Gordon Clark: Fact or Fantasy? Part II (The Reformed Presbyterian Advocate)

1964. Jesus Christ - Fact or Fantasy? Part II. The Reformed Presbyterian Advocate. December. pgs. 5-6.

Faith is a matter of divine revelation, and revelation cannot be discovered by historical methods. The supernatural is superhistorical. Faith has no need of the historical Jesus - and here Kahler introduces the distinction so frequently made in contemporary discussions - faith does not need the historischen Jesus, it needs the geschichtlichen Christus.

To be sure, the real Jesus of Nazareth and the risen Christ must be the same person, if Christianity is true. But this identity is not open to historical verification. Faith is the only approach to the geschichtlichen Christ. Preaching, the Kergyma, creates faith and gives assurance apart from even a minimum of solid historical fact.

Although Kahler published this argument in 1892, it has hardly been improved upon since. However, let us add a few details from Han Werner Bartsch, who recently wrote on The Historical Problem of the Life of Jesus. (The Historical Problem of the Life of Jesus., in the Historical Jesus and the Kergymatic Christ, pp. 106-141; 1960.)

Bartsch teaches that historical research cannot begin with the life of Jesus but can only begin with the preaching of the early Christian community. This witness had at its center the message of the resurrection. Yet the aim of the preachers was not to inform people about an historical event; they were witnessing to their own spiritual experience and calling for a similar experience on the part of their hearers.

Therefore, concludes Bartsch - and in general the whole contemporary movement agrees with him - therefore, only this witness to faith, and not the event reported in the witness, is amenable to historical research.

Now, Kahler, although he divorces everything supernatural from history, seems to believe that supernatural occurences actually took place. Bartsch apparently, and Bultmann most certainly disbelieve. They would have us interpret the witness to the resurrection existentially.

By existential interpretation they mean that what the early Christians told as a report of history must be taken by us as only their subjective experience. That is to say, the report that Jesus rose from the dead means, not that he rose from the dead, but means that the early Christians experienced a subjective change from unbelief to faith. Bartsch says explicitly, "This witness... does not offer an objective fact for the hearer's appropriation, but rather calls him to" accept the lordship of Christ.

"The historian can merely note" that some people have experience spiritual changes. "More he cannot do. An historical interest which would enable us to enquire into the underlying historical fact cannot be sustained... Therefore, in respect to the resurrection, the center of the primitive Christian witness, we are not in a position to make historical judgments beyond noting the Easter faith."

Now, Paul in I Corinthians 15, seems to contradict Bartsch's remarks. Appealing to five hundred eye witnesses, Paul seems eager to give historical proof. Bultmann dismisses this as one of Paul's fatal blunders. Bartsch on the other hand denies that Paul intended to give historical proof of the resurrection of Jesus. According to Bartsch Paul was interested only in convincing the Corinthians that their dead should rise. He argues that if they believe Christ rose, they would be inconsistent if they denied that the saints shall rise.

This is undoubtedly true. But to remove the impression that Paul was interested in giving historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, Bartsch resorts to the expedient of denying that Paul mentioned five hundred eye witnesses. This verse, he says, is the insertion of a copyist - a copyist who was infected by the modern interest in the historicity of Jesus' resurrection.

Aside from the fact that Bartsch's irresponsible conjecture flies in the face of all textual criticism, he also fails to notice that Paul's interest in the historicity of Jesus' resurrection is also indicated by his reference to the third day. The resurrection for Paul is not an existential experience: it is something that took place on the third day after Jesus' burial.

Bartsch, however, concludes, "The historical Jesus is not the content of the proclamation." And the follows one of those irritating statements that occur with too great frequency in the writings of this school of critics. "The proclamation that the earthly Jesus is the risen Lord," says Bartsch, "...is not grounded in history, but is rather witnessed to as grounded in the deed of God." This statement is irritating, not because it is false. The first part of it is false, viz. the proclamation is not grounded in history. But the second part does not convey enough meaning even to rise to the dignity of being false. Consider again: what can it possibly mean to say that the proclamation is witnessed to as grounded in the deed of God? In my opinion Bartsch has not only denied what is most obviously true, but has substituted for it something that makes no sense at all.

Now, in conclusion this sketchy survey of contemporary New Testament criticism confronts us with a host of problems. First, one may examine the whole philosophy of existentialism, and its implication that the resurrection is a subjective spiritual change rather than an historical event. Far be it from me, a professor of philosophy, to suggest that the philosophy underlying New Testament criticism should not be studied. On the contrary, to the degree that a student is unaware of philosophical motifs, he is certain to misunderstand theological controversy.

But, second, someone might prefer to deal with a topic that appeals to him closer to the religious heart of the situation. Philosophy may appear remote and abstract. To such a person the nature of religious faith seems more important. The questions then are:

Does faith need an objective fact for the hearer's appropriation? Is the desire for objective evidence sinful and irreligious? Can faith survive regardless of what critical positions are to be accepted?

These questions concerning the relation of faith to history are extremely important. But to answer them one must know the nature of history as well as the nature of faith. Whether a hostile critic wishes to say that the supernatural is superhistorical, or that the events recounted in the Gospels are not amenable to historical research, or whether a Christian believer wishes to maintain the opposite, he must have a view of history.

It is my belief that many of these New Testament critics, coming to the study of history by way of theology, have not too carefully considered the problems of historiography as such. In particular, Bultmann seems to have entangled himself in errors and inconsistencies by a strange mixture of scientific historiography, historical relativism, and a misappropriation of the brilliant views of R. G. Collingwood.

At the same time the few orthodox scholars are so exercised about theological consequences that they too neglect the technical problems of historiography.

Now, since the Gospels and indeed all church history is but a part of universal history, a tenable historiography must be applicable to secular history as well as to the New Testament. Therefore we must ask such questions as: Can historical investigation be objective, disinterested, and devoid of presuppositions? What are the proper and necessary historiographical categories? Do they or do they not exclude the supernatural? In any case, what is the relation between history and theology? 

Therefore, while admitting my strong theological motivation, I propose that Christian scholars make a professional study of secular and general historiography as a prerequisite for the development of a tenable theory and its subsequent application to the life, the death, and the resurrection of the historical Jesus.

The Bible is also the fountain of the most wonderful literature of the world ever written. Shakespeare used 550 Bible quotations from 54 books of the Bible in his 37 plays. "No person can be educated who has not had a thorough knowledge of the Word of God, the Bible," said President Woodrow Wilson. William Lyon Phelps of Yale, Professor of Literature, said, "As to having a college education without the Bible, or Bible knowledge without a college education, I would choose the latter." So we must have the Bible in every grade of our public school system. There is no true culture or morality without Bible teaching.