Part 1: “New Explanations Have Refuted Jesus’ Resurrection”
CHALLENGE #3
PART ONE: “NEW EXPLANATIONS HAVE REFUTED JESUS’ RESURRECTION”
Only one conclusion is justified by the evidence: Jesus is dead.
Atheist Richard C. Carrier1
Jesus was placed into a common grave, and covered over.... In a very short time, only some, unmarked bones remained. Even the bones were gone before too long. Nature rather efficiently reclaims its own resources.
Retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong2
Outside a Chicago hospital on a humid summer night, a gunshot victim was unloaded from an ambulance and wheeled on a gurney into the emergency room. The teenager gestured toward his abdomen as he was rolled past reporters. “It doesn’t even hurt!” he said with a nervous laugh, as if everyone were old friends. “It doesn’t even hurt! ” A few hours later, he was dead.
A reporter on the streets of Chicago soon develops more than a passing acquaintance with death. Often the people directly embroiled in an unfolding tragedy—the car accident, the gang fight, the convenience store robbery gone awry—are too bewildered and disoriented to fully comprehend their predicament. But from the detached perspective of the reporter, the grim outcome is much more foreseeable. And when death finally does seize its victims, when their eyes stare blankly, then all hope is gone. They’ve spoken their last word, they’ve breathed their last breath, and their time is done — they won’t be coming back.
That’s why all this talk of Jesus’ resurrection seemed so strange to me. It’s staggering how quickly the body of a deceased person is reduced to a mere shell. The idea that it could somehow become reanimated, especially after three days, could never quite get past my journalistic skepticism when I was an atheist.
As I documented in The Case for Christ, it was my investigation of the historical evidence that eventually convinced me that the resurrection of Jesus really happened.3In the succeeding years, however, the resurrection has been subjected to new and more contentious attacks. Do any of these updated objections, I wondered, manage to crack this central pillar of Christianity?
Religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill certainly thinks so. “After years of studying,” he said, “I finally came to the conclusion that everything I had previously thought about the historical evidence of the resurrection was absolutely wrong.”4 The graduate of the conservative Moody Bible Institute and the evangelical Wheaton College is now an avowed agnostic.
Skepticism about the resurrection was bolstered by a pre-Easter 2007 television documentary—followed by a popular book—which claimed that the burial site of Jesus and his family had been accidentally uncovered by an Israeli construction crew in 1980. According to the film, the “bone boxes” of “Jesus, son of Joseph,” Mary, Joseph, Mary Magdelene, and even “Judah, son of Jesus” were found in the Talpiot Tomb. The discovery threatened to amplify doubts about whether Jesus really had returned from the dead in bodily form.
At the forefront of the most recent challenges to the resurrection have been Muslims, who clearly understand that discrediting the resurrection means nothing less than disproving the truth of Christianity. Muslims interpret the Qur’an as saying that Jesus never actually died on the cross, much less returned from the dead.5
A leading Muslim apologist, Shabir Ally, has said that the Messiah was expected to be victorious, and therefore “a crucified Messiah is as self-refuting as a square circle, a four-sided triangle, or a married bachelor.”6 Ayman al-Zawahri, the deputy leader of Al Qaeda, even took time out from excoriating George W. Bush and Pope Benedict XVI in a 2006 videotape to urge all Christians to convert to Islam, which, he said, correctly believes that Jesus was never put to death, never rose from the dead, and was not divine.7
Muslims aren’t alone. A prominent Hindu leader declared in a 2007 speech that Jesus never died on the cross. “He was only injured and after treatment returned to India where he actually died,” insisted K. S. Sudarshan, leader of a nationalist Hindu organization in India.8
Atheists, meanwhile, have been mounting ever-more-intense critiques of the resurrection. In 2005, Prometheus Books published an ambitious 545-page anthology called The Empty Tomb, in which such skeptics as Michael Martin and Richard Carrier set forth their alternative explanations for the Easter event. The Jesus Seminar’s Robert M. Price is emphatic in the introduction: “Jesus,” he declared, “is dead.”9
Reflecting the public’s ongoing curiosity about Jesus, two books attacking the resurrection landed on the New York Times bestsellers list in 2006. In his book The Jesus Papers, Michael Baigent charged that Pontius Pilate didn’t want to kill Jesus because Jesus had been urging people to pay their taxes to Rome. “How could Pilate try, let alone condemn, such a man who, on the face of it, was supporting Roman policy?” asked Baigent. “Pilate would himself be charged with dereliction of duty should he proceed with the condemnation of such a supporter.”10
That’s when Pilate hatched a plot, Baigent said. He publicly ordered Jesus crucified to placate the religious authorities who wanted him dead, but at the same time he conspired to ensure that Jesus secretly came down from the cross alive. After all, Baigent said, it’s not impossible to survive a crucifixion.11
James D. Tabor, who holds a doctorate in biblical studies from the University of Chicago and is currently chair of the department of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, offered his own theory in The Jesus Dynasty, a book that New Testament professor Arthur J. Droge said “may very well inaugurate a new phase in the quest for the historical Jesus.”12
Tabor postulated that Jesus’ tomb was empty not due to a resurrection but because Jesus’ body had been moved and then interred elsewhere by members of his own family. In a stunning assertion, Tabor even revealed where Jesus might be buried—in Galilee outside the city of Tsfat.13
For Tabor, the suggestion of a resurrection could be ruled out from the beginning. “Dead bodies don’t rise — not if one is clinically dead — as Jesus surely was,” he said. “So if the tomb was empty the historical conclusion is simple—Jesus’ body was moved by someone and likely reburied in another location.”14
While these attacks on the resurrection have been garnering widespread media publicity, Christians have been equally busy producing books to defend the return of Jesus from the dead as being historically credible. N. T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham in England, who has taught at both Cambridge and Oxford universities, offered his 817-page seminal book The Resurrection of the. Son of God in 2003. His conclusion: “The proposal that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead possesses unrivalled power to explain the historical data at the heart of early Christianity.”15 At about the same time, Richard Swinburne, a Fellow of the British Academy and professor at Oxford from 1985 - 2002, published The Resurrection of God Incarnate, in which he explored how the character of God and the life of Jesus support the probability of Jesus’ return from the dead.
