How Secular Historians Are Busting Popular Myths About Jesus

There are many popular myths about Jesus.Listen to the media (social and mainstream), or many an Atheist commentator, and you'll hear them: From Jesus never having existed, to the resurrection having been debunked.However, you won't hear many (if any) of these myths from serious secular (i.e. non-Christian) historians, working in academia. There's usually a difference between what's popular, and what's academically accepted - including when it comes to Jesus.Author and ancient historian John Dickson has carefully engaged with many of these myths (and how they've been 'busted' by secular historical scholarship), both in his work for The Centre For Public Christianity,  and more recently in his new book, A Doubter's guide to Jesus - An Introduction to the Man from Nazareth for Believers and Skeptics. In his new book, Dickson carefully presents the views of mainstream historical scholarship - 'introducing the portraits of Jesus found in the earliest historical sources'. His aim isn't to prove beyond doubt the claims of the New Testament (he admits the study of history alone cannot do that), but to simply 'disturb' and 'intrigue' people by the images of Jesus found in the first sources.In doing so, he shows how 21st century secular historical scholarship debunks popular myths about Jesus:

Myth #1: Jesus Did Not Exist

No less than best-selling 'New Atheist' Richard Dawkins has written:

It is even possible to support a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all.’ (Dawkins, The God Delusion, 97).

French Atheist philosopher Michel Onfray is even more strident in his views:

Jesus’s existence has not been historically established. No contemporary documentation of the event, no archaeological proof, nothing certain exists today…’ (Onfray, The Atheist Manifesto, 115-116).

And yet, Dickson (himself a professional ancient historian) could not think of one historian who would agree with Dawkins or Onfray. He then went on to ask a number of eminent collegues, including Professor Graeme Clark of ANU, who said this:

Frankly, I know of no ancient historian/biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ – the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming’.

Myth #2: The New Testament Is Not a Reliable Historical Document (But a Biased and Inaccurate 'Religious' Text)

I've heard it said many times that because the New Testament is 'religious', it can't be considered a serious historical source.To this Dickson writes:

Professional scholars approach the New Testament as they would any other first-century text. They do not treat as the Word of God, as the Christian church does, but they do accord it the status of a valuable historical text.

He continues:

In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that historians (no matter what their persuasion) universally regard the New Testament writings as the earliest, most plentiful, and most important sources of information about the Jesus of History.' (p27-28, Emphasis added.)

Myth #3:  Over Time, Historians Have Become Less Convinced Of The Historical Value of the New Testament

So if there is some historical value in the New Testament documents, surely this has decreased as our knowledge of the world - including the ancient world - has increased?However, and surprisingly to many, the opposite is the case: secular historians are more convinced about the historical reliability of the New Testament accounts of Jesus than they have ever been.Dickson writes:

While forty to fifty years ago it was common to treat the Gospels as religiously valuable but historically questionable, today a consensus of secular scholarship affirms the Gospels as important historical writings...specialists now believe the Gospels provide a clear and invaluable window into a genuine first-century life. (p35-36, Emphasis added.)

Myth #4: Jesus' Miracles Could Not Have Happened

This is where secular scholarship treads a rather nuanced line. Dickson writes:

While historians cannot say Jesus actually healed the sick, they can, and mostly do, say that Jesus did things that those around him believed to be miraculous.

In other words, the miraculous nature of Jesus ministry wasn't added to the New Testament hundreds of years later by Emperor Constantine or Church authorities (so as to gain authority over people etc). Jesus' contemporaries actually believed he performed miracles. 

Myth #5: Reports of Miracle Workers Were Common In the Ancient World – and Jesus was Just Another One

You would be forgiven for believing that reports of miracle workers were amongst the trending (fake) news stories of the ancient world. As if reports of miraculous healings were commonplace.But Dickson argues the opposite:

It is sometimes said that miracle workers were commonplace in Jesus' day and that the Gospels should be read in light of that wider trend in the ancient world. Everyone was doing miracles, so the Gospel writers portrayed Jesus as doing the same! This is not quite true.'

(Dickson goes on to describe only two other Jewish historical figures associated with healing miracles in this period, who were merely reported as pious Jews who prayed to God, and had their prayers answered.)He concludes:

What we have in the Gospels is another thing entirely. Not only is the sheer number of Jesus' reported miracles striking (thirty eight by scholarly count), so is the fact that they are said to occur through his own power.' (p68-69)

Myth #6: Jesus' Enemies Denied His Reported Miraculous Power

This is quite surprising. Jesus opponents from both Christian and Non-Christian ancient sources never denied his power: quite the opposite. Dickson writes:

What is fascinating is that amongst Jesus' opponents there was never any attempt to deny Jesus' strange abilities, only to cast them in a negative light, as involving "sorcery" or the power of demons.' (p70).

Thus:

What historians affirm is that Jesus' friends and foes alike all conceded the supernatural nature of his ministry. This is a conclusion reached by virtually every scholar working in the field across the world.' (p71, Emphasis added.) 

Myth #7 The Resurrection Accounts Were Added Long After Jesus' Lifetime

Dickson points out two surprising yet common conclusions among contemporary experts (regardless of their religious convictions):

First, Jesus’ tomb was very likely empty shortly after his crucifixion, and;Second, From the very beginning, significant numbers of men and women claimed to have seen Christ alive from the dead. (p194-195)

Writers like Dan Brown have popularlised the idea that Jesus' resurrection was a late (and thus necessarily fake) addition to the accounts of Jesus. But, according to Dickson, secular historians believe that Jesus' first disciples thought his tomb was empty, due to his resurrection from the dead. 

Ok, So Why Don't More Secular Historians Become Christian?

At this point some may ask: If the majority of mainstream secular historians don't believe the above myths, but believe that the New Testament documents contain (some) reliable information about Jesus - especially concerning his (reported) miracles and resurrection, then why don't more of them become Christian?It's a good question. But the short answer is that it depends on your presuppositions, your beliefs about the nature of reality. Dickson writes:

Now, the conclusions that people draw from this data will depend on their underlying philosophical beliefs on what is possible in our world. If I believe that the observable laws of nature define the limits of what is possible in the universe, then I can rationally affirm that no evidence will ever be good enough to overturn the conclusion that dead people stay dead.

He continues:

If, on the other hand, I assume that the laws of nature do not define the limits of what is possible in the universe – because there is a Law-giver behind and above the laws of nature – then I can rationally interpret the historical data as evidence for an actual resurrection, at least in the case of Jesus. (p195)

Either way, it's useful to know what today's historians believe - and how many of their conclusions buttress rather than erode the Bible's teaching about Jesus.(Photo courtesy canva.com)