A Quintet of Facts (4 + 1)
A Quintet of Facts (4 + 1)
The Last Three
' e have established that Jesus' disciples claimed that they had seen him
after he had risen from the dead. We also observed that we could go a
step further and establish that they really believed what they were claiming.
However, establishing that the disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead
falls short of confirming that he actually did rise, since people oftentimes embrace false beliefs and are incorrect concerning the things they think they have
experienced. Are there any data that will lead us to believe that the disciples'
claims to have seen the risen Jesus were true? We now turn our attention to
three supporting facts.
The third fact: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed
Saul of Tarsus, better known by history as the apostle Paul, changed from being a skeptic who believed that it was God's will to persecute the church to becoming one of its most influential messengers. In his letters to the churches in Corinth,' Galatia,' and Philippi,' Paul himself writes of his conversion from being a persecutor of the church to one who strongly promoted the Christian message.` However, his pre-Christian actions against the church and his conversion are also recorded in Acts.' The story of Paul's conversion from persecutor to promoter of the church also appears to have been going around Judea within three years of his conversion. Paul hints at this in an interesting statement to the Galatians. He tells them that three years after his conversion he was not known by sight to the believers in Galatia. Rather these believers were told, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy," verifying that others either knew or had heard of his pre-Christian actions against the church." Thus, Paul's notorious pre-Christian activities and conversion are multiply attested. We have Paul's own testimony, Luke's record in Acts, and a story that was circulating among Christians in Galatia.'
We must now ask the question: What caused this change in Paul? Why did one who persecuted Christians suddenly become one? Both Paul himself and Luke report that it was because he believed firmly that he had experienced an encounter with the risen Jesus.' Paul's conversion is so interesting because he was an enemy of the church when he claimed to have seen the risen Jesus." Thus, Jesus' resurrection is testified to by friends and also by a foe."' His belief that he had witnessed the risen Christ was so strong that he, like the original disciples, was willing to suffer continuously for the sake of the gospel, even to the point of martyrdom." This point is well documented, reported by Paul himself, as well as Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen.'2 Therefore, we have early, multiple, and firsthand testimony that Paul converted from being a staunch opponent of Christianity to one of its greatest proponents.
Certainly a skeptic may comment that Paul's conversion is no big deal, since many people have converted from one set of beliefs to another. However, the cause of Paul's conversion makes his different. People usually convert to a particular religion because they have heard the message of that religion from a secondary source and believed the message." Paul's conversion was based on what he perceived to be a personal appearance of the risen Jesus. Today we might believe that Jesus rose from the dead based on secondary evidence, trusting Paul and the disciples who saw the risen Jesus. But for Paul, his experience came from primary evidence: the risen Jesus appeared directly to him. He did not merely believe based on the testimony of someone else.
Therefore, the difference is primary versus secondary sources. For most, belief is based on secondary sources. And even when religious belief is based on primary grounds, no other founder of a major religion is believed to have been raised from the dead, let alone have provided any evidence for such an event. 'a The disciples, Paul, and James-who we will look at in a moment-believed based on primary evidence.
(E) signifies the quotation is found in Eusebius
The fourth fact: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
In 2002, what was thought to be a significant archaeological discovery was made. An ancient ossuary or bone box dating to the first century was found with the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." While controversy continues regarding the authenticity of the inscription, the fact that such a find enthralled the religious world shows the historical importance attached to James, the brother of Jesus. 15
The Gospels report that Jesus had at least four brothers, James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, plus unnamed sisters.'' Josephus, the Jewish historian from the first century mentions "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James.""
James appears to have been a pious Jewish believer. Paul's letter to the Galatians condemns legalistic men claiming affiliation with James who were teaching the churches in Galatia that Christians had to keep the Jewish law in addition to putting their faith in Jesus.' To resolve this issue, Peter, Paul, and Barnabas spoke before a church council in Jerusalem. James, apparently the leader of the council at the time, made the following pronouncement: "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.""'