Sometimes the clash between resurrection skeptics and supporters became more direct. Resurrection expert Gary R. Habermas, author of The Historical Jesus, and William Lane Craig, who has doctorates from the University of Birmingham in England and the University of Munich, are among the Christian apologists who have clashed with atheists in debates on the issue in recent years.
For example, Habermas and Skeptic magazine religion-editor Tim Callahan tangled in a nationally televised encounter on whether the idea of the resurrection has its roots in ancient mythology,16 but more fascinating was Habermas’s give-and-take with the world-renowned philosopher Antony Flew, which resulted in the 2005 book Resurrected? An Atheist and Theist Dialogue. This was a reprise of a famous debate between the pair in the 1980s, after which four independent judges declared Habermas the victor and one called the contest a draw. Concluded one previously skeptical judge: “I would think it was time I began to take the resurrection seriously.”17
Incidentally, I had a rare opportunity in 2006 to conduct a lengthy interview with the eighty-three-year-old Flew about his recently announced decision to abandon atheism because he now believes in a Creator.18 Though he said he’s not a Christian at this point, I pointed out to him that now that he believes in a supernatural Creator, a miraculous event like the resurrection becomes more plausible. He replied, “I’m sure you’re right about this, yes.”19
Craig, author of Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the, Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, debated Ehrman on the resurrection in 2006.20 Earlier, Craig sparred with New Testament scholar and atheist Gerd Ludemann, then a visiting professor at Vanderbilt University, who contended: “The risen Christ is the skeleton in the closet of the church. In other words, everybody seems to know that Christ didn’t rise, but for some strange reason we decide not to be radical but instead to live within the traditional Christian framework.”21
That debate spawned the book Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? — a title that cuts to the core of the issue. Does history really support the reality of the resurrection, or have scholars succeeded in establishing that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus are the product of hallucinations, legends, or wishful thinking?
Even skeptics know that a lot is banking on the answer, as I saw in my interview with Playboy founder Hugh Hefner. We met in the living room of his opulent Los Angeles mansion, Hefner clad in his trademark pajamas and silk smoking jacket, to discuss matters of faith for a television program. He professed a minimal belief in God, as a word for “the beginning of it all” and the “great unknown,” but not in the God of Christianity, which he called “a little too childlike for me.” Then I brought up Jesus’ resurrection. “If one had any real evidence that, indeed, Jesus did return from the dead, then that is the beginning of a dropping of a series of dominoes that takes us to all kinds of wonderful things,” he told me. “It assures an afterlife and all kinds of things that we would all hope are true.”
Even though by his own admission he had never studied the historical evidence for Jesus returning to life, Hefner remained a doubter. “Do I think that Jesus was the Son of God?” he asked. “I don’t think that he is any more the Son of God than we are.”
That is, unless the resurrection is true. Everything comes down to that. “If Christ has not been raised,” said the apostle Paul, “your faith is futile.”22 Nothing is more important in determining the identity of the real Jesus. The cross either unmasked him as a pretender or opened the door to a supernatural resurrection that has irrevocably affirmed his divinity.
I picked up the telephone to call one of the emerging authorities on the resurrection of Jesus, whose provocative books include an imaginary debate on the issue between the apostle Paul and the prophet Muhammad. I invited him over to my house for a chat. Once and for all, I was determined to get to the truth about the most current challenges to this cornerstone doctrine.
INTERVIEW #3: MICHAEL LICONA, M.A., PH.D. (CAND.)
Six-foot-three and lanky, Michael Licona was once a second-degree black belt and award-winning instructor in tae kwon do, a modern Korean martial art that is a lethal form of one-on-one combat. While a ruptured disk has sidelined his fighting in the ring, Licona has morphed into a respected and accomplished participant in another kind of mano a mano contest, this time involving intellectual clashes over the historical claims of Christianity.
In recent years, during his extensive travels to university campuses and appearances on national television and radio programs, he has debated such formidable opponents as Shabir Ally, the fierce defender of Islam; atheistic street-fighter Dan Barker; up-and-coming skeptic Richard Carrier; and liberal professor Elaine Pagels of Princeton.
Licona’s expertise as a New Testament historian centers on the resurrection of Jesus. His thesis for his master’s degree in religious studies dealt with the resurrection, while his dissertation toward a doctorate in New Testament from the University of Pretoria in South Africa uses historical methodologies to assess the evidence for Jesus returning from the dead.
Licona was mentored by Habermas, with whom he coauthored the award-winning 2004 book The Casee for the Resurrection of Jesus. Historian Paul Maier said the book’s response to naturalistic explanations for the resurrection “are the most comprehensive treatment of the subject anywhere.”23 Philosopher J. P. Moreland said the book presented what “may be the most thorough defense of the historicity of the resurrection.”24
Using his impressive knowledge of Islam, Licona later crafted a fascinating book called Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Mus-lim Debate on the Resurrection, in which he envisions the Christian apostle and the founder of Islam in an intellectual showdown over this key tenet of Christianity. Licona also has been published in the Review of Biblical Literature, and contributed to The Big Argument: Twenty-four Scholars Explore How Science, Archaeology, and Philosophy Have Proven the. Existence of God. He even used the format of a novel, titled Cross Examined, to creatively present evidence for the resurrection.
Licona’s own faith was sharpened by a period of doubt that he went through at the end of his graduate studies in 1985. His questions about the veracity of Christianity nearly prompted him to jettison the beliefs he had held since the age of ten. Instead, however, his renewed investigation of the evidence for Christianity and a number of other major world religions, as well as his in-depth study of atheism, ended up solidifying his conviction that Christianity rests on a firm historical foundation.
