Notes
Notes
Introduction to Part 1: Let the Discussion Begin
1. On a National Public Radio program that one of the authors heard some years ago, the editor of a popular magazine was asked why his magazine and several others had recently published controversial articles on Jesus as Christmas approached. The gentleman chuckled and replied, "Jesus sells."
2. David Van Biema, `The Gospel Truth," Time Magazine, 8 April 1996, 57.
3. Craig Blomberg, "Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?" Jesus UnderFire, Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 43.
4. Seven New Testament scholars were interviewed by Jennings for a total of sixtyfive comments. Of these, seventeen comments (26 percent) were made by Crossan.
5. Paul Copan, ed., Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 54. Compare Craig's comments about the Chicago Tribune statement regarding Crossan on page 68 and Crossan's response on page 71.
6. Evangelical responses to Jennings's program have included the volume by D. James Kennedy with Jerry Newcombe, Who Is This Jesus: Is He Risen?(Fort Lauderdale, Fla.: Coral Ridge Ministies, 2002), and the video Jesus: The Search Continues, produced by The Ankerberg Theological Research Institute, Chattanooga, Tenn., in 2001.
7. Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth," 57.
8. Ibid., 59.
9. The English noun defense translates the Greek word apologia, from which we get the term apologetics. Apologetics is normally used in a Christian context, so it can be defined as the discipline of presenting arguments for the Christian faith. See the range of meaning in Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Corinthians 9:3; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Philippians 1:7, 16; 2 Timothy 4:16.
Chapter 1: Unwrapping the Gift
1. On its Web site, Barna Research Online, the Barna Research Group reports the results of a 1994 study that nine out of ten American adults (86%) cannot accurately define the meaning of the Great Commission, seven out of ten do not know what John 3:16 means. Less than one-third (31%) know the meaning of the expression "the gospel." "Only 4% of adults could define the `Great Commission,' quote John 3:16, and define 'the gospel.'" "The basic understanding of evangelism," barna.org/cgi-bin/PageCategory.asp?CategoryID=18. Accessed 16 December 2003.
2. Acts 1-5, 10, 13, 17.
3. Romans 1:2-4; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3ff; 2 Timothy 2:8-9.
4. Romans 10:8-9 NIV. New Testament historian N. T. Wright points out that in the Greco-Roman world the word Lord (kyrios) had two meanings that were quite distinct from each other. The term could be used in polite direct address, like the English sir, or it could be used "to denote the social superior above all: the emperor. Ultimately, for the Roman point of view; there was only one Lord of the world. According to Paul, he now had a rival." N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 56.
5. First Peter 1:3-4.
6. Romans 10:9.
7. First Corinthians 15:17-18.
8. First Corinthians 15:32 (NIV).
9. Matthew 12:38-40; 16:1-4; John 2:18-21; cf. Mark 14:58; Luke 11:29-30. Elsewhere Jesus predicted his resurrection, without commenting on the issue of confirmation (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 8:31-32; 9:31; 10:33; Luke 9:22). See "Did Jesus Predict His Resurrection?" on page 29 for reasons to believe that Jesus did predict his resurrection. Because of one or more of these reasons, a number of critical scholars now accede to these claims. See, for example, Pheme Perkins, "The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth," Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, eds. (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 431, and Gerald O'Collins, Inter- pretingJesus (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983), 85-87. They hold that Jesus predicted his vindication or resurrection. For further discussion of these points, see Gary R. Habermas, Jesus' Resurrection and Future Hope (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).
It has also been objected that in the Matthew 12 passage, Jesus' prediction that he will be in the tomb for three days and three nights does not reconcile with the accounts in the Gospels that he was probably buried Friday evening and raised Sunday morning (i.e., one day and two nights). The late Muslim apologist, Ahmed Deedat, argued this in his article, `What Was the Sign of Jonah?" www.islamworld.net/jonah.html. Accessed 16 September 2003. Deedat's argument against Jesus as Christ is flawed for several reasons:
1. Deedat assumes that every part of an analogy must match in order for it to be an analogy. For example, he points out that Jonah was alive in the fish while Jesus was dead in the tomb. This by no means destroys Jesus' prediction, since his emphasis is primarily on the fact that he would be buried and then raised and secondarily on the duration of his "tomb time."