In the second century, Hegesippus reported that James was a pious Jew who strictly followed the Jewish law:
James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Savior to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the [ public] bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, `Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.2'
We do not have the same wealth of historical information on the life of James that we have for Paul. However, we have enough information to conclude that after the alleged event of Jesus' resurrection, James, the brother of Jesus, became a convert to Christianity because he believed the risen Jesus appeared to him. This conclusion is arrived at because
1. The Gospels report that Jesus' brothers, including James, were unbelievers during his ministry (Mark 3:21, 31; 6:3-4; John 7:52').22
2. The ancient creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that we discussed earlier lists an appearance of the risen Jesus to James: "then He appeared to James ."21
3. Subsequent to the alleged event of Jesus' resurrection, James is identified as a leader of the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:12-21; Gal. 1:19).24
4. Not only did James convert to Christianity, his beliefs in Jesus and his resurrection were so strong that he died as a martyr because of them. James's martyrdom is attested by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. We no longer have any of the works of Hegesippus or the writings of Clement where the event is mentioned. However, sections have been preserved by Eusebius.25 Therefore, his martyrdom is attested by both Christian and non-Christian sources.
We add that in appealing to the above biblical references, we are not appealing to the inspiration of the New Testament. Rather these references show that there are multiple as well as early testimonies to James's conversion. Although the personal appearance of Jesus to his brother James is reported only once in the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:7), it has the force of being part of the church's earliest tradition, as reported by Paul. Further, critical scholar Reginald Fuller explains that this is sufficient. Even without it, "we should have to invent" such an appearance in order to account for two things: James's conversion from skepticism and his elevation to the pastorate of the church in Jerusalem, the center of ancient Christianity. 21'
With James, we have another case of a skeptic converting to Christianity based on what he perceived was a personal appearance by the risen Jesus. As with Paul, we must ask the question: What happened to cause James to have such a conviction?
(E) signifies the quotation is found in Eusebius
The fifth fact: The tomb was empty
The empty tomb of Jesus does not meet our two criteria of being a "minimal fact" because it is not accepted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence for it, and it is accepted as a fact of history by an impressive majority of critical scholars.27 Gary Habermas discovered that roughly 75 percentof scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a historical fact. Let's look now at just three arguments for the empty tomb.2"
The Jerusalem factor
Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem. His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first proclaimed publicly there.29 It would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body had still been in the tomb. His enemies in the Jewish leadership and Roman government would only have had to exhume the corpse and publicly display it for the hoax to be shattered. Not only are Jewish, Roman, and all other writings absent of such an account, but there is a total silence from Christianity's critics who would have jumped at evidence of this sort. As we will see momentarily, this is not an argument from silence.
A rather recent attempt at explaining why Jesus' critics did not expose his corpse is that by the time they would have done it, the body would have been unrecognizable. If Acts is correct, the disciples began to proclaim the risen Jesus approximately fifty days after Jesus' crucifixion.30 Accordingly, although the Jewish and Roman authorities would desire to produce the corpse, they understood that it would be unrecognizable due to decomposition. Knowing that the affect they desired to achieve could not be realized, they aborted the idea. This attempts to explain the absence of a record of exhumation and to eliminate the power behind the Jerusalem factor.31
There are at least two problems with this view: First, in the arid climate of Jerusalem, a corpse's hair, stature, and distinctive wounds would have been identifiable, even after fifty days."2 Second, regardless of the condition of his body, the enemies of Jesus would still have found benefit in producing the corpse. Even a barely recognizable corpse could have dissuaded some believers, possibly weakening and ultimately toppling the entire movement. Since that was the goal, Jesus' enemies had every reason to produce his body, regardless of its condition. It is true that, upon viewing the corpse, many Christians would have claimed that it was a hoax. Nevertheless, there still would have been a huge exodus of believers who would have lost confidence in Christianity upon seeing an occupied tomb and a decaying corpse. This exodus would presumably have required the attention of the Christian apologists of the second and third centuries, such as Justin, Tertullian, and Origen.