Since 2005, Licona has been the director of apologetics and interfaith evangelism for the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, where he trains leaders, develops resources, and consults on world religions, cults, and apologetics.
Licona stopped by my house near the Santa Ana Mountains, settling into a couch in my family room while I sat down in a couch adjacent to him. California sunshine poured through the windows. He was casually dressed in blue jeans without a belt and a blue button-down shirt with thin white stripes. His brown hair was cropped short, like an athlete’s, and he spoke enthusiastically in crisp and complete sentences. Although Licona has a pleasant and friendly demeanor, his eyes appear ever-sharp and observant, seemingly ready to detect any errant thought or lapse in logic.
Before we began, he set up his laptop computer, loaded with sophisticated historical research tools, on the coffee table in front of him—just in case.
THE HISTORIAN AND THE RESURRECTION
I didn’t waste any time in launching into my initial line of questions about how historians can investigate an ancient—and supposedly supernatural — event like Jesus returning from the dead.
“Isn’t it true that a miracle like the resurrection is actually outside the purview of historians to investigate?” I asked. “Ehrman said: ‘Because historians can only establish what probably happened, and a miracle of this nature is highly improbable, the historian cannot say it probably occurred.’ ”25
Licona’s eyes didn’t break contact with mine. “I’m afraid I totally disagree with him,” he said with conviction.
“On what grounds?” I asked.
“If someone says Jesus rose from the dead by natural causes — well, of course, that would be the least probable explanation,” he replied, dismissing the notion with a wave of his hand. “But nobody is claiming that. Rather, the claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead. And if God exists and he wants to raise Jesus from the dead, then I would think that could be the most probable explanation. It really comes down to a person’s worldview: Is he or she going to allow for the existence of God and the possibility that he could raise someone from the dead?”
I tried a different approach. “Is there any way to compute the probability of the resurrection in mathematical terms?” I asked.
Licona considered the question for a moment. “You’d have to use Bayes’ Theorem, which is a complicated mathematical equation that determines probabilities,” he said. “But there are problems with that.”
“For example?”
“Bayes’ Theorem requires that you plug certain background knowledge into the equation, such as the probability that God would want to raise Jesus from the dead. I’m sure you’d agree that probabilities like that are inscrutable.”
I nodded. “So you can’t say with mathematical certainty whether Jesus’ resurrection is probable or improbable,” I observed.
“That’s right. Mathematically speaking, Ehrman has no grounds to claim that the resurrection is ‘highly improbable.’ ”
“Then this is really a worldview issue.”
“Yes, it is. Even philosopher Antony Flew, when he was an atheist, said the resurrection is enormously more likely if God exists. Frankly, if we look at the totality of the evidence, I think it’s certainly more likely than not that God does exist. And if he does, then he could certainly have raised Jesus from the dead.”
“But some historians rule out the possibility of the supernatural at the outset,” I pointed out. “James Tabor, for instance, says you can’t have a virgin birth, so therefore Mary was either raped or had an affair. He says you can’t have a resurrection, so there must be some naturalistic explanation for it. Is that legitimate?”
“No, it’s not,” he shot back, politely but firmly. “Tabor is using not only a methodological naturalism, where you can’t consider the supernatural, but he’s going further into a metaphysical naturalism, which says this can’t happen. He says historians have to look at things scientifically and therefore they can’t consider the divine. Therefore, he says women cannot conceive children without a natural father. Well, how does he know that? That’s metaphysical naturalism, or excluding the supernatural at the outset.”
“Yet if a historian allows for the possibility of the miraculous, doesn’t that throw history up for grabs?” I asked. “You could invoke a miraculous explanation for all kinds of things that happened in the past.”
“No, because you have to apply historical criteria to determine the best explanation for what occurred,” Licona said. He quickly thought of an illustration. “For example, Aesop’s fables describe animals talking in ancient Greece. Well, did they talk or didn’t they? ”
I wasn’t sure where he was going with this. “Okay,” I said, “how would you assess that?”
“Well, when we examine the genre of Aesop’s fables, we find that these stories were not meant to be interpreted literally. Besides, there are no credible eyewitness accounts and there’s no corroboration from other sources. So the historian would say there’s no good evidence that Aesop’s fables report actual historical events,” he replied.
“But regarding Jesus’ resurrection, we find that the Gospels fit into the genre of ancient biographies. We know that ancient biographies were intended to be regarded as history to varying degrees. We’ve got early accounts that can’t be explained away by legendary development, we’ve got multiple independent sources, we’ve got eyewitnesses, and we have a degree of corroboration from outsiders. We’ve also got enemy attestation; that is, affirmation from people like Saul of Tarsus, who was a critic of Christianity until he saw the evidence himself that Jesus had returned from the dead. So weighing the historical criteria, there’s no reason to believe Aesop’s fables are true, but there are good reasons to believe the resurrection happened.”
Licona had made his point, but I wasn’t ready yet to delve into the specific evidence for the resurrection. There were still preliminary issues to examine. “What’s the standard of proof that historians use in determining the likelihood that the resurrection occurred?” I asked. “Historically speaking, you can’t have a hundred-percent certainty, right?”
“All that remains of antiquity are ashes,” Licona said. “Philosopher of history Richard Evans of Cambridge says the task of historians is to rake those ashes in order to bring some of them back to life to see what happened in the past. In other words, we have ancient texts, artifacts, and other effects that have come down to us and we try to infer from them what their causes were.
“It’s like building a window through which we can peer back into the past. Often the window is blurry, with some spots that are clearer than others. That’s why historians of antiquity speak of the probable truth of a theory, rather than absolute certainty. Historical conclusions are like temporary workers waiting to see whether they will one day be awarded a permanent position.”
“Then all historical hypotheses are provisional,” I observed, more as a summary than a question.