2. Deedat's argument is somewhat vague. Perhaps he is assuming that the New Testament must be inerrant in order for Christianity to be true. This, of course, would follow from Muslim dependance on the complete inerrancy of the Qur'an in order for Islam to be true. So his argument might be restated: `Since the New Testament is incorrect on the'sign of Jonah' prophecy, it is not inerrant. Therefore, we can reject Christianity." This is a non-sequitur argument. In other words, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If this is his point, he would be saying: Some of the Bible is inaccurate. Therefore, all of it is inaccurate." This does not follow, since attempting to demonstrate that some things in the Bible are false does not justify the conclusion that all of it is. It would be like arguing, 'Some politicians are liars. Therefore, all politicians are liars." Many scholars have argued for the historicity of the Resurrection without believing at all in the inspiration of Scripture.
3. Our own method below will not argue from the truth of inspiration. The critic who thinks that the Resurrection depends on the truth of inspiration is mistaken.
But perhaps Deedat is not arguing this at all. Instead, he may be arguing, 'If Jesus' prophecy about his resurrection is incorrect, then he did not rise from the dead." But this, too, is problematic, since it likewise assumes that the New Testament must be inerrant in recording Jesus' words in order for Christianity to be true. If Matthew is wrong, Jesus still predicted his resurrection elsewhere (see Mark 14:58; John 2:19). These prophecies do not contain the "three nights" portion that is problematic for Deedat.
So, Deedat's argument does nothing to debunk Christianity. What it does is challenge the inerrancy of the New Testament. If Matthew was wrong in recording Jesus' words, then the New Testament cannot be inerrant. Can the three days and three nights (i.e., seventy-two hours) component of this prediction be reconciled with the position that Jesus was buried around 6 p.m. Friday and raised before 6 a.m. Sunday (i.e., about thirty-six hours)? Deedat's problem is answered in Norman Geisler and T. A. Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1992), 343:
Most biblical scholars believe that Jesus was crucified on Friday. They take the phrase "three days and nights" to be a Hebrew figure of speech referring to any part of three days and nights. They offer the following in support of their position. First, the phrase "day and night" does not necessarily mean a complete 24-hour period. The psalmist's reference to meditating "day and night" on God's Word does not mean one has to read the Bible all day and all night (Ps. 1:2). Second, it is clear from the use of the phrase "three days and three nights" in the Book of Esther that it does not mean 72 hours. For, although they fasted three days and nights (4:16) between the time they started and the time she appeared before the king, the passage states that Esther appeared before the king .on the third day" (5:1). If they began on Friday, then the third day would be Sunday. Hence, "three days and nights" must mean any part of three days and nights. Third, Jesus used the phrase "on the third day" to describe the time of His resurrection after His crucifixion (Matt. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; cf. 26:61). But, "on the third day" cannot mean "afterthree days" which 72 hours demands. On the other hand, the phrase "on the third day" or "three days and nights" can be understood to mean within three days and nights. Fourth, this view fits best with the chronological order of events as given by Mark (cf. 14:1), as well as the fact that Jesus died on Passover day (Friday) to fulfill the conditions of being our Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7; cf. Lev. 23:5-15)."
(Cf. Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. KaiserJr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 19961, pp. 380-81.)
10. The apostle Paul wrote that Jesus' resurrection vindicated him as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4). The event was God's endorsement of Jesus and his teachings.
11. Sura 2:23; cf. suras 10:37-38; 17:88.
12. Moroni 10:4-5.
13. The Muslim who objects that the beauty of the Qur'an is only realized in Arabic should wonder at the soundness of this objection, since a Jew might argue for the superiority of the linguistic and structural beauty of the Hebrew Psalms.
