earthly Jesus was a descendant of David (Rom. 1:3), a Jew 'according to the flesh' (9:5), he does not say in which of the many centuries since David he supposes Jesus to have lived."[17]

So in response to the claim that Paul said little about Jesus' biography since his readers already knew the details, Wells observes that Paul frequently refers to an event with which his readers were equally familiar - Jesus' crucifixion, and he finds it significant that Paul doesn't say when this event took place. But the reason Paul often refers to Jesus' crucifixion is because it looms so large in his thinking and in his theology. It was Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that gave him the theology he had! And the reason Paul doesn't mention where or when the crucifixion took place is precisely because he knows that his readers were aware of the details. The reason Paul refers to Jesus as a descendant of David and a Jew according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3; 9:5) is because in this particular context it is a point he wishes to stress. And it is no surprise that Paul fails to say in which of the many centuries since David, Jesus is supposed to have lived. His readers know the details.

Wells is, therefore, attempting to dismiss the idea that Paul said little about Jesus' biography because his readers already knew the details by citing evidence that is perfectly consistent with the view that his readers knew the details!

3. Paul's epistles deal with practical and theological problems which arose in the early church. His purpose was not to retell the gospel story but to discuss theological and ethical issues and to counter false teaching. There are, in fact, few instances in the epistles where references to details in Jesus' life would have been appropriate. This can be demonstrated from the fact that although we have seen some of the biographical material which Paul knew, we don't find him using that same detail elsewhere. Obviously, Paul didn't think it necessary to do so. Since we know that he didn't use the information he did have much, it is possible that he actually knew a lot more. And if, as we've seen, Wells thinks Paul capable of inventing biographical detail if it suits him, the fact that there is so little shows that Paul didn't think that biographical detail was necessary. It then becomes reasonable to argue that he had access to biographical detail but he didn't use it.

4. The focus of Paul's epistles is on the risen and exalted Jesus, so he had little reason to refer back to details in Jesus' earthly life except for his death and resurrection. In fact, Paul explicitly tells us why we should not expect much material about Jesus' life in his epistles. In an epistle which Wells does accept as genuinely Pauline, Paul says, "Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh yet even now we know him thus no longer" (2 Corin. 5:16). Wells is aware that this response has been given to account for Paul's lack of biographical detail regarding Jesus. He writes,

"If Paul were the only early Christian writer to be silent about or in conflict with the Gospel picture of Jesus, one might plausibly attribute his silence to some personal tendency, such as predilection to mysticism and correlative indifference to history. It has in fact often been argued that the reason why he mentions neither the time (Pilate's prefecture) nor the place (Jerusalem) nor any of the attendant circumstances of the crucifixion is that he was preoccupied with the significance of the cross as a cosmic saving event."[18]

A number of points arise here:

i. Wells' assertion that since there is little biographical material in his epistles Paul has a "predilection to mysticism" and an "indifference to history" is plainly wrong for reasons already specified. 

ii. Wells does at least acknowledge one reason that has been given for Paul providing little biographical material - Paul's focus is upon the significance of the cross. Wells overstates even this so as to imply a lack of interest in Jesus' earthly life but he does admit that this could be a plausible explanation. However he finds two difficulties with this suggestion: -

a) "all of the extant post-Pauline epistles that are likely to have been written before the end of the 1st century (and probably before A.D. 90) refer to Jesus in essentially the same manner as does Paul."[19] They fail to provide biographical detail. It isn't just Paul who fails to do so. He writes,

"Can these writers, independent of each other as they mainly are, all have believed that Jesus lived the kind of life portrayed in the Gospels and yet have remained silent even about the where and when of his life?"[20]

b) Wells dates the pastoral epistles, 2 Peter and outside the canon, 1 Clement and the seven letters of Ignatius at Antioch, between AD90-110 and says these are the first Christian epistles to depict Jesus in a way that shows significant resemblance to the Gospel portrait of Jesus.