“That’s right. New evidence might overturn a theory,” came his reply. “For example, when the Titanic sank, some eyewitnesses said it went down intact, whereas others said, no, it split before sinking. Despite the conflicting witnesses, British and American investigations concluded that the Titanic went down intact, based on the preponderance of the evidence at the time. Later, when explorers discovered the sunken Titanic, they found it had indeed broken in two and then sank. That’s a good example of why historians need to hold their theories provisionally.
“So again, historians of antiquity don’t look for absolute certainty; we look for probable certainty. When a historian says something occurred, he means that given the evidence at our disposal today, this is the best explanation.”
My mind scrolled through several events of ancient history. “Still,” I said, “you would concede that some historical matters are far better attested than others.”
“Granted, there’s a continuum of certainty,” he said. “When you have a historical hypothesis that you accept as the best explanation, and it outdistances all competing theories by a significant margin, then we can have more confidence of its truth.”
“Like the resurrection? ”
He picked up his glass of water and took a sip. “Yes,” he said. “In my opinion, that’s what we have with the resurrection of Jesus.”
I remain fascinated by the approach historians take in evaluating the evidence that Jesus returned from the dead. “How would a historian begin investigating something like the resurrection? ” I asked.
Licona put down his water glass, unbuttoned the cuffs of his shirt, and rolled up his sleeves as if he were getting ready for a lengthy discussion. “You’ve heard of the three R’s of an elementary education: Reading, ’Riting, and ’Rithmetic? Well, there are also three R’s for doing good history: Relevant sources, Responsible method, and
Restrained results. First, historians must identify all the relevant sources.”
“All right,” I said. “What would those be in the case of Jesus?” “There are the New Testament writings; a few secular sources who mention Jesus, such as Josephus, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger; the apologists, who were early defenders of Christianity; and even the Gnostic writings. We also want to examine the apostolic fathers, who were the next generation after the apostles.”
“Which of the apostolic fathers are the most significant?” I asked.
“Clement of Rome is believed to have been a disciple of the apostle Peter, and Polycarp was probably a disciple of John. So their writings can give us a window into what those apostles taught. That’s what makes them particularly valuable,” he said. “Then, once all the relevant sources have been identified, we have to apply responsible method. This means assigning the greatest weight to reports that are early, eyewitness, enemy, embarrassing, and corroborated by others.” “And what do you mean by ‘restrained results’?”
“This means that historians should not claim more than the evidence warrants. This is where such scholars as John Dominic Cros-san and Elaine Pagels get on thin ice. Their imaginations are very good—and I mean that in a positive sense—but I believe their methods are sometimes questionable and their results unrestrained. In the end they may experience some embarrassment because their views are founded upon an early dating for the Gospel of Thomas, and in Crossan’s case, the Secret Gospel of Mark. Now it appears Thomas may very well have been written after AD 170 and the Secret Gospel of Mark wasn’t actually composed until the twentieth century! What does that do to their revisionist theories, which rely on a much earlier dating of these sources?”
Licona’s point was well taken, especially in light of my earlier interview with Craig Evans about “alternative gospels.” At the same time, though, I knew that Licona—as well as all conservative scholars — also bring their own prejudices to the discussion.
“What about biases?” I said. “You can’t deny that you see the historical evidence through the lenses of your own prejudices.”
“Absolutely. Nobody is exempt, including theists, deists, atheists, or whatever—we all have our biases, and there’s no way to overcome them,” Licona said. He gestured toward me. “Lee, you’re trained as a journalist. You know that you can try to minimize your biases, but you can’t eliminate them. That’s why you have to put certain checks and balances in place. This is what historian Gary Habermas did in creating what’s called the ‘minimal facts approach’ to the resurrection, which he and I wrote about in our book The Casee for the. Resurrection of Jesus.” “How does this help keep biases in check? ”
“Under this approach, we only consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be very strong historical evidence supporting them. And secondly, the evidence must be so strong that the vast majority of today’s scholars on the subject—including skeptical ones—accept these as historical facts. You’re never going to get everyone to agree. There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they’re on the fringe.”
“History isn’t a vote,” I interjected. “Are you saying people should accept these facts just because a lot of scholars do?”
“No, we’re saying that this evidence is so good that even skeptical scholars are convinced by it. Let’s face it: there’s a greater likelihood that a purported historical fact is true when someone accepts it even though they’re not in agreement with your metaphysical beliefs. Or let me put it another way: your bias could be leading you to a conclusion. But if the evidence is also leading someone with vastly different beliefs toward the same conclusion, then there’s a good chance the conclusion is true. This serves as a check on bias. It’s not foolproof, but it’s very helpful.”
“How do you know what all these scholars believe about the evidence for the resurrection?”
“Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics. We try to come up with the best historical explanation to account for these facts.
“It’s like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Each piece represents a historical fact, and we want to put them together in a way that doesn’t leave out any pieces and which doesn’t require you to shove or force any of the pieces to make them fit. In the end, the puzzle creates a picture that’s based on the best explanation for the facts that we have.” With that background in place, I issued Licona a challenge. “Use only the minimal facts,” I said, “and let’s see how strong of a case you can build for Jesus rising from the dead.”
Licona smiled and moved forward to the edge of the couch. “I thought you’d never ask,” he said with a chuckle. “I’ll use just five minimal facts — and you can decide for yourself how persuasive the case is.”
FACT #1: JESUS WAS KILLED BY CRUCIFIXION
“The first fact is Jesus’ crucifixion,” he began. “Even an extreme liberal like Crossan says: ‘That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be.’26 Skeptic James Tabor says, ‘I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.’27 Both Gerd Ludemann, who’s an atheistic New Testament critic, and Bart Ehrman, who’s an agnostic, call the crucifixion an indisputable fact. Why? First of all, because all four Gospels report it.”
