Christians believe it is the most meaningful of all questions. And it all began with a baby born unceremoniously in a stable, who grew to become the most well-known and powerful figure in the world.
To some he was merely a Cynic1, a traveling teacher of moral truths. To others, he never even existed, a phantom of history, fabricated simply to enable a small group to exert power over the masses.2 Put simply, there was no advantage gained by the people driving the story of redemption through Jesus, and that fact would continue for several hundred years.
A Legend?
In his trilemma, C.S. Lewis wisely stated that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or lord.3 And taking the biblical gospel accounts at face value, one must certainly come to one of these three conclusions. But these days people often do not take the biblical accounts of Jesus as “gospel.” But if one were to question these accounts, one other possibility arises.
Legend.
Could the story of the miraculous birth celebrated by billions today at Christmastime, along with the other accounts of his life, death, and resurrection, be a tall tale told long ago? The claim is, perhaps, worth our investigation.
Would a group of first-century Jews, wanting to create a following for themselves, have fabricated a story about a man who was put to death by the enemy many Jews expected the Messiah to defeat?
Like those who saw Jesus suffering on the cross, most Jews would have wondered why Jesus could not save himself from his enemies if he were the true Messiah. Or since the Messiah would be God’s anointed, they would have wondered why God did not save him. “Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down from the cross that we may see and believe,” the chief priests and scribes taunted. He didn’t come down from the cross, but after crying in a loud voice, he died.4
But the story didn’t end there. Something inexplicable happened. The Jews were looking for a confirmation from God, some earnestly and others only in jest, nevertheless some of them came to believe in Jesus after his death. Their claim was that God let him die, and just as Abraham believed that God would have been able to raise Isaac from the dead, so they came to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead.4 Each of the four gospels testify to this resurrection from the dead.
Even if you’re not impressed with the testimony of the gospel accounts, you must deal with the fact that the baby would eventually become known as a man of great wisdom and a worker of miracles even outside of Christian accounts of his life. The historian Josephus, writing in the late first century, confirms these happenings, along with his trial and subsequent crucifixion by Pontius Pilate. Josephus even confirms his followers’ continued devotion to Jesus after his death.65 The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, who died in the early second century, wrote in his Annals that Christians had become a despised and tortured faction under Nero, illustrating the improbably that the faith was based on a non-historic figure since, among other things, not enough time had elapsed for legend to arise.7
The Power of Jesus is the Best Evidence
Maybe the situation is simply a question of power. If Jesus never existed and was not who the gospels say he was, then how does one explain his power? It seems to be simple a dilemma, really. If he were not the savior of the world, would not this fledgling persecuted movement have simply died in its infancy?8 Of course, concluding that Jesus must then be the savior of the world isn’t the only logical conclusion, but on the other hand, this conclusion has something more than mere speculation going for it. People with much greater prestige and influence have declared themselves to be a god or other such person of significance both before and after Christ walked the earth. Yet, it would be this simple life, begun in a stable, whose name would become the most powerful on earth. The baby, born as a member of a conquered and despised race, lived the life of a poor builder from Galilee—a region despised even amongst the Jews—would twenty centuries later have the a third of the world’s population identify themselves by his name. Is this not precisely how a loving God would manifest his power in the world? Would not forgiveness springing forth from love be the vehicle that would most clearly manifest God’s power?
The King who Conquered with Love
“My kingdom is not of this world or my followers would fight,” he would utter to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, just hours before his death by crucifixion.9 And indeed, his followers refused to fight, at least not in the way that Pilate understood the term. But they would fight against themselves, against their own passions and desires; living, loving, and even dying for and in the name of Christ. They would use otherworldly weapons in their battle. Their weapons were love, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, and even peace.10 The only blood they would allow to be spilled was their own. Their fight would be a literal alien invasion against Rome, the most powerful nation the world had ever seen. And eventually, this baby-born-in-a-manger conquered Rome itself. And ultimately left every person who comes into contact with his story to answer the most important question of their lives.
What child is this?