"Since, then, these later epistles do give biographical references to Jesus, it cannot be argued that epistle writers generally were disinterested in his biography, and it becomes necessary to explain why only the earlier ones (and not only Paul) give the historical Jesus such short shift. The change in the manner of referring to him after A.D.90 becomes intelligible if we accept that his earthly life in 1st-century Palestine was invented late in the 1st century" (emphasis in original).[21]

Neither of these objections is convincing. Although the extant post-Pauline epistles which Wells dates before AD 90, supply little biographical detail regarding Jesus' earthly life, there is some (Hebrews 2:18; 4:15; 5:7; 12:3).

Nevertheless, on the whole these epistles actually provide even less biographical material than Paul. But this itself raises an interesting question. Why don't these epistles have at least as much biographical material as Paul? Wells says the crucifixion "remains the sole episode in his [Jesus'] incarnate life which they mention."[22] In fact, 1,2 and 3 John don't refer to Jesus' crucifixion or for that matter to his resurrection. 2 Thessalonians says nothing about Jesus being crucified. Wells seems to think silence regarding events in Jesus' life means ignorance of these events. But this can't possibly be so. Are we to conclude that the reason 1,2 and 3 John don't mention Jesus' crucifixion or resurrection is because the writer didn't know about these events or didn't know what others were saying about Jesus although the writer of 1 John is obviously aware that our sins have been expiated (2:2; 4:10)?

Are we to conclude that the writer of 2 Thessalonians knew nothing about Jesus' crucifixion simply because he didn't refer to it? Of course not. If 2 Thessalonians was not written by Paul, as Wells insists, it must have been written by someone who knew enough about Paul to want to pass it off as having been written by him (1:1; 3:17). And anyone who knew about Paul would know he taught that Jesus was crucified. So why did the writer say nothing about Jesus' crucifixion?

The point is a simple one. If reference to Jesus' crucifixion is omitted by writers who knew Jesus was meant to have been crucified, should we be surprised that we are not provided with other details of Jesus' earthly life?

These non-Pauline epistles no doubt provide little biographical data for precisely the same sort of reasons that Paul provided little. The facts of Jesus' earthly life were presupposed but not stated. They were common knowledge to those for whom the epistles were written. Biographical detail was not necessary in the context of the particular epistles since they addressed concerns that did not require a discussion of Jesus' earthly life. Like Paul, their focus was on the implications of the cross and on the risen, exalted Christ.

Wells' second objection is also weak. He maintains that since the later epistles do give biographical references to Jesus, we can't argue that the epistle writers were generally disinterested in his biography. He therefore explains the absence of biographical detail in the earlier epistles by saying there was no biographical data for them to draw upon. This argument is faulty. When Wells says the later epistles do give biographical references to Jesus, what biographical references is he talking about? If we were simply to take Wells' word for it, we might be forgiven for thinking that the Pastoral epistles and 2 Peter were full of biographical information.

But Wells has exaggerated the evidence. He mentions other non-canonical writings in this context, but even if there is more biographical detail in these, there is little in those canonical epistles which he late-dates. It is perfectly true that in 1 Timothy we read that Jesus was tried by Pontius Pilate (6:13), that in 2 Timothy, Jesus was descended from David (2:8) and in 2 Peter we are reminded of Jesus' Transfiguration (1:17). But three biographical references in four epistles is a very slim reed indeed for Wells to hang much upon. If we include two more references which relate specifically to Jesus' teaching - 1 Timothy which says believers must agree with the sound words of Jesus (6:3), and possibly a quotation from Jesus regarding the labourer deserving his wages (5: 18 cf. Luke 10:7) - there are only five references in all.

It isn't enough to argue that five such references are in fact quite significant because there is so little in the earlier epistles. If these later epistles are to be dated AD90-110 and the gospels dated between AD80-100 having been based on developing myth, why do we not find a lot more such references in these later epistles? By this stage they would have had access to a vast amount of myth, given Wells' reasoning. Obviously, the writers of these later epistles were not as interested in including biographical material in their epistles as Wells makes out. Since they did not include much biographical material, why show surprise if the earlier epistles failed to do so? This is a point to which I'll return in another context but it is clearly unsound to explain the lack of biographical detail in the earlier epistles on the grounds that there was none available and that this is in contrast to the biographical material which was subsequently created and which we find in the later epistles.

