Dr. John Ankerberg: Today we’re going to examine how modern scholarship has changed its ideas about Jesus as it has examined His life. Then we will talk about the main question that is in the background of all historical study about Jesus, namely, what about the miracles found in the New Testament? Can a twentieth century historian conclude that they really happened?

First, how has modern scholarship changed its ideas about Jesus as they have examined His life? Dr. Gary Habermas explains:

Dr. Gary Habermas: Primarily New Testament scholars speak today of three periods in which the investigation of the Historical Jesus flourished. [1.] The classical period. Now, there are some prototypes. You can go back to English deism; you can go to German rationalism like Reimarus. But the prototypical, the heyday of "Lives of Jesus," were during the liberal period, what’s called "Old Liberalism," "German Liberalism." Really, oftentimes it’s the philosophical side of German idealism coming out into theology. And what happens for over a hundred years is that everybody has a "life of Jesus." In fact, a lot of these books are just called Life of Jesus. And the liberal presupposition, the most—just to give a general overview here—is, we can basically use the Gospels as historical, minus two big "no-no’s." One is, dogmatic theology—don’t say Jesus was the Son of God, rose from the dead. We don’t like miracles. We don’t like dogmatic theology and this confirmation kind of argument. And they didn’t like to talk about the supernatural. So they want the Gospels, what they would just call, "Give me just the history. Take the theology out, dogmatic theology. Take the miracles out. What’s left? That’s Historical Jesus.

Now, for a little over a hundred years that was what was called "The Quest for Historical Jesus." Albert Schweitzer’s famous book just after the turn of the century lined all those early liberals up, say, like David Strauss. Now, David Strauss was a forerunner to Rudolf Bultmann.

[2.] After "The First Quest," you have what some people call a "No-Quest period." Rudolf Bultmann, Karl Barth. And they did not think we should be going after the Historical Jesus because faith is sufficient. Faith is not based on history. Apologetics is anathema. So, you’ve got a classical liberal period—German Liberalism, "Life of Jesus"; followed by a "no-Quest period"—that’s the reigns of Barth and Bultmann. Barth comes on the scene 1916, 1918 with his famous Epistles to the Romans there right at the close of World War I. Bultmann becomes a big commodity, a hot commodity about 1940 and just a little after that with his essay, New Testament and Mythology. And up until about 1960 it’s not terribly popular to do any more Historical Jesus studies.

But in the 1950s, Ernst Kasemann, Gunther Bornkamm, James Robinson—students of Bultmann—said, "Now, wait a minute. We’re going a little too far here." And in a couple of 1950s very important publications, like Gunther Bornkamm’s Jesus of Nazareth, they said, "Our mentor, Rudolf Bultmann, is going a little too far. Faith is not based on history," they argued. "That’s true. But we do need a Historical Jesus or at least in part or we are doomed to let Him slip into the pages of legend. So we can say some things about the Historical Jesus." But like their mentor, Bultmann, they didn’t think faith was based on history. That’s "The Second Quest for the Historical Jesus," or what was called at the time, "The New Quest." That was a short-lived movement.

[3.] What is being called now "The Third Quest" for the Historical Jesus, there are some forerunners in the 1970s, but in the 80s and 90s we’re seeing an outpouring of books from every theological persuasion—far left, moderate, middle, right—and these books tell you what we can know about Jesus. Now, this is the most fragmented of the three periods. It takes us right up until the present. But this is what all the books from The Third Quest basically have in common. There’s a general agreement that Jesus is a very Jewish fellow and we want to look at Jesus against His Jewish background. Jewish anthropology is very important. Jewish sociology is very important. And they want to put Jesus as a man of His time back into the Jewish calendar—not the Gnostic calendar of Rudolf Bultmann.

But those are basically the three Quests: the nineteenth century 100 years of "Lives of Jesus"; "The New Quest," just a couple of decades; and now we’re into a couple of decades of "The Third Quest" and it’s going strong. This is arguably—the Historical Jesus—is arguably the hottest topic in theology today.