I put up my hand. “Whoa! Hold on!” I insisted. “Are you operating under the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God?” Licona seemed glad I had brought up the issue. “Let me clarify something: for the purposes of examining the evidence, I’m not considering the Bible to be inerrant, inspired, or scripture of any kind,” he replied. “I’m simply accepting it for what it unquestionably is —a set of ancient documents that can be subjected to historical scrutiny like any other accounts from antiquity. In other words, regardless of my personal beliefs, I’m not giving the Bible a privileged position in my investigation. I’m applying the same historical standards to it that I would apply to Thucydides or Suetonius.”
With that caveat, he went on with his case. “Now, beyond the four Gospels, we also have a number of non-Christian sources that corroborate the crucifixion. For instance, the historian Tacitus said Jesus ‘suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius.’ The Jewish historian Josephus reports that Pilate ‘condemned him to be crucified.’ Lucian of Samosata, who was a Greek satirist, mentions the crucifixion, and Mara Bar-Serapion, who was a pagan, confirms Jesus was executed. Even the Jewish Talmud reports that ‘Yeshu was hanged.’ ”
“Yeshu? Hanged?”
“Yes, Yeshu is Joshua in Hebrew; the Greek equivalent is translated as Jesus. And in the ancient world to be hung on a tree many times referred to a crucifixion. Galatians 3:13, for example, connects Jesus’ crucifixion with the Pentateuch, which says that ‘anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse.’ ”28
“What were the odds of surviving crucifixion? ”
“Extremely small. You saw The Passion of the Christ, right? Even though not all of the film was historically accurate, it did depict the extreme brutality of Roman scourging and crucifixion. Witnesses in the ancient world reported victims being so severely whipped that their intestines and veins were laid bare. As I said, Tacitus referred to it as ‘the extreme penalty.’ Cicero called it ‘cruel and disgusting’—so horrendous that he said ‘the very word cross should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes, and his ears.’ ”
“Did anyone ever survive it?”
“Interestingly, Josephus does mention three friends who were crucified during the fall of Jerusalem. He doesn’t say how long they had been on the cross, but he intervened with the Roman commander Titus, who ordered all three removed immediately and provided the best medical attention Rome had to offer. Still, two of them died. So even under the best of conditions, a victim was unlikely to survive crucifixion. It is very doubtful that Jesus was privy to such conditions. There is no evidence at all that Jesus was removed prematurely or that he was provided any medical attention whatsoever, much less Rome’s best.” “We’re dealing with a pretty primitive culture,” I observed. “Were they competent enough to be sure that Jesus was dead?”
“I’m confident they were. You’ve got Roman soldiers carrying out executions all the time. It was their job. They were good at it. Besides, death by crucifixion was basically a slow and agonizing demise by asphyxiation, because of the difficulty in breathing created by the victim’s position on the cross. And that’s something you can’t fake.
“Lee, this first fact is as solid as anything in ancient history: Jesus was crucified and died as a result. The scholarly consensus—again, even among those who are skeptical toward the resurrection—is absolutely overwhelming. To deny it would be to take a marginal position that would get you laughed out of the academic world.”
With that firmly established, Licona advanced to his next minimal fact.
FACT #2: JESUS’ DISCIPLES BELIEVED THAT HE ROSE AND APPEARED TO THEM
“The second fact is the disciples’ beliefs that Jesus had actually returned from the dead and had appeared to them,” Licona said.
“There are three strands of evidence for this: Paul’s testimony about the disciples; oral traditions that passed through the early church; and the written works of the early church.
“Paul is important because he reports knowing some of the disciples personally, including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this.29And Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that whether ‘it was I or they, this is what we preach,’ referring to the resurrection of Jesus. So in other words, Paul knew the apostles and reports that they claimed— just as he did—that Jesus had returned from the dead.
“Then we have oral tradition. Obviously, people in those days didn’t have tape recorders and few people could read, so they relied on verbal transmission for passing along what happened until it was later written down. Scholars have identified several places in which this oral tradition has been copied into the New Testament in the form of creeds, hymns, and sermon summations. This is really significant because the oral tradition must have existed prior to the New Testament writings for the New Testament authors to have included it.”
“So it’s early.”
“Very early, which weighs heavily in its favor, as any historian will tell you. For example, we have creeds that laid out basic doctrines in a form that was easily memorized. One of the earliest and most important creeds was relayed by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church, which was written about AD 55. First Corinthians 15:3 - 7 says: ‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.’30
“Many scholars believe Paul received this creed from Peter and James while visiting with them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. That would be within five years of the crucifixion.”
Licona’s eyes got wide. “Think about that—it’s really amazing!” he declared, his voice rising in genuine astonishment. “As one expert said, ‘This is the sort of data that historians of antiquity drool over.’31 Not only is it extremely early, but it was apparently given to Paul by eyewitnesses or others he deemed reliable, which heightens its credibility even more.”
“How important is this creed, in your opinion? ”
“It’s powerful and persuasive,” he declared. “Although early dating does not totally rule out the possibility of invention or deceit on the part of Jesus’ followers, it is much too early to be the result of legendary development over time, since it can practically be traced to the original disciples of Jesus. In fact, this creed has been one of the most formidable obstacles to critics who try to shoot down the resurrection. It’s simply gold for a historian.
“And we’ve got even more oral tradition—for instance, the New Testament preserves several sermons of the apostles. Actually, these are apparently summaries of the preaching of the apostles, since most of them can be read aloud in five minutes or less. I’m sure the actual sermons lasted a lot longer than that. At a minimum, we can say that the vast majority of historians believe that the early apostolic teachings are enshrined in these sermon summaries in Acts — and they’re not at all ambiguous: they declare that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.
“For example, Paul says in Acts 13, which is very similar to what Peter reports in Acts 2: ‘For when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.’32That’s a bold and forthright assertion: David’s body decayed, but Jesus’ didn’t, because he was raised from the dead.
“Finally we have written sources, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It’s widely accepted, even among skeptical historians, that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even very liberal scholars will concede that we have four biographies written within seventy years of Jesus’ life that unambiguously report the disciples’ claims that Jesus rose from the dead.
