Can the History of Christianity Be Rewritten?
Christianity is a religion founded in history. Its authoritative text, the New Testament, is a document likewise founded in history. Mythology is not history, and if Christianity were simply a compilation of mythological superstitions, then it would be abjectly divorced from the reality of history. But the very opposite is the case, as we shall see: Jesus Christ and His teaching and actions, including the miraculous, are grounded in human history and human relationship, and are neither explained nor defended in a vacuum outside the scope of literal, actual human experience. One may deny the meaning or purposes of the events recorded, but not the context of human experience in which they happened and are chronicled.
History is an amazing adventure. Ultimately, it is the story of humanity in the context of a search for truth—past truth that enhances understanding of present reality. History, then, is objective, not subjective. Respected historian and prolific author John Lukacs has written: “We exist in a material, in a spiritual, and in a historic sense: the historical condition of human experience is universal, true of the very beginning of mankind ever since Adam and Eve” (10).
Christianity, as an exemplification of human experience for nearly two millennia now, exists likewise: there is the material reality of its birth and proliferation (the people and places), the spiritual element essential in its teaching, and the first century historical context of its beginning, growth, and development in the concrete reality of human encounter.
Jesus was an historical figure. His disciples were historic men. The events of the New Testament are set in a reliable historic context. The early church existed in an historic timeframe.
Historians want to know what happened and why. These two elements may complement. They may collaborate. They may even confuse because why gets to the heart of motivation, but is not always easily ascertained.
Building upon the accumulation of evidence to know what should lead to objective reality and concrete conclusions, regardless of the more abstract why. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” “Facts are stubborn things,” observed President John Adams, “and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
Yet there are some who assert some perceived right to alter the facts of Christianity—including its history—to suit their own objective. They bend and twist historic Christianity to fit some modern fad or fancy popular at a given moment of time. Aggressively motivated by fervent unbelief or skeptical materialism, conclusions are advanced in our postmodern era which seek to rewrite historic Christianity. But are such observations either honest or honorable?
Speaking as an historian, it is acknowledged that sometimes conceptions of history are incomplete or inaccurate; it has been the case, far too often, that “facts” commonly believed are simply not so—thus the continuing need for diligence in ascertaining facts, understanding eras, and comprehending people and events in the greater context of human experience in which their lives were lived. No one should disparage genuine scholarship which seeks objective truth.
Contrariwise, there is a school of historic analysis, applied to various eras and events, called “revisionism”: altering or changing traditionally accepted understandings, usually in a way that not only negates past understanding but also radically changes its perspective. Often revisionism carries a negative connotation, with overtones of inaccuracy and even dishonesty. The label “revisionist” is frequently used pejoratively, as descriptive ideological, disingenuous propagandists, not objective seekers.
Such has happened regarding the history of Christianity. There are “revisionists” abroad.
Some have attacked historic conceptions of Christianity from the vantage of hostility toward the message of Christianity, presuming that the Christian faith itself could be undermined by attacking the historical facts upon which it is founded, especially the person and work of Jesus Christ. In its most radical manifestation, Jesus then becomes a myth or fraud, or a tyrant, moral hypocrite, or simply a man and nothing more. The person of Christ is denigrated, the miracles of Christ are mythologized, and historical reality is undermined.
We shall demonstrate that the contemporary “revisionism” of the Christ of Scripture is not only inaccurate, but wholly disingenuous in motivation and dishonest in conclusion.
Can the history of Christianity be rewritten?
In examining this question, we shall explore three areas of inquiry: First, is the New Testament an accurate historical record regarding the life and teaching of Jesus? Second, is there historic evidence outside the New Testament about Jesus and early Christianity? And third, are the attacks of critics against historic Christianity legitimate, or revisionist?
Is the New Testament a Reliable Historical Document?
The New Testament was written to be an objective, historic document. In it, names, places, and events are recounted. The New Testament involves real people, real happenings, and real places, set in historic context. Consider just a few examples:
The Gospel According to Luke
The Gospel of Luke is addressed to “most excellent Theophilus,” and concerns “things which are most surely believed among us,” the “us” being “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” The author describes himself as one “having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,” and his purpose to his reader is “that thou mightiest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed” (Luke 1:1-4). [All Scripture references are taken from the King James Version].
The author proceeds to describe events “in the days of Herod, the king of Judea,” in a time of “a certain priest name Zacharias” and his wife Elizabeth, and events surrounding the birth of their son, John (Luke 1:5-25). Circumstances concerning the birth of Jesus then follow (Luke 1:26-80).
After Jesus was born, a census was decreed for the Roman world, a “decree from Caesar Augustus,” when “Cyrenius was governor of Syria,” and involved Mary and Joseph, who “went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth,” for Joseph to return to his hometown, “the city of David, which is called Bethlehem” (Luke 2:1-5). Bethlehem was (and is) a real place.
We know Augustus was Caius Octavius, great-nephew, adopted son, and heir to Julius Caesar, and that he reigned from 27 BC to AD 14. Further, we know that Cyrenius occupied the office of governor of Syria twice, from 4 BC to AD 1 and again in AD 6.