Ankerberg: Now, what about the miracles found in the New Testament? Is it possible for a twentieth century historian to come to the conclusion that Jesus really did perform miracles and really did rise from the dead? On this topic Dr. Habermas is an acknowledged expert who has debated the well-known philosopher Antony Flew on this topic, and written scores of scholarly articles. Listen:

Habermas: Now, this brings us to the question of miracles. The First Quest, put on the shelf. The Second Quest, really wasn’t interested. "The Third Quest," the question of the miracles of Jesus at the present time are really a hot issue.

And miracles are divided into three categories: exorcisms, healing miracles, and nature miracles. And critics are fairly open to the fact that some things are really going on here. I mean, Jesus at least thought He healed people, and people at least thought He healed them. He really thought He cast out demons and those who thought they had demons really believed the demons left. I mean, they really work with the historical scenario here.

But what about the supernaturalness of the miracle? This is still on the outs with a lot of scholars. They don’t think this is a time when we can talk about God acting in history. But one of the things you want to say right off the bat here is that the assumption that says at the outset, "Come on! We’re modern. We can’t believe in miracles," that’s not a way to approach something. This is an inductive world. This is a scientific world. We look at things according to the preponderance of facts. And if we look at data and it looks like something has occurred that may be miraculous, you’ve got to put the miraculous question on the back burner and at first just ask the historical question: What happened with the miracles? What happened with the Resurrection? We don’t have to decide right now if God raised Jesus, but I think the way to start is to say, "What happened in time and space? Was there a man named Jesus? Did He die on a cross? And did His Disciples see Him again?"

Let’s not ask right now, "Is this an event caused by God? What can historians say?" They don’t have the tools, they will tell you, to talk about miracles.

But they do have the tools to say this man walked and talked in first century Palestine. Secondly, they have the tools to say He died on the cross, a victim of Roman crucifixion. They have the tools to say people believed they saw Him afterwards.

On the one hand I want to say miracles cannot be ruled out a priori. But on the other hand, I want to say, "Let’s first talk about what is good history and then we’ll ask the question, "Could any of these be miraculous."

I think what I’m getting here is that historians do not have a choice but to take a line of facts in the direction that the data point us. If history says Jesus is thus and so, we have to be open to looking at that.

Now, what I meant there about the Resurrection goes something like this: I want to know if a man named Jesus of Nazareth walked and talked on the earth about 25, 27, 28 A.D. Okay, historians come in and say, "Oh, yes. Virtually nobody thinks that He didn’t live." Rudolf Bultmann, by the way, said, "We are now at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus lived, walked, talked in history."

So, the historian steps in and says, "Yep, I’ve got data for that. How about, He died?"

"Well, that’s not problem. Most people die."

And historians say, "Let’s follow that path. Yep, it takes us to the cross. The Romans hung Jesus, they put Him on the cross, He died, and we can take that in history."

Now, when you get to the Resurrection, people start getting a little nervous here. But here’s the point I’m saying, let’s not ask the question, "Did God intervene and pull Him out of the tomb?" Let’s ask a much easier question, "Did Jesus of Nazareth, who walked and talked in Palestine, who was believed to have been crucified on the cross, did anybody claim to have seen Him alive after the cross? Did people walk and talk and touch Him?"

You know, C. S. Lewis says the miraculous part of an event is "the initial aspect where it enters history. But after that, everything else is very normal.

For example, if Jesus multiplied loaves and fish for 5,000-plus people, once He did the miracle, the multiplication—everybody ate, everybody was full, everybody got tired. That’s what happens after you eat. Then you get, you know, there’s some biological things going on here. That’s what happens; that’s what food does—the miracle is the multiplication, not the eating and all this.

With the Resurrection accounts, we want to ask a simple question. Was there a man named Jesus, did He die on the cross, and did people claim to see Him afterwards? If so, why? Those are certainly claims that historians can get their fingers on. We have data there.