“I think an excellent case can be made for dating the Gospels earlier, but let’s go with the more generous estimations. That’s still extremely close to the events themselves, especially compared to many other ancient historical writings. Our two best sources on Alexander the Great, for instance, weren’t written until at least four hundred years after his life.
“As for Caesar Augustus, who is generally regarded as Rome’s greatest emperor, there are five chief sources used by historians to write a history of his adulthood: a very brief funeral inscription, a source written between fifty and a hundred years after his death, and three sources written between a hundred and two hundred years after he died. So it’s really remarkable that in the case of Jesus, we have four biographies that even liberals agree were written within thirty-five to sixty-five years after his execution.”
My earlier interview with textual critic Daniel B. Wallace came to mind. “You’d admit, though, that the final verses in Mark, which describe the resurrection appearances, were not part of the original text.”
“Yes, I believe that’s true,” he said. “But still, Mark clearly knows of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark predicts the resurrection in five places,33 and he reports the testimony of the angel to the resurrection, the empty tomb, and the imminent appearance of Jesus in Galilee. In fact, Mark’s reference to Peter in Mark 16:7 may be the very same appearance reported in the creed I just mentioned.”
Licona paused, then added: “One more thing. Most scholars believe Mark is the earliest Gospel, but we have an even earlier report about the resurrection: the 1 Corinthians 15 creed that I mentioned. This clearly spells out various post-Easter appearances by Jesus — including at one point to five hundred people.
“Then we have the writings of the apostolic fathers, who were said to have known the apostles or were close to others who did. There’s a strong likelihood that their writings reflect the teachings of the apostles themselves—and what do they say? That the apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus’ resurrection.
“Consider Clement, for example. The early church father Irenaeus reports that Clement had conversed with the apostles —in fact, Irenaeus commented that he ‘might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes.’ Tertullian, the African church father, said Clement was ordained by Peter himself.”
“So what does Clement report about the beliefs of the disciples?” I asked.
“In his letter to the Corinthian church, which was written in the first century, he writes: ‘Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.34
“Then we have Polycarp. Irenaeus says that Polycarp was ‘instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen
Christ,’ including John; that he ‘recalled their very words’; and that he ‘always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.’ Tertullian confirms that John appointed Polycarp as bishop of the church in Smyrna.
“Around AD 110, Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippian church in which he mentions the resurrection of Jesus no fewer than five times. He was referring to Paul and the other apostles when he said: ‘For they did not love the present age, but him who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God.’35
“So think about the depth of evidence we have in these three categories: Paul, oral tradition, and written reports. In all, we’ve got nine sources that reflect multiple, very early, and eyewitness testimonies to the disciples’ claims that they had seen the risen Jesus. This is something the disciples believed to the core of their being.”
“How do you know that?”
“Because we have evidence that the disciples had been transformed to the point where they were willing to endure persecution and even martyrdom. We find this in multiple accounts inside and outside the New Testament.
“Just read through Acts and you’ll see how the disciples were willing to suffer for their conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. The church fathers Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Origen—they all confirm this. In fact, we’ve got at least seven early sources testifying that the disciples willingly suffered in defense of their beliefs—and if we include the martyrdoms of Paul and Jesus’ half-brother James, we have eleven sources.”
“But,” I objected, “people of other faiths have been willing to die for their beliefs through the ages — so what does the martyrdom of the disciples really prove?”
“First, it means that they certainly regarded their beliefs to be true,” he said. “They didn’t willfully lie about this. Liars make poor martyrs. Second, the disciples didn’t just believe Jesus rose from the dead, but they knew for a fact whether he did. They were on the scene and able to ascertain for sure that he had been resurrected. So it was for the truth of the resurrection that they were willing to die.
“This is totally different than a modern-day Islamic terrorist or others willing to die for their beliefs. These people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, but they aren’t in a position to know for sure.
The disciples, on the other hand, knew for a fact whether the resurrection had truly occurred — and knowing the truth, they were willing to die for the belief that they had.”
“Then what’s the bottom line?” I asked.
“Habermas completed an overview of more than two thousand scholarly sources on the resurrection going back thirty years — and probably no fact was more widely recognized than that the early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus,” Licona replied.
“Even the atheist Ludemann conceded: ‘It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.’36 Now, he claims this was the result of visions, which I simply don’t believe is a credible explanation. But he’s conceding that their experiences actually occurred.”
Licona reached over to the coffee table and picked up a copy of his book The Casee for the. Resurrection of Jesus, quickly flipping to page 60. “As Paula Fredriksen of Boston University put it—and, again, she’s not an evangelical but a very liberal scholar —
I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that’s what they saw.
I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something .37
“In fact, Fredriksen says elsewhere that ‘the disciples’ conviction that they had seen the risen Christ . . . is [part of] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting.’38 I think that’s pretty much undeniable — and I believe the evidence is clear and convincing that what they saw was the return of Jesus from the dead. And we’re not done yet—we’ve got three more minimal facts to consider.”
The case for the disciples encountering what they believed to be the risen Jesus did, indeed, seem strong. Still, skeptics have raised some fresh objections in recent years. Rather than sidetrack Licona at this point, however, I decided to wait until he finished describing his five minimal facts. At that point, I could cross-examine him in more depth.
“Go ahead,” I said. “What’s your third minimal fact?”
FACT #3: THE CONVERSION OF THE CHURCH PERSECUTOR PAUL
“We know from multiple sources that Paul — who was then known as Saul of Tarsus—was an enemy of the church and committed to persecuting the faithful,” Licona continued. “But Paul himself says that he was converted to a follower of Jesus because he had personally encountered the resurrected Jesus.39So we have Jesus’ resurrection attested by friend and foe alike, which is very significant.
“Then we have six ancient sources in addition to Paul — such as Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen — reporting that Paul was willing to suffer continuously and even die for his beliefs. Again, liars make poor martyrs. So we can be confident that Paul not only claimed the risen Jesus appeared to him, but that he really believed it.”