When Jesus begins His public ministry, it was in the “fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” with Pontius Pilate governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch (ruler of one-fourth of a given territory) of Galilee, Herod’s brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea, Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, and Annas and Caiphas occupying the office of high priest in the Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 3:1-2).
We know that Tiberius was the adopted son of Augustus and reigned from AD 14-37. Pilate will play a significant role in later gospel events. The Herod mentioned here is Antipas, son of Herod the Great. We can locate geographically Galilee, Iturea, Abilene, and of course Jerusalem. We could continue, but any reader can see that this gospel is firmly written in an historic context.
The First Epistle of John
John the apostle, author of five New Testament books, wrote of actual events. Consider one example of his writings—1 John.
John’s opening introduces the “Word of life,” that is, Jesus, and describes Jesus as one who was “from the beginning,” who had been “heard,” “seen,” “looked upon,” and “handled.” The life of Jesus was “manifested,” and John and others like him declare what “we have seen” as they “bear witness” and “show unto you” what was “manifested unto us.” What John and companions had “seen” and “heard” they set forth to “declare” (1 John 1:1-4).
Nothing concerning the life of Jesus is described in the context of something mysterious or speculative, but rather things that had been seen, heard, known, and declared by eyewitnesses.
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
Speaking of eyewitnesses, we have the testimony of Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus, an aggressive opponent of Christianity. Paul had a conversion experience on his way to arrest and imprison Christians, one that enabled him, among others, to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus. He describes it this way: that Jesus was crucified, buried, then “rose again the third day” and “was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve,” and eventually “seen of above five hundred brethren” (many of whom, Paul affirms, were still alive when he penned these words, and could bear evidentiary testimony of the resurrection as historic fact), then “seen of James, then of all the apostles,” and ultimately, Paul declares, “he was seen of me also” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8).
The resurrection of Jesus is described as an historic fact concerning one who had been killed and three days later rose bodily from the dead, with more than 500 witnesses remaining— more than 25 years later—to testify of the fact.
The record is of what people did and of what people witnessed. Some religious “experiences” are described in a context in which misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or deliberate falsifications are possible. But not so primitive Christianity! An objective account of what people witnessed is recorded, not just what they felt or experienced.
Granting that the witness of one individual, or even a small collection of individuals deceived or deluded, may be incorrect, what of the witness of scores of individuals, even hundreds? Included is the witness of those not initially disposed to accept the veracity of what they later recounted. Is there any court in the land which would doubt the reliability of more than five hundred eyewitnesses to an event?
Other Passage
Read any other New Testament books, such as Acts, and note names, places, and historic events. New Testament events are related as events of history, confirming their accuracy, verifiability, and validity.
Teaching history (in which I engage every day of the school year) involves the significance of primary sources: materials closest to the time period being considered. The New Testament is a key, and reliable, primary source of early Christianity, and must be examined with the same care as any other primary source from history. To simply disregard the New Testament because its focus is religious is intellectual dishonesty.
As such, no one has the right, then, to deny or significantly alter the historicity of Christianity without sacrificing either scholarly accuracy or intellectual integrity. To define Christianity apart from its most significant primary source (i.e. the New Testament), is to engage in that which is not done concerning any other significant event in history.
University of South Carolina Professor of History Emeritus Dr. Clyde Wilson has observed,
The best historical writings . . . have certain characteristics in common. All display a deft mastery of primary sources. They also bear on their faces both an open and honest viewpoint and objectivity Then, the best history must deal with high and not trivial matters. Finally, the best histories are relevant. (323)
The New Testament, not just as theology but also as history, does all this: (1) It sets forth matters honestly and objectively. (2) It deals with matters of the utmost importance. (3) It was relevant when it was written, and remains so. The New Testament is the most significant primary source to primitive Christianity. One cannot rewrite Christian history without discarding it. One cannot simply discard it without being intellectually dishonest.
Do Others Outside the New Testament Verify the Reality of Jesus? The historic record of Christ and early Christianity is too voluminous to discuss in detail within the scope of this one article. Consider an example from one outside of the Christian religion, who nonetheless verifies the historicity of Jesus.
H. G. Wells was antagonistic to Christianity, and in his monumental twentieth-century work, The Outline of History, approached the subject of Jesus with this disclaimer: “About Jesus we have to write not theology but history, and our concern is not with the spiritual and theological significance of his life, but with its effects upon the political and everyday life of men” (528).
Regarding sources, Wells states,
Almost our only resources of information about the personality of Jesus are derived from the four Gospels. . . . In spite of the miraculous and incredible additions, one is obliged to say, “here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented.” (528)
Wells summarizes in this way:
. . . [T]here was born a prophet of unprecedented power, Jesus, whose followers founded the great universal religion of Christianity….It is not the place of the historian to discuss the truth and falsity of religion, but it is his business to record the appearance of great constructive ideas. (279)
With no inclination toward accepting the religious implications of New Testament theology or spiritual truths regarding the supernatural emanating from the life and teaching of Jesus, Wells records the facts of Jesus’ life. Skeptic Wells does not undermine the historicity of Jesus, His life nor His teaching, but rather confirms these salient facts, acknowledging the historical reliability of the New Testament record.