———————————-
1 One wonders how scholars knowledgable about Second Temple Judaism could come to this conclusion. Yet several scholars, including John Dominic Crossan, have come to lean heavily toward this idea. The Cynic was a teacher in Greco-Roman society who had very little regard in the strongly Jewish circles where Jesus taught. Stated simply, Jesus was thoroughly Jewish, as was his audience, his disciples, and much of the first generation of Christians. In fact, no early testimony exists that recounts Jesus to be any such character as a Cynic. NT Wright. Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, Volume Two (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 64-7.
2 Justo L. Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Volume One (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1984), 27-30. The skeptics never tell us how Jesus’ followers benefited from any of this unless, as the disciples claimed, they were truly reconciled to God and would receive an eternal award in the next life. They got no real financial gain from the entire episode, neither did they obtain great power and prestige. Outside the Bible, the history of the apostles’ careers is sketchy, but the bits we can ascertain show that they lived hard lives, suffered persecution, and finally were executed or else sent into exile. As the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:19, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”
3 CS Lewis. Mere Christianity (London: Collins, 1952), 54-6.
4 Mark 15.32-7, ESV.
5 Because history cannot actually repeat itself, there is no way to prove a miraculous event. The very nature of “miracle” assumes a rare and unexpected event. However, history does record several very interesting facts that can most logically be explained by this completely illogical event, the Resurrection. NT Wright has spoken extensively on seven mutations that occurred in early Christianity, each of which points to (which is not to say “proves”) a physical resurrection. These mutations include the fact of a unified stratum of belief, the centralization of the theology of resurrection, the development of a precise definition of resurrection, the development of a two-stage theology of resurrection, and so on. For a complete listing and explanation of Wright’s mutations, see NT Wright. “Can We Believe in the Resurrection?” ABC Religion and Ethics, August 4, 2011. Accessed December 9, 2014. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/04/22/3198806.htm.
6 John Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Volume One (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 67-9. Skeptics claim that Josephus’ account of Jesus includes interpolations. This is a fair assessment due to the theological implications present in the account. However, most scholars agree that a basic framework of facts are retained, including Jesus’ teaching and preaching ministry, his reputation as a miracle worker, his crucifixion under Pilate, and a growing group of believers that refused to abandon its devotion to him after his death.
7 Ibid., 89-90. Some skeptics have argued that Tacitus’ statement about Jesus is a later addition to the Annals. This is highly unlikely due to the fact that it is attested in all manuscripts of the Annals, and also due to the extreme anti-Christian tone of the text.
8 Someone might argue that the Islamist’s devotion to Muhammed is the same sort of thing. That isn’t true by any means. No Islamist worships Muhammad. Islamists believe the Koran was written by him and further they believe that the Koran teaches about God, but Muhammad himself is not viewed as central to the religion, only central to its transmission. In this way, his teaching is a lot like the teachings of Buddha or Gandhi or even MLK. These teachers and leaders have had a great and lasting impact in the world, but again it is their teaching that is followed rather than their personhood being worshiped. People may continue to follow teaching after the teacher dies, but they don’t continue to place their trust in a king after he is dead.
9 The Gospel of John records Jesus making this declaration (John 18.36). This statement is singularly attested, and John’s gospel is the least likely to provide an accurate historical picture of the life of Jesus, according to many liberal scholars (primarily because its agenda is as theological as it is historical), however, the outcome of this statement is certainly true, even until the time of Constantine, who died in the fourth century. The faction of zealots present in second temple Judaism never appears in early Christianity. Even more meaningfully, the idea that the Messiah would be a militaristic leader in the legacy of King David is absent as well. In fact, early Christian practice and belief reflected the idea that their leader’s kingdom was in another time and place. They gave no indication that they believed that they would play any part in a takeover of Rome, their occupiers, at least not from a militaristic point of view.
10 New Testament scholar Darrell Bock explains regarding Jesus’ relatively humble entry into Jerusalem, “Jesus bore a different kind of power. It did not require soldiers; It required hearts.” See further, Darrell Bock. Who is Jesus? Linking the Historical Jesus with the Christ of Faith (New York: Howard Books, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2012), 120.