14. Michael Licona accepted the frequent Mormon challenge to read the Book of Mormon while sincerely asking God to reveal whether it is true. He remains unpersuaded, especially given the many textual and historical difficulties. For a critique of Mormonism, see Michael Licona, Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock(Virginia Beach, Va.: TruthQuest, 1998). To find out more about the book, go to www.risenjesus.com. See also Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen, eds., The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).
15. Gary R. Habermas, The Resurrection, vol. 1, Heart of New Testament Doctrine (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 2000), Gary R. Habermas. The Resurrection: Heart of the Christian Life (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 2000).
16. Historical Jesus scholar Graham Twelftree comments, "[The historical approach] does not mean that if I cannot prove historicity in any particular case, the storyor elements of it-must be discarded as necessarily historically unreliable. It must be stressed: We cannot move from 'unproven' to 'disproven." Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 250.
17. For more information, see Licona, Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock, 1724; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1987); F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984); Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable? A Look at the Historical Evidence (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1993).
18. A similar graph with explanations is presented in Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998), 16-18.
19. We will look at a few of these principles in chapter 2.
20. Annette Gordon-Reed. Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1997), xix-xx (emphasis added).
21. Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker, 248. Twelftree summarizes a discussion of historical method provided by Robert J. Miller. See Robert J. Miller, "Historical Method and the Deeds of Jesus: The Test Case of the Temple Demonstration," Forum 8 (1992): 5-30.
22. Philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli write, 'We believe Christ's resurrection can be proved with at least as much certainty as any universally believed and well-documented event in ancient history." Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994), 181.
23. First Peter 3:15.
24. In 1 Corinthians 15:33 Paul quotes the Greek poet Menander (c. 342-291 B.C.), "Evil associations ruin upright morals." Also see Acts 17:28, where Paul quotes from the Cretan poet Epimenides (c. 600 B.c.),"For in him we live and move and are' and the Cilician poet Aratus (c. 314-240 B.C.), "For we are indeed His offspring." In Titus 1:12 he quotes the Cretan poet Epimenides (sixth century B.C.), "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
25. In Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church, he wrote: "To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:20-22).
Chapter 2: History 101
1. For purposes of this book, the term principle is used, since it is a less technical term than that used in academia, where the term criterion is employed. Moreover, instead of "History 101," it would be more accurate to title the chapter "Historiography 101," since historiography studies the philosophy and methods of collecting and writing history, including the entire procedure of gathering data, critical interaction, and interpretation, as we attempt to achieve the best explanation of what occurred.
2. For additional criteria, see Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 247-53 (Twelftree credits Robert J. Miller's "Historical Method and the Deeds of Jesus: The Test Case of the Temple Demonstration," Forum 8 [ 1992], 5-30 for his eighteen theses for historicity); John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001), 1:167-95; C. Behan McCullagh, JustifyingHis- torical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 19. For a demonstration of how historical criteria of authenticity are sometimes abused, see Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 46-48.
3. See Harold C. Syrett, ed., Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 25 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), 169-234. This information is contained in David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 54950. We thank Debbie Licona for providing this example.
4. The statement "Communism fails as an economic system" would be much stronger coming from Mikhail Gorbachev than Ronald Reagan, and would provide another example of enemy attestation.
5. Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:168.
6. Annette Gordon-Reed, Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1997).
Introduction to Part 2: The Minimal Facts Approach
1. Quoted from Jerry Newcombe, Coming Again (Colorado Springs, Col.: Chariot Victor, 1999), 45.
2. Gary Habermas has developed this approach in some detail. See, for example, Gary R. Habermas, 'Evidential Apologetics,' Five Views on Apologetics, Steven B. Cowan, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000),99-100,186-90.