To review thus far. We've been looking at the fact that although there is some biographical material regarding Jesus in Paul's epistles there isn't that much. Wells thinks this proves that such material didn't exist when Paul wrote. We've seen, however, that the facts of Jesus' earthly life were presupposed in Paul's epistles but not stated and we've seen that there are at least four reasons to account for this paucity of biographical material in Paul's epistles and in the other New Testament epistles. We've seen that Wells is aware of two of these reasons and on what grounds he objects to them and we've seen that his objections are unconvincing.

The conclusion to be drawn at this point is that it is not legitimate for Wells to maintain that because Paul and the writers of the other first century epistles may have been silent concerning events later recorded in the gospels, they were ignorant of those events and that they never really took place.

Wells also raises a second objection. Why is there so little appeal to what Jesus taught in Paul's epistles? Wells makes much of this and thinks it proves that Paul had no teaching from an historical Jesus to draw upon and that this substantiates his view that Jesus didn't exist.

However, it is interesting that throughout his epistles, Paul's main argument in his ethical instruction is often the example of Jesus himself and his understanding of Jesus is in perfect agreement with His character as portrayed in the gospels.

Paul's mention of the "meekness and gentleness" of Christ (2 Corin. 10:1) echoes Jesus' own words, "I am meek and lowly of heart." (Mt. 11:29). The self-denying Christ of the gospels is the one of whom Paul says, "Even Christ pleased not Himself" (Rom. 15:3).

Moreover, there are echoes of Jesus' teaching. Although Paul doesn't quote the actual sayings of Jesus, he certainly shows that he is acquainted with them. A comparison of the ethical section of Romans (12:1-15:7) with the Sermon on the Mount shows how thoroughly imbued Paul was with Jesus' teaching. Paul's emphasis on love fulfilling the law (Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14; cf. Mk. 12:31) and paying tribute to whom it is due (Rom. 13:7; cf. Mk. 12:16-17) reflects Jesus' teaching. So also does Paul's command "bless those who persecute you, bless and do not curse" (Rom. 12:14; cf. Lk. 6:27-28) and his exhortation to "repay no one evil for evil" (Rom. 12:17; cf. Mt. 5:39). The principle that the labourer deserves his wages (Mt. 10:10; Lk: 10:7) is quoted explicitly in 1 Timothy 5:18 (although Wells doesn't  attribute this epistle to Paul) but Paul cites the same principle and ascribes it to the Lord in 1 Corinthians 9:14. Paul's reference to faith moving mountains (1 Corin. 13:2) might well reflect the tradition behind Mark 11:23 and a number of Paul's metaphors - the stumbling block, the faithful steward, the good foundation, the sower and the leaven - could easily have originated from Jesus'own use of such imagery especially in the parables.

The evidence indicates that Paul was familiar with Jesus' teaching. There are echoes of Jesus' teaching throughout his epistles.

Of all the New Testament epistles, none contain as many passages which verbally resemble the teaching of Jesus as does the epistle of James. James doesn't quote specifically from the gospels but he certainly knows and shares the insights and attitudes reflected in the teachings of Jesus (eg. James 1:2 cf. Mt. 5:10-12; 1:22 cf. Mt. 7:24ff; 3:12 cf. Mt. 7:16; 2:5 cf. Mt. 5:3; 4:11-12 cf. Mt. 7:1; 5:2 cf. Mt. 6:19; 5:12 cf. Mt. 5:34-37).