Aside from New Testament writers, other contemporaneous individuals make reference to Jesus’ life, teachings, and followers: Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, Roman governor Pliny the Younger, Grecian writer Lucian, Samaritan historian Thallus, and others. Each of these wrote within the first century of Christianity’s establishment.
Do Some Attack the Credibility of Historic Christianity?
Some doubt or deny certain aspects of Christianity, seeking to “de-mythologize” the New Testament without denying the historicity of Jesus. Others deny Jesus even existed, and insist Christianity is built entirely upon false mythologies.
But the historic evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is almost universally accepted, in spite of a vocal minority motivated by intense animosity toward historic Christianity.
Christians have always invited genuine searchers to examine the evidence concerning Jesus’ life, teaching, and deeds. “Come, see a man . . .” (John 4:29).
Consider the miracles of Jesus. None, including His harshest critics, denied that something happened, not even trying to explain away the miracles by simple trickery or misunderstanding. Unable to deny the events of Jesus’ miracles, His critics sought to impugn their source, professing that Jesus did miracles by the power of Satan.
If the miracles were not tricks, and could not be rationalized by mere naturalistic phenomenon, then what do they demonstrate?
The apostle John writes that they affirm the Divine nature of Jesus (cf. John 20:30-31).
Difficulty with the miracles of the Bible is really difficulty with the God of the Bible. If one begins with the premise that God is, is driven by the evidence to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact the only begotten Son of God, and God created natural laws by which this physical universe operates, then if God were omnipotent (a logical expectation of the eternal God) it is neither difficult nor incredible to conclude that God could temporarily suspend His own established physical laws, and a miracle would result. Simple.
One cannot casually dismiss the two thousand years of Christian history and the apologetic arguments that have been made across the centuries to uphold the teachings of Christ by simply asserting, “It did not happen” or “It is based on other-world mythologies.”
No, the historicity of Christianity is based upon evidence: Jesus lived in an historic time, He did amazing things in the sight of believers and unbelievers alike, and He made professions, recorded in the historic record of the gospels, which may be accepted or rejected, but not merely discounted with a wave of the hand. Believers acknowledge the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, deeming it a product of an intelligence and wisdom higher and greater than man. But even if one denies such, one cannot question the historical context in which Christianity was inaugurated.
Only the most radical and hardened critics of Christianity deny the historicity of Jesus, and they do so with impunity.
How Do We Answer the Critics of Historic Christianity?
Space prohibits detailed examination of any specific writer or writing attacking the historical credibility of Jesus and the New Testament, but following are some typical criticisms, and responses:
► “Jesus was just a mythological figure and didn’t really exist.” We have already noted that only the most hardened and subjectively motivated critics maintain this, against historic tradition.
► “The New Testament contains things supernatural and spiritual.” Agreed. But, did they really happen, did miracles occur? While materialists reject any supernatural elements, no objective examiner candeny the historical context in which these events are recorded to have transpired. So, did they happen? If there is a God and Jesus is His Son, no problem.
► “The New Testament persons are not historical.” But they are. Both historical evidence and archeological evidence demonstrate amazing confirmation of New Testament people and places.
► “Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s teaching significantly differ.” This is simply not true. Having read with careful attention numerous critics of both Jesus and Paul, and the arguments set forth to prove some kind of “dichotomy” between the two, I am continually struck by the complete lack of understanding on the part of the critics of either Jesus or Paul. Citations are misstated and misused, resulting in an inaccurate understanding and wrongful conclusions. Some who seek commentary on the Bible are almost wholly ignorant of its message and purpose.
Conclusion
Of course, Christianity has its critics. So does Jesus, so does the New Testament, so do the apostles, so does God! He has plenty of critics, some rather loud and obnoxious. This has always been the case.
But just because something is criticized or even vilified does not make it untrue. The evidence for the historicity of Christianity stands as a mighty bulwark. Christianity has been attacked— sometimes savagely—from its very inception, yet it stands, and is gladly defended by many willing to suffer and sacrifice for its truth claims.
“Christianity is a historical religion,” writes Dr. Norman Geisler. “It makes historical claims about miraculous events that allegedly confirm its truth claims” (285).
Many today reject Christianity’s claims; many in Jesus’ day rejected His claims. But denying plain doctrinal implications or theological conclusions is quite different from seeking to “rewrite” objective history. To disregard the New Testament as an historical source is not real history.
“Can the history of Christianity be rewritten?” Not without woeful ignorance, subjective falsification, or scholarly dishonesty.
John M. Brown graduated Harding University, Morehead State University, and Ohio University. He holds both an MA and MSS with emphases in Education and History. Brown has served as a minister for several years and is a Kentucky high school teacher of US History and Government. He may be contacted at preacherjohnnymack@yahoo.com.
Works Cited
Geisler, Norman L. Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006. Lukacs, John. Historical Consciousness: The Remembered Past. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2009.
Wells, H. G. The Outline of History. Garden City: Garden City, 1949. Wilson,ClydeN.FromUnionToEmpire:EssaysintheJeffersonian Tradition.Columbia:theFoundationforAmericanEducation