3. Both Christians and skeptics have been guilty of illogical arguments in the debate over the inspiration of the Bible. One type of fallacious argument is referred to as non-sequitur reasoningin which a conclusion is unsupported by the premises. Let's look at an example: "The native American Indians did a raindance. It rained. Therefore, the dance caused the rain." The conclusion that the dance caused the rain is unjustified, since there are other potential causes, some of which may be more likely. Non-sequitur reasoning is easily spotted in the inspiration debate. Many times the Christian states, "Archaeology and the writings of secular historians have corroborated much of what the Bible says about peoples, places, and events. Therefore, all of the Bible is true." This is non-sequitur reasoning. The conclusion that the entire Bible is true is not justified by evidence that some of it is true. This, of course, does not mean that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, only that this argument fails to prove it. The skeptic is, likewise, often guilty of the same type of argument. Quick to point out apparent errors and contradictions in the Bible, some skeptics concludes, "Therefore, all of the Bible is false." This, too, is non-sequitur reasoning, since the conclusion that the entire Bible is false is not justified by evidence that some of it may be false. Moreover, the fact that at least some of what the Bible says has been corroborated independently falsifies the allegation that the entire Bible is false. The minimal facts approach bypasses the discussion on inspiration and directs the focus more directly to the issue of Jesus' resurrection. Since we are establishing that Jesus rose from the dead from facts that have strong historical foundation and that are acknowledged by the majority of scholars, one could bypass for the sake of discussion whether the Bible is inspired. We can avoid the rabbit trail issues of whether Scripture has errors without having any negative impact on our minimal facts approach for establishing Jesus' resurrection. It is important to discuss the historicity and plenary inspiration of Scripture, but such discussions do not belong in the middle of considering the Resurrection.
4. Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:1-5.
5. Stephen R. Covey, A. Roger Merrill, and Rebecca R. Merrill, First Things First (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), section 2.
6. Moses Hadas, "Introduction," The Complete Works of Tacitus, Moses Hadas, ed.; Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb, trans. (New York: Random House, 1942), xvi-xviii.
Chapter 3: A Quintet of Facts (4 + 1): The First Two
I. Gary R. Habermas, The Historicalfesus(Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1996), 15867. Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998), 115. Antony Flew, considered by many to be the most influential philosophical atheist of the late twentieth century, granted all twelve of these facts in a televised debate with Habermas on the Resurrection in April 2000. See The John Ankerberg Show "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" The debate is currently available in video format at www.johnankerberg.org/TV/ankjasrd.htmi or by calling 423-892-7722. A published volume with the debate transcript is forthcoming.
2. Elsewhere, Habermas has broken some of the facts presented here into separate points and presented them in a slightly different manner. See Habermas, Historical Jesus, 158-61.
3. Gerard S. Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 18-20. Also see Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
4. "When caught, they resisted, and were then tortured and crucified before the walls as a terrible warning to the people within. Titus pitied them-some 500 were captured daily-but dismissing those captured by force was dangerous, and guarding such numbers would imprison the guards. Out of rage and hatred, the soldiers nailed their prisoners in different postures, and so great was their number that space could not be found for the crosses." Josephus, Jewish Wars, 5.451; quoted from Paul L. Maier, Josephus: The Essential Works (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1994), 358.
5. Sloyan, Crucifixion ofJesus, 13, citing M. Tullius Cicero in Against Verres 2.5.64. In 2.5.165, Cicero refers to crucifixion as "that most cruel and disgusting penalty." Cited in Hengel, Crucifixion, 8.
6. Cicero, Pro Rabirio 9-17.
7. Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals 15.44. For more on crucifixion in antiquity, see Hengel, Crucifixion.
8. Josephus, Antiquities 18.64. Josephus in Ten Volumes, vol. 9, Jewish Antiquities, Loeb Classical Library Louis H. Feldman, trans. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981).