We certainly would expect to have heard from Celsus, the second-century critic of Christianity, if Jesus' corpse had been produced. When he wrote against Jesus' resurrection, it would have been to his advantage to include this damaging information, had it been available. In short, if a body of any sort was discovered in the tomb, the Christian message of an empty sepulcher would have been falsified. Anything but an emptytomb would have been devastating to the Resurrection account.
Enemy attestation
If your mother says that you are an honest person, we may have reason to believe her, yet with reservation, since she loves you and is somewhat biased. However, if someone who hates you admits that you are an honest person, we have a stronger reason to believe what is being asserted, since potential bias does not exist. The empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources. Jesus' enemies admitted it as well, albeit indirectly. Hence, we are not employing an argument from silence. Rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused Jesus' disciples of stealing the body (Matt. 28:12- 13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30). There would have been no need for an attempt to account for a missing body, if the body had still been in the tomb. When the boy tells his teacher that the dog ate his homework, this is an indirect admission that his homework is unavailable for assessment. Likewise, the earliest Jewish claim reported regarding Jesus' resurrection was to accuse the disciples of stealing the body, an indirect admission that the body was unavailable for public display. This is the only early opposing theory we know of that was offered by Jesus' enemies.'
The testimony of women
If someone concocted a story in an attempt to deceive others, we presume that they would not knowingly invent data that could hurt the credibility of their story. For example, we have heard of those who, in attempting to promote themselves, have made up stories about their heroism in the military or of having an education they really did not possess. However, is it normal to invent and spread a story about oneself as a thief or habitual liar?
When we come to the account of the empty tomb, women are listed as the primary witnesses. They are not only the first witnesses mentioned. They are also mentioned in all four gospels, whereas male witnesses appear only later and in two gospels.34 This would be an odd invention, since in both Jewish and Roman cultures, woman were lowly esteemed and their testimony was regarded as questionable, certainly not as credible as a man's. Consider the following Jewish writings:
Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women. (Talmud, Sotah 19a)
The world cannot exist without males and without females-happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females. (Talmud, Kiddushin 82b)35
But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Josephus, Antiquities 4.8.15)3"
Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman. (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)
According to the statement in Rosh Hashannah, a woman's testimony was given the same regard as that of a robber. Keeping in mind that the disciples were Jews, this provides an interesting context for Luke 24: 11: "But these words appeared to them [the disciples] as nonsense, and they would not believe them [the women]." The Greek word employed in this text for "nonsense" means "idle talk, nonsense, humbug."37 The Jewish view of women in that period was not unique. Some Romans shared a similarly low view of females. The Roman historian Suetonius (c. A.D. 115) writes of Caesar Augustus who was emperor at the time of Jesus' birth through A.D. 14:
Whereas men and women had hitherto always sat together, Augustus confined women to the back rows even at gladiatorial shows: the only ones exempt from this rule being the Vestal Virgins, for whom separate accommodation was provided, facing the praetor's tribunal. No women at all were allowed to witness the athletic contests; indeed, when the audience clamoured at the Games for a special boxing match to celebrate his appointment as Chief Priest, Augustus postponed this until early the next morning, and issued a proclamation to the effect that it was the Chief Priest's desire that women should not attend the Theatre before ten o'clock.3"
Given the low first-century view of women that was frequently shared by Jew and Gentile, it seems highly unlikely that the Gospel authors would either invent or adjust such testimonies. That would mean placing words in the mouths of those who would not be believed by many, making them the primary witnesses to the empty tomb." If the Gospel writers had originated the story of the empty tomb, it seems far more likely that they would have depicted men discovering its vacancy and being the first to see the risen Jesus."" Why would they not list the male disciples Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus and avoid the female issue altogether?" If the account of the empty tomb had been invented, it would most likely not have listed the women as the primary witnesses, since in that day a woman's testimony was not nearly as credible as a man's. Thus, the empty tomb appears to be historically credible in light of the principle of embarrassment.
The empty tomb is, therefore, well evidenced for historical certainty. Former Oxford University church historian William Wand writes, "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.""