I couldn’t let this point slip by without at least one brief objection. “People convert to other religions all the time,” I said. “What’s so special about Paul?”
“When virtually all people convert, it’s because they’ve heard the message of that religion from secondary sources — that is, what other people tell them,” Licona explained. “Yet that’s not the case with Paul. He says he was transformed by a personal encounter with the risen Christ. So his conversion is based in primary evidence—Jesus directly appeared to him. That’s a big difference.
“You can’t claim that Paul was a friend of Jesus who was primed to see a vision of him due to wishful thinking or grief after his crucifixion. Saul was a most unlikely candidate for conversion. His mind-set was to oppose the Christian movement that he believed was following a false Messiah. His radical transformation from persecutor to missionary demands an explanation—and I think the best explanation is that he’s telling the truth when he says he met the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.
“He had nothing to gain in this world — except his own suffering and martyrdom—for making this up.”
FACT #4: THE CONVERSION OF THE SKEPTIC JAMES, JESUS’ HALF-BROTHER
“The next minimal fact involves James, the half-brother of Jesus,” Licona said.
“Some people might be surprised that Jesus had siblings,” I commented.
“Well, the Gospels tell us that Jesus had at least four half-brothers—James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon—as well as half-sisters whose names we don’t know.40 The Jewish historian Josephus, in a section most historians regard as authentic, refers to ‘the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James.’”
“Do we know much about James?” I asked.
“In the second century, Hegesippus reports that James was a pious Jew who strictly abided by the Jewish law. But more significantly for our purposes, we also have good evidence that James was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus’ lifetime.”
“How do you know?”
“Mark and John both report that none of Jesus’ brothers believed in him.41 In fact, John’s passage is particularly interesting. It suggests that his brothers had heard about his alleged miracles but didn’t believe the reports and were, in a sense, daring their brother to perform them in front of crowds. They were sort of taunting him!”42 “Why do you consider the skepticism of Jesus’ brothers to be authentic?” I asked.
“Because of the principle of embarrassment,” Licona replied. “People are not going to invent a story that’s going to be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them, and it would be particularly humiliating for a first-century rabbi not to have his own family as his followers.” “Do you have any other evidence for their skepticism?”
“At the crucifixion, to whom does Jesus entrust the care of his mother? Not to one of his half-brothers, who would be the natural choice, but to John, who was a believer. Why on earth would he do that? I think the inference is very strong: if James or any of his brothers had been believers, they would have gotten the nod instead. So it’s reasonable to conclude that none of them was a believer, and Jesus was more concerned with his mother being entrusted into the hands of a spiritual brother.
“Then, however, the pivotal moment occurs: the ancient creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that the risen Jesus appeared to James. Again, this is an extremely early account that has all the earmarks of reliability. In fact, James may have been involved in passing along this creed to Paul, in which case James would be personally endorsing what the creed reports about him.
“As a result of his encounter with the risen Jesus, James doesn’t just become a Christian, but he later becomes leader of the Jerusalem church. We know this from Acts and Galatians.43 Actually, James was so thoroughly convinced of Jesus’ Messiahship because of the resurrection that he died as a martyr, as both Christian and non-Christian sources attest.44
“So here we have another example of a skeptic who was converted because of a personal encounter with the resurrected Lord and was willing to die for his convictions. In fact, critical scholar Reginald Fuller said that even if we didn’t have the 1 Corinthians 15 account, ‘we should have to invent’ such a resurrection appearance to account for James’ conversion and his elevation to the pastorate of the Jerusalem church, which was the center of ancient Christianity.”45
Licona paused as if he had finished his point. But something occurred to me as he was telling the story of James. “Makes you wonder why James wasn’t a believer during the lifetime of Jesus,” I mused. “What did Jesus do or not do that left James skeptical?”
Licona seemed slightly taken aback. “I have to admit, Lee, that has bothered me over the years,” he said, his voice taking on a more personal tone. “It still bothers me some, to be honest with you. If the virgin birth really occurred, then how could Jesus’ brothers not have believed in him? I’m sure they would have heard it from Mary. Sincerely, I have really struggled with that.
“I mentioned this recently to a friend who is somewhat of a skeptic, and he surprised me by saying, ‘It doesn’t bother me at all. If I had a brother who was perfect, even if he had been born of a virgin, I’d hate him, and I just wouldn’t follow him.’ That was interesting to me. But honestly, we don’t really know, historically speaking.”
I ventured another explanation. “I suppose if you had a brother who was making implicit but very grandiose claims about himself, that might be an embarrassment,” I said.
“You know, you’re right,” Licona replied. “I hadn’t thought of the peer pressure of the community in which you live. This guy thinks he’s the Son of God? C’mon! Set your brother straight. You’re going to feel embarrassed.”
“In the end, do you think James’s conversion is significant evidence for the resurrection?”
“Absolutely, yes, I do,” he said. “As resurrection scholar William Lane Craig asks, ‘What would it take to convince you that your brother is the Lord?’ Really, the only thing that could account for that would be what’s reported in the early creed: that the crucified Jesus appeared alive to James.”
With that, Licona advanced to the last of his minimal facts.
FACT #5: JESUS’ TOMB WAS EMPTY
“Although the fifth fact—that the tomb of Jesus was empty—is part of the minimal case for the resurrection, it doesn’t enjoy the nearly universal consensus among scholars that the first four do,” Licona began. “Still, there’s strong evidence in its favor.”
“How strong?” I asked.
“Habermas determined that about 75 percent of scholars on the subject regard it as a historical fact. That’s quite a large majority. Personally, I think the empty tomb is very well supported if the historical data are assessed without preconceptions. Basically, there are three strands of evidence: the Jerusalem factor, enemy attestation, and the testimony of women.”
“Jerusalem factor? ” I asked. “What’s that?”