9. Tacitus, Annals 15.44 (c. A.D. 115).
10. Lucian of Samosata, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 (c. mid-second century).
11. This document is currently at the British Museum, Syriac Manuscript, Additional 14,658 (c. late first-third century). The translation is from Logos Protestant Edition of the early church fathers, A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A. C. Coxe, eds. and trans., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Oak Harbor, Ore.: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
12. Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a (probably late second century). Unless otherwise indicated, all citations from the Talmud are from The Babylonian Talmud, I. Epstein, ed. and trans. (London: Soncino, 1935-1952). The Talmud was written too late to provide evidence for Jesus that is independent of earlier sources. It should be noted that Jewish writings of antiquity never denied the existence, miracles, and execution of Jesus. See John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001), 1:96-97.
13. Pronounced "ee-ay-soos."
14. Livy 1:26:6ff; Luke 23:39; Galatians 3:13.
15. See John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 145; see also 154, 196, 201.
16. For an in-depth look at the disciples' claims that have come to us through Paul and other sources, see the helpful chart in R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas, eds., In Defense of Miracles(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997), 266.
17. Second Corinthians 10:8; 11:5; 13:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:6; 4:2; Philemon 1:21; cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:4. On Paul's apostolic authority, see pp. 263-64 and chapter 4, n4 in this volume.
18. Paul's writings are cited twenty-one times by five of the apostolic fathers and perhaps alluded to on several other occasions. Clement of Rome refers to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement 47). The author of 2 Clement cites him once (19:2). Polycarp (c. 110) cites him sixteen times (To the Philippians 1:3; 2:2; 4:1 [three times, the second maybe a dual reference to 2 Cor. 6:2 ]; 5:1, 3; 6:1-2 [two times]; 9:2; 11:1, 2, 4; 12:1 [two times]). Papias, who probably heard the apostle John teach and who wrote in the early part of the second century, cites Paul twice (Fragments: Traditions of the Elders 2, 5). Eusebius, Chronicle, is also found in Fragments 1; also see Fragments 5, 7, 9. In Fragment 3, Eusebius provides a contrary opinion concerning the personal encounters of Papias with the apostle John. However, Eusebius is certainly incorrect in his reasons. For a detailed discussion of Papias, see Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 1026-45. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107), who was the second to succeed the apostle Peter as head of the church in Antioch (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.36.3 - 4), cites Paul once (To Polycarp 5:1), and the author of The Martyrdom of Polycarp cites him once (1:2). The following letters traditionally attributed to Paul are certainly cited by the Apostolic Fathers: Romans, I Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, I Timothy. Finally and most interesting, is how these authors viewed Paul. From Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (3:2; 9:1; 11:2-3; 12:1), we learn in the first reference that Paul "accurately and reliably taught the word concerning the truth." If Irenaeus is correct in claiming that Polycarp was "instructed" and "appointed" by the apostles, had "conversed with many who had seen Christ" (Against Heresies, 3.3.4), and that he had fellowshipped with John and those who had seen the Lord (To Florinus, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.20), his testimony of Paul has huge significance. He knew what the apostles taught, and he believed Paul's writings were accurate and reliable when compared to their teachings. Moreover, in To the Philippians 12:1, Polycarp cites Ephesians two times, calling it part of the "sacred Scriptures." If Ephesians was truly written by Paul, then we know that his writings were considered to be sacred Scripture. Clement of Rome and Ignatius both mention Paul as though he were on equal par with, and carried the same apostolic authority as, Peter, one of the original apostles (Clement in 1 Clem. 5:3-5; Ignatius in To the Romans 4:3). See more information on Paul on pp. 263-64 and chapter 4, n4.
19. Galatians 1:18-19; 2:2-20. Paul also says that these three approved his gospel message (Gal. 2:1-12). Virtually every scholar admits that Paul wrote about twenty years after Jesus' death and had multiple interactions with Jesus' brother and two of his lead disciples. All three of these went to their deaths, and two suffered martyrdom, claiming that Jesus had risen and had appeared to them.
