The Historicity of Jesus

The Historicity o£ Jesus By DR. WILLIAM J. SNOW Of the BriQham Young University IN THE March Improvement Era, J. M. Sjodahl presents a rather timely and suggestive article on Jesus as an Historical Personage. Perhaps some further elaboration of this subject would be helpful to many of the readers of the Era. At least the question raised for discussion is one that has confronted the Christian world in recent years and aroused con- troversy as to the evidence in the case. The writer of this brief article had this matter forcibly called to his attention when, in answer to a phone call a short time ago, he received the query, "Do you know of any proof outside 'the New Testament that Jesus ever lived?" Further discussion disclosed the fact that an energetic teacher of a senior class in Mutual had been challenged by this very question. Having perfect faith in the life and mission of Jesus Christ, the teacher had never entertained a thought that doubts of his historicity ex- isted anywhere. XJOWEVER, it is generally -LJ- known among students of comparative religions and of the Genesis of Christianity, that the whole gospel story has been chal- lenged and seriously discussed for more than half a century. For- tunately, for doubting Thomases and happily for those who, with faith unshaken, still desire to see their assurances confirmed by extra Biblical evidence, the scholars quite generally both in Europe and America have reached the conclu- sion that the traditional story of Christ's life is essentially true, that he did actually live, and that his influence has reached down through the centuries to the pres- sent. Says Carpenter, an English scholar of great renown who still remains in the camp of the skep- tics, "Nevertheless, I need hardly remark that large and learned as the body of opinion here repre- sented is," (he has been quoting authorities who purport to prove the Jesus story a myth) "a still larger (but less learned body) fight desperately for the actual his- toricity of Jesus.1 TT probably can be said that this ■*" larger body is constantly in- creasing. Hopkins of Yale, an Assyrian scholar and profound stu- dent of unquestioned learning de- clares emphatically, "The story of Christ is no myth."2 This is typical of Bible scholars whose sole desire is to set forth the truth deduced after carefully evaluating the evidence. It is apropos at this point to suggest the basis of the negative position. There are two grounds of attack; one growing out of and depending for its validity upon the other. The basic assumption then is that since there is so little mention of Jesus outside the New Testament story the probability is that he is an invention of Chris- tian writers. Arthur Drews, a professor in the University of Karlsruhe,3 wrote a book in 1910 entitled "The Christ Myth." In this work he mentions the Ger- man, Bauer, as contending that Jesus was a pure invention of Mark's. Then follows a discussion of the legendary theory and the authorities who have given a rea- soned exposition of this theory. Among them is the American, W. Benjamin Smith, author of "The Pre-Christian Jesus." (1906). "DRIEFLY then, what is the ^ theory? It is based essentially upon the fact that Christianity evolved in a world in which be- lief in a Savior God was general. To satisfy the longing of the peo- ple for a religion of redemption, various pre-Christian Saviors had appeared. These Savior Gods came to earth, took bodies, died and were resurrected and finally 1Carpenter, Edward — "Pagan and Christian Creeds — Their Origin and Meaning," p. 210. 2Hopkins, E. Washburn — "History of Religions," p. 55 2. 3Vide Carpenter, op-cit, p. 209. were to return to raise the dead and annihilate all evil. Such were Adonis, Osiris, Ceyble, Krishna, and Mithra. The last named was miraculously born from a rock, came with a great redeeming light like the sun, initiated devotees by lustrations of water and blood (baptism) , brought his earthly career to an end in a last supper; and then ascended to heaven where he continued his supernatural help to his devotees, and from whence he would come to resurrect and redeem them all in the last days.4 Now these various deities, ac- companied as they were by mys- terious cults and practices, were nevertheless mythical; they had no actual existence. Christianity, aris- ing in a world filled with such beliefs, must likewise have a founder, hence Christ, the Messiah, was invented.5 Such was the ar- gument. Case faces all these ar- guments fairly and estimates their value. He says, "When all the evidence brought against Jesus' his- toricity is surveyed it is found to contain no elements of strength. All theories that would explain the rise of the New Testament literature by making it a purelv fictitious product, fail.6 XTOW as to the evidence of lay "^ historians in the Roman world. It must be admitted there are but few authenticated refer- ences. This is not to be wondered at, however, as an obscure char- acter in a remote part of the Ro- man empire would not arouse great interest or concern among Pagan writers. Moreover, it must be {Continued on page 638) 4For an interesting discussion of this subject see Angus, S. "Mystery Religions and Christianity," passim, Cf. Case, Shirley Jackson, "Experience with the Supernatural in Early Christian Times," Chap. IV — Heroic Redeemers. 5Carpenter op. cit. pp. 210-221. Cf. Case, Shirley Jackson, "The Historicity of Jesus," Chapters II, III, and IV. ■"See Case op. cit. pp. 130-132. Case allows the leading negative scholars to play their trump cards and then turns the trick with scholarly evidence.