“This refers to the fact that Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem and then his resurrection was proclaimed in the very same city. In fact, several weeks after the crucifixion, Peter declares to a crowd right there in Jerusalem: ‘God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.’46Frankly, it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if Jesus’ body were still in the tomb. The Roman or Jewish authorities could have simply gone over to his tomb, viewed his corpse, and the misunderstanding would have been over. But there’s no indication that this occurred.
“Instead, what we do hear is enemy attestation to the empty tomb. In other words, what were the skeptics saying? That the disciples stole the body. This is reported not only by Matthew, but also by Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Here’s the thing: Why would you say someone stole the body if it were still in the tomb? This is an implicit admission that the tomb was empty.
“I’ve got a twelve-year-old son. If he went into school and said, ‘The dog ate my homework,’ he would be implicitly admitting he doesn’t have his homework to turn in. Likewise, you wouldn’t claim that the disciples stole the body if it were still in his tomb. It’s an indirect admission that the body was unavailable for display.”
“And enemy attestation is strong evidence in the eyes of historians,” I commented.
“That’s correct. Here, you’ve got Jesus’ opponents conceding his tomb was vacant. There’s no way they would have admitted this if it weren’t true. On top of that, the idea that the disciples stole the body is a lame explanation. Are we supposed to believe they conspired to steal the body, pulled it off, and then were willing to suffer continuously and even die for what they knew was a lie? That’s such an absurd idea that scholars universally reject it today.
“In addition, we have the testimony of women that the tomb was empty. Not only were women the first to discover the vacant grave, but they are mentioned in all four Gospels, whereas male witnesses appear only later and in two of them.”
“Why is this important?”
“Because in both first-century Jewish and Roman cultures, women were lowly esteemed and their testimony was considered questionable. They were certainly considered less credible than men. For example, the Jewish Talmud says, ‘Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women,’ and, ‘Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer).’ Josephus said, ‘But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.’
“My point is this: if you were going to concoct a story in an effort to fool others, you would never in that day have hurt your own credibility by saying that women discovered the empty tomb. It would be extremely unlikely that the Gospel writers would invent testimony like this, because they wouldn’t get any mileage out of it. In fact, it could hurt them. If they had felt the freedom simply to make things up, surely they’d claim that men—maybe Peter or John or even Joseph of Arimathea—were the first to find the tomb empty.”
“So this is another example of the criterion of embarrassment.” “Precisely. The best theory for why the Gospel writers would include such an embarrassing detail is because that’s what actually happened and they were committed to recording it accurately, regardless of the credibility problem it created in that culture.
“So when you consider the Jerusalem factor, the enemy attestation, and the testimony of women, there are good historical reasons for concluding Jesus’ tomb was empty. William Ward of Oxford University put it this way: ‘All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.’ ”47
I interrupted. “Let’s put this into context, though: an empty tomb doesn’t prove the resurrection.”
“Granted, but remember that this is just one of the five minimal facts. And it’s entirely congruent with the beliefs of the disciples, Paul, and James that Jesus rose from the dead, since a resurrection implies an empty tomb.”
“Okay, I’ve given you a chance to lay out your mimimal facts,” I said. “How would you summarize your case? ”
“Let’s consider what we have. Shortly after Jesus died from crucifixion, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead. They said he appeared not only to individuals but in several group settings—and the disciples were so convinced and transformed by the experience that they were willing to suffer and even die for their conviction that they had encountered him.
“Then we have two skeptics who regarded Jesus as a false prophet—Paul, the persecutor of the church, and James, who was Jesus’ half-brother. They completely changed their opinions 180 degrees after encountering the risen Jesus. Like the disciples, they were willing to endure hardship, persecution, and even death rather than disavow their testimony that Jesus’ resurrection occurred.
“Thus we have compelling testimony about the resurrection from friends of Jesus, an enemy of Christianity, and a skeptic. Finally, we have strong historical evidence that Jesus’ tomb was empty. In fact, even enemies of Christianity admitted it was vacant. Where did the body go? If you asked the disciples, they’d tell you they personally saw Jesus after he returned to life.
“So we’ve looked at relevant sources, and we’ve applied responsible historical methodology. Now we need restrained results. We have to ask ourselves: What’s the best explanation for the evidence—the explanation that doesn’t leave out any of the facts or strains to make anything fit? My conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Jesus did return from the dead.”
“You personally think the case is strong? ”
“Oh, absolutely, because it outdistances the competing hypotheses by such a large margin. No other explanation comes close to accounting for all the facts. That makes future disconfirmation unlikely. Historically speaking, I think we’ve got a cogent and convincing case.”
Licona could have presented all kinds of historical evidence for the resurrection, but instead he limited himself only to five facts that are extremely well-attested historically and that the vast majority of scholars — including skeptics — concede are trustworthy. I was impressed that he didn’t merely throw around hyperbolic affirmations for the resurrection from conservative Christians who only considered the evidence in favor of their cherished doctrine. Making his case from the lips of liberal and disbelieving scholars served greatly to heighten the credibility of the Easter event. I was reminded of the conclusions of historian N. T. Wright, author of the 741-page Jesus and the. Victory of God and a visiting professor at Harvard University:
It is no good falling back on “science” as having disproved the possibility of resurrection. Any real scientist will tell you that science observes what normally happens; the Christian case is precisely that what happened to Jesus is not what normally happens. For my part, as a historian I prefer the elegant, essentially simple solution rather than the one that fails to include all the data: to say that the early Christians believed that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead, and to account for this belief by saying that they were telling the truth.48
As Licona finished his presentation and relaxed back into the couch, I thumbed through the notes attached to a clipboard in my lap. Having studied the most current — and most compelling—objections of Muslims, atheists, and other resurrection doubters, I knew that there was another side to the story. How strong was it? How would Licona respond? Would his evidence emerge unscathed or disintegrate under scrutiny?
“Let’s grab some lunch,” I suggested as I stood and stretched. “Then we’ll see how good your case stands up to cross-examination.”