20. Acts 9:26-30; 15:1-35.
21. Asa few examples, Clement (1 Clem. 5, c. A.D. 95); Polycarp (To the Philippians 9-c. 110); Ignatius (To the Romans 4, c. 110); and Papias (Fragment 5, c. 100-7 [The traditional date for Papias is 125, but Gundry Mark, 1026-45, argues convincingly for a date of between 100 and 1071). All of these may very well have known one or more of the apostles (see pp. 53-55).
22. In Galatians 2:1-10, Paul says that he went to the apostles so that they could confirm that the gospel he preached was correct and right in line with the gospel they preached. The gospel always included the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:35). Therefore, since Paul's gospel was the same as the apostles', and the gospel included the resurrection, it is safe to say that Paul's words here in Galatians support the proposition that the disciples claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. As noted above, in I Corinthians 15:11 Paul claims this directly. So we have reports that the disciples approved Paul's preaching of the Resurrection and that Paul acknowledged that they preached the same message.
23. It is agreed by most scholars who study the subject that verses 3-5 are from a creed and that the end of verse 5, "then to the twelve," through the end of verse 7 also is creedal material, it is not necessarily from the same creed.
24. First, Paul's introductory comment, "I delivered to you ... what I also received," denotes the imparting of oral tradition (cf. 11:23). Paul is saying that he delivered to the Corinthian church information he received from others. Second, since the first Christians were Jews, we would expect that the early creeds and hymns would appear in their primary spoken language, Aramaic. There are indications that verses 3-5 had an Aramaic origin, such as the four-fold use of the Greek term for "that" (hoti) common in Aramaic narration and the name, Cephas, which is Aramaic for Peter (see John 1:42). Third, the text's content is stylized and contains parallelism. In Greek, the first and third lines are longer, have the same construction, and contain the phrase "according to the Scriptures" at the end, followed by a short sentence beginning with "that." (a) That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (b) and that he was buried (c) and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (d) and that he appeared to Cephas. Fourth, non-Pauline terms indicate that he probably did not form the creed but got it elsewhere, as he states in verse 3. For a detailed analysis of this creed and the early, eyewitness tradition behind it, see John Kloppenborg, "An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula I Cor 15:3-5b In Light of Some Recent Literature," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 351-67; William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1989), 1-49, esp. 1-6; Gary R. Habermas, "Evidential Apologetics," Five Views on Apologetics, Steven B. Cowan, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000); and Habermas, Historical Jesus, 152-57.
25. How is the creed dated? Jesus' crucifixion has been dated at A.D. 30 by most scholars, who also date Paul's conversion to between 31 and 33. Paul went away for three years after his conversion, afterward visiting Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal. 1: 18-19). Many scholars believe Paul received the creed from Peter and James at this time. One reason for this is Paul's use of the Greek term historesai to describe his visit with Peter. The term means "to gain a historical account." See its use in Esther 8:12 (LXX); Esdras 1:33 (two times), 40; 2 Maccabees 2:24, 30, 32 (2 times); 4 Maccabees 3:19; 17:7. Thus, when Paul visited Peter, he went with the intent of learning firsthand from Peter about Jesus. Paul says he also saw James while there (Gal. 1:19). Accordingly, even if Paul was not given the creed at this time, he learned information from two of the most prominent disciples who had known Jesus. Thus, he would know if the content in the creed was their testimony. Another option is that he received it in Damascus at the time of his conversion (which places the origin of the creed even earlier). Either way he received it within two to five years after Jesus' crucifixion from the disciples themselves. Another possibility is that he received it at a later date. But this could have been no later than 51, since Paul visited Corinth around that time. First Corinthians, in which Paul said that he delivered the creed to them (1 Cor. 15:3), was probably written between 53 and 57. Thus, Paul says he delivered this creed to the Corinthians when he saw them (51 or earlier) and that he received the creed earlier ("I delivered to you ... what I also received"). The creed would have originated earlier still. At minimum, Paul must have received the creed from someone he, an apostle, deemed to be a trustworthy source. We've already seen that in both of his early discussions with the most prominent apostles all agreed upon the content of the gospel (Gal. 1:16-2:10). Critics grant this fact too. It should also be noted that just a few verses after the creed, Paul said that the other apostles were currently teaching the same message concerning Jesus' resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-11, 14-15).