1 Peter also contains many passages which appear to echo Jesus' teaching.

Wells is, however, quite aware of all this. He recognises that there are similarities between what Paul and some of the other epistle writers say on the one hand and what Jesus in the gospels is said to have taught on the other. Wells observes that commentators who note:

"the marked similarities between the ethical precepts formulated...by the author of 1 Peter and those of the Sermon on the Mount, say that the former are 'echoes of,' or 'recall' the latter. But it is surely possible to argue that the true view is the very opposite, namely that after certain ethical and religious precepts had become established in early Christianity, it came to be believed that Jesus had taught them while on earth."[23]

He argues in the same vein with regard to Paul:

"Again, Paul tells his Christian readers to 'bless those who persecute you,' bids them 'judge not,' and urges them to 'pay taxes.' Surely in such instances he might reasonably be expected to have invoked the authority of Jesus, had he known that Jesus had taught the very same doctrines. It seems likely that certain precepts concerning forgiveness and civil obedience were originally urged independently of Jesus, and only later were they put into his mouth and thereby stamped with his supreme authority. This seems more likely than that he really gave such rulings and was not credited with having done so by Paul (nor indeed by other early Christian authors)" (emphasis in original).[24]

So Wells is convinced that if an historical Jesus really taught what is attributed to him in the gospels, the earlier epistles would have drawn upon his teaching more often and cited him accordingly. Since there are fewer examples of this than Wells thinks there ought to be, when he finds similarities between what the gospels say Jesus taught and what the epistles actually teach, he does not suggest that the writers of the epistles have recalled Jesus' teaching. Instead, he argues that the teaching attributed to Jesus in the gospels was drawn from ethical teaching which had developed in the Christian communities and which was included in the epistles.

There are three weaknesses with this argument.

1. If, as we saw earlier, Wells maintains that Paul invented a specific biographical detail because it suited his purpose, why didn't Paul also attribute some of his own ethical teaching to Jesus? Clearly, Paul did not feel that it was necessary to reinforce his own teaching by an appeal to Jesus. It is thus not possible to argue that if Paul failed to invoke the historical Jesus, this is because he did not know that Jesus taught the same doctrine.

2. The idea that the gospel writers drew significantly from material that had been circulating and which was included in the earlier epistles can be tested. If true, the gospels would reflect a Jesus who addressed some of the problems which faced the early church and which were addressed in the epistles. Why aren't solutions to some of the issues that affected the early church placed in Jesus' mouth so stamping those solutions with his authority? And the idea that the teaching in the gospels was influenced by the teaching expressed in the epistles does not account for the fact that although parables appear to be the characteristic teaching tool of Jesus in the gospels they are absent from the eipstles. The gospel writers preserve a distinction between the teaching style of Jesus and the teaching style of the early Christian communities. It is, therefore, unconvincing to maintain that the gospel writers took ethical teaching that had developed in the early Christian communities and attributed it to Jesus.

3. If the life-story and teaching of Jesus as depicted in the gospels is influenced by material which was created by the early church communities and which was included in the earlier epistles, then we would expect that those epistles which Wells late-dates would be influenced both by the earlier epistles and by the gospels. Wells recognises this and as we have seen, thinks that he has evidence for it. He asserts that this is precisely why we do find more biographical material in the pastoral epistles and in 2 Peter than we find in the earlier epistles. They have been influenced by the developing myth.

As I noted earlier, however, Wells has exaggerated the evidence for biographical material in the later epistles and although the biographical detail they provide is found in the gospels and not in the earlier epistles, the question arises as to why we do not find a lot more biographical detail in these later epistles? And why do we not find in these later epistles any significant use of material that was incorporated into the gospels and which was alleged to have been said by Jesus? There is hardly anything at all. There is a specific reference to the need for believers to obey the sound words of Jesus in 1 Timothy 6:3 and a quotation appears in 1 Timothy 5:18 regarding the labourer deserving his wages which quotation appears in Luke 10:7. But aside from this there are a few echoes of his teaching but nothing specific.

Obviously, the writers of these later epistles saw no need to cite specifically Jesus' teaching or appeal to details in his life-story. Since they did not do so, we cannot expect the earlier epistles to do so either.

Wells' contention that the ethical teaching attributed to Jesus in the gospels was drawn from material that had developed amongst the early Christian communities must be rejected. But Wells is driven to this line of reasoning because he observes little direct appeal to Jesus' teaching as found in the gospels. There is, however, no real difficulty presented by the failure of the writers of the epistles to appeal in any comprehensive or detailed way to Jesus' teaching.