It should be noted that the empty tomb, by itself, proves little. If there were no credible accounts of appearances, it could be explained away by suggesting that someone stole the body. However, the empty tomb does not stand alone. It is consistent with the beliefs of the disciples, Paul, and James that Jesus rose from the dead, and belongs in a collection of historical data on the subject."3
Never has nothing meant so much as when we come to the empty tomb of Jesus. As was said of the television sitcom Seinfeld, it is "a story about nothing." And yet at the same time, it is a story about everything. If the tomb was empty because Jesus rose from the dead, then God exists and eternal life is both possible and available.
We may find the acronym J-E-T helpful in remembering our arguments for the empty tomb: the Jerusalem Factor; Enemy Attested; and Testimony of Women.
As mentioned earlier, Habermas surveyed almost thirty years of German, French, and English critical scholarship relating to Jesus' resurrection. Perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. In particular, virtually all scholars recognize Paul's testimony that he had an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus. Equally well recognized is that James, the brother of Jesus, was an unbeliever before he thought that he, too, met the risen Jesus. Seldom is the historical authenticity of any of these testimonies or the genuine belief behind them challenged by respected critical scholars, no matter how skeptical. Lastly, although the empty tomb lacks the nearly universal acceptance by critical scholars that these other events enjoy, the majority of scholars still clearly seem to think that it is probably also a historical fact.
Conclusion
We have presented evidence for Jesus' resurrection using a "minimal facts" approach, which considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that even the majority of nonbelieving scholars accept them as facts. We have not appealed to or even suggested the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible in order to support our case. Therefore, one cannot object to Jesus' resurrection simply because he or she rejects that the Bible is divinely inspired.
Using our "minimal facts" approach, we considered four facts that meet these stringent criteria and one additional fact that enjoys acceptance by an impressive majority of scholars, though not nearly every scholar. Let's look at what we now have. Shortly after Jesus' death, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead. They claimed that he had appeared to individuals among them, as well as to several groups. Two of those who once viewed Jesus as a false prophet later believed that he appeared to them risen: Paul, the church persecutor; and James, the skeptic and Jesus' brother. Both of them became Christians as a result. Therefore, not only do we have the testimony of friends; we have also heard from one enemy of Christianity and one skeptic. Finally, we have the empty tomb.
These facts point very strongly to Jesus' resurrection from the dead, which accounts for all five facts very nicely.
Is it true that God really loves us? Could it be that a relationship with God is truly available to us? Can we really have eternal life? If Jesus really rose from the dead, the answer is yes to all three questions. However, as any good historian and scientist knows, a good theory must be able to answer objections and competing theories. That is what we will look at next. Any opposing theory to Jesus' resurrection, however, is going to have to account for all of these facts as well as others.
For example, one might speculate that the disciples experienced grief hallucinations. But grief hallucinations cannot account for the empty tomb or the conversion of the church persecutor Paul, who had viewed Jesus as a false prophet and would not have grieved over his death.
One cannot argue that the disciples were lying about appearances and stole Jesus' body from the tomb, since we can establish that they truly believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. This would not have been the case if they had been lying.
We can also rule out the theory that the Resurrection story was a legend that developed over time and was not actually taught by the original disciples, since we can establish that those original disciples sincerely believed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them and taught it within a very short period of time after his crucifixion.
There are many other refutations of these opposing theories. These are some of the topics we will examine in the four chapters that follow.
These five facts that we have covered accomplish two things: (1) They provide compelling evidence for Jesus' resurrection and (2) they stand as data that must be accounted for by any opposing theory.
In the next four chapters we will let the skeptics take their best shot at coming up with other theories. We will see that opposing theories to date simply cannot account for our collection of facts, thereby leaving Jesus' resurrection as the best explanation of the known facts.
Before we move on though, it is time to reinforce what you have learned and have some fun! Study the information and especially the charts in part 2. Then install the software that came with this book on your computer. Read the directions for playing the game and select the "Quiz I" option. This quiz includes trueor-false, multiple-choice, and fill-in-the-blank questions. Keep taking the quiz until you can score 80 or better. Once you have passed it, move on to part 3.