26. Most scholars also recognize Luke 24:34 as an early proclamation that reports a post-mortem appearance of Jesus to Peter. This is because it is somewhat of an awkward insertion that lacks an accompanying story. This may be the appearance mentioned in I Corinthians 15:5 in the creed.
27. Quoted in Richard N. Ostling. Who Was Jesus?" Time Magazine, 15 August 1988, 41.
28. See Acts 1-5, 10, 13, 17 and note the claims to group appearances in 10:39-43 and 13:29-31.
29. Additional reasons why scholars believe that they can identify these summaries as oral tradition include their possession of Jewish words and traits, referred to as Semitisms (C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments [repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980], 17-31). Also see chapter 9 note 10. Moreover, some of these sermon summaries, Acts 10 for example, are written in rough Greek (e.g., how some people sound who speak English as a second language), unlike the rest of Acts, which is written using the Greek of an educated person. These traits may well reflect that the summaries were from an original source in Aramaic, a common language known by first century Jews that was very similar to Hebrew, and later translated into Greek. The author was an educated Gentile writer who also claimed to have received his information from the original disciples: "just as they [i.e., the stories about Jesus] were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (Luke 1:2). The succinct sermons record only basic doctrines, compared to more detailed theology in the writings of the later church fathers (Habermas and Moreland, Beyond Death, 131-32). Although some scholars hold that the sermon summaries in Acts reflect what the specified person said at the specified place and time, the majority today hold that Luke was following a common practice of writing history in the format of a story and invented the speeches/sermons. In this practice, he would convey what early Christians, perhaps the very Christians to whom the sermons are attributed, were communicating by importing a summary of their content in the sermons. In this option, the particular sermon and the time and place of its delivery were invented. Perhaps even someone other than the person specified may have delivered it. But the content was authentic of what was being proclaimed by early Christians. This is not to say everything about the sermon, including even its content were inventions of Luke. Few scholars today take that view. See Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History(Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbraums, 1990), 415-43.
30. Although most scholars, including most scholars who identify themselves as evangelicals, hold that the final verses of Mark (16:9-20) are not part of the original text, they still hold that Mark knows of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. Mark predicts Jesus' resurrection five times (8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:32-34; 14:28). In addition, Mark reports the testimony of the angel (16:5-7), which includes the Resurrection, the empty tomb, and the imminent appearance of Jesus in Galilee. Notice that Mark sees this as a fulfillment of 14:28. Furthermore, the reference to Peter in 16:7 may be the appearance reported by the creed in I Corinthians 15:5 and Luke 24:34. The majority of scholars hold that the omission of the actual appearances was an intentional literary device employed by Mark, although a good number hold that the original ending has been lost. See R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, New International Greek Testament Commentary, I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 670-74.
The main reasons why scholars hold that 16:9-20 were not part of Mark's original are: (1) External evidence: (a) These last twelve verses do not appear in the two oldest Greek manuscripts or the oldest translations in antiquity. (b) The early church fathers, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen show no knowledge of them. (c) Eusebius and Jerome (fourth century) testify that the verses were absent from almost every Greek manuscript of Mark known to them. (2) Internal evidence: (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are not typical of Mark. (b) The connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20 is awkward. For example, although Mary Magdalene had just been mentioned in 15:47 and 16:1, she is mentioned in 16:9 as though for the first time. The other women mentioned in 16:1-8 seem to have been forgotten in 9-11. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger writes, it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century" (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975], 125).
31. Critical scholars have always proclaimed that there were sources behind various Gospels (for example, Mark and the alleged documents Q, M, L) plus John. Luke admits he used other sources (Luke 1: 1-4). See chapter 10 note 19.