1. The epistle writers saw themselves as authorities who were being guided by the risen Jesus. There was no compulsion to footnote their theology or support their ethical teaching with an appeal to something the historical Jesus had said. Wells certainly cannot object to this argument because if, as I've already observed, Wells thinks Paul capable of inventing biographical detail when it suits, the fact that Paul doesn't also attribute some of his teaching to Jesus indicates that he felt no need to appeal to Jesus' teaching in order to support his own.

2. The epistle writers often addressed different issues from Jesus. Jesus was often involved in disputes over the proper interpretation of the Mosaic Law and the traditions of the elders. The epistle writers were not. Some of the Sermon on the Mount is certainly picked up by Paul and James, for instance, but much of the Sermon which is a substantial portion of Jesus' teaching in Matthew and which appears in places throughout Mark and Luke is directed specifically at the interpretation of the Mosaic Law and how it had been misinterpreted by the Jewish religious leaders. Paul and Jesus both discussed the Law but Jesus discussed it in relation to his Jewish audience not in relation to Gentiles and he placed Jews under it. Paul discussed it in relation to Jews and Gentiles and he didn't place his readers under it. What Jesus had to say was often not relevant to Paul's readership because there was a difference in the concerns of Paul and Jesus. In fact, one of the interesting things about the gospels is that Jesus is sometimes found involved in discussions that would have been quite irrelevant to the Christian communities for which they were written. This hardly suggests that these communities created material which was subsequently attributed to Jesus.

In reviewing the arguments thus far, it is clear that Wells' belief that Jesus did not exist appears to be based primarily on his claim that the earlier epistles have little historical material regarding Jesus' life and they make little appeal to what Jesus is said by the gospels to have taught. In response, I've shown, firstly, that Paul in particular did give a number of core historical details about Jesus' life and background knowledge of the historical Jesus was essential if these details were to have any real meaning for Paul and his readers. But having said this, there are, as I have shown, clear reasons why we should not expect Paul or the other epistle writers to include more biographical material regarding Jesus. Secondly, the earlier epistles do show a familiarity with Jesus' teaching. Wells' suggestion that the gospel writers simply attributed to Jesus, teaching which was actually drawn from ethical precepts which had become established in early Christian communities and included in the earlier epistles cannot be convincingly maintained. And I've argued that there are legitimate reasons why we should not expect from the epistles a comprehensive or detailed appeal to what Jesus taught.

However, it is one thing to show that the reality of an historical Jesus can be confidently affirmed and that Wells' arguments are unconvincing. It is another thing to show that the gospels are substantially historical and this is a question which will have to be addressed on another occasion.

References

1. Bruce, F.F. The New Testament documents: Are they reliable? 5th rev. ed. (Downer' s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity, 1972), p.119. Return to text

2. Wells, G.A. "Jesus, historicity of." In The Encyclopedia of Unbelief, edited by Gordon Stein.  (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus, 1985), vol. 1, pp.363-368. Return to text

3. Wells, G.A. The historical evidence for Jesus. (Buffalo: New York: Prometheus, 1982).  Return to text

4. Wells. "Jesus," p.365.  Return to text

5. Wells, p.364.  Return to text

6. Wells, p.365.  Return to text

7. Wells.  Return to text

8. Wells.  Return to text

9. Wells, p.366.  Return to text

10. Wells, p.364.  Return to text

11. Wells.  Return to text

12. Wells, p.368.  Return to text

13. Wells, p.364.  Return to text

14. Wells. Historical evidence, p.26.  Return to text

15. Wells.  Return to text

16. Wells, p.27.  Return to text

17. Wells, p.37.  Return to text

18. Wells. "Jesus," p.365.  Return to text

19. Wells.  Return to text

20. Wells.  Return to text

21. Wells.  Return to text

22. Wells.  Return to text

23. Wells, pp.365-66.  Return to text

24. Wells, p.365.  Return to text

2003 Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (Inc.) All Rights Reserved.

Previously published in
Apologia (The Journal of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society)
vol. 2 no.1 (1993): 20-27

Return to Top