32. As with Ignatius, a friend of Polycarp who knew some of the apostles. Ignatius was the bishop of the churches in Antioch. He was arrested and on his way to face execution in Rome when he penned seven letters, six to various churches and one to Polycarp. In his letter To Polycarp, Ignatius says he saw Polycarp in person (1:1). He knew Polycarp was praying for his church in Antioch (7:1). He approves or encourages Polycarp to "convene a council" to select someone to go to Smyrna to congratulate and encourage them (7:2; 8:2; see also Ignatius, To theSmyrnaeans 11:2-3).
33. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.3, c. 185. Taken from A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A. C. Coxe, eds. and trans., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Oak Harbor, Ore.: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
34. Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 32. In ibid.
35. First Clement 42:3. (author's translation).
36. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4. Elsewhere, Irenaeus mentions that he had heard from someone who had been a disciple of the apostles, although the person is not named (4.27.1). Thus, Irenaeus appears to offer firsthand testimony. Although Irenaeus based the purity of his doctrine and that of the church in his time on the line of relation to the disciples (i.e., he heard from those who heard the apostles), apparently some groups of heretics did this as well. For example, in the early third century, Clement of Alexandria wrote that one group of heretics was claiming that Peter taught Glaucias who taught Basilides. Another, he says, claimed that Paul taught Theudas who taught Valentinus the Gnostic. Clement of Alexandria writes,
And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter. Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard fora little the preaching of Peter. Such being the case, it is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth ]. (The Stromata, 7.18 in Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, eds. and trans., The Ante-Nicene Fathers)
Clement points out that, although they made claims to having received their teachings from the apostles, the teachings of the heretics were "new inventions." This seems to be confirmed by the earliest Christian writings. Paul and John appear to be refuting an incipient form of Gnosticism in some of their writings. The earliest Christian writings we have outside of the New Testament (i.e., those of the apostolic fathers) seem to be battling a more developed form of the same heretical teachings. This fits with the position that the heretics were continuing the practices of their teachers. Accordingly, it seems most reasonable to conclude with Clement that they were inventions of the heretics. Indeed, Irenaeus traces Marcion's line to Cerdon and then to Simon the sorcerer of Acts 8:9-24 (Against Heresies, 1.27. 1-2; 3.4.3). Around 200, the African church father, Tertullian, wrote:
But if there be any [ heresies ] which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, -a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit [their several worthies], whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them [to attempt]? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men [as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily], yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. (Prescription Against Heretics, 32)
Tertullian posited two tests: (1) He challenged the heretics to produce the same sort of succession lines back to the apostles with credible records that the churches possessed. (2) He said that a comparison of the writings of the heretics to those of the apostles reveals that the former do not have the latter as their source.
37. Irenaeus, To Florinus, cited by the fourth-century church historian, Eusebius, who regarded Irenaeus as a reliable source (Ecclesiastical History 5.20). See To Florinus in Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, eds. and trans., The Ante-Nicene Fathers. See Eusebius, Eusebius: The Church History, Paul L. Maier, ed. and trans. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 195-96.
38. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, 32.
39. The Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3. Also known as the Encyclical Letter of the Church at Smyrna.
40. To the Philippians 9:2. (author's translation).
41. Ibid., 1:2; 2:1-2; 9:2; 12:2. Ignatius also provides early confirmation but he cannot be directly tied to the apostles. Ignatius was bishop of the church in Antioch in Syria. He knew Polycarp and wrote a letter to him while en route to his execution in Rome in about 110. Since the apostles trained Polycarp, Ignatius is certain to have been well acquainted with apostolic teachings. In addition to his letter to Polycarp, Ignatius wrote letters to six churches. These have been of immense value in revealing beliefs of the early church. In his letter to the church at Smyrna, Ignatius writes that the disciples were so encouraged by seeing and touching the risen Jesus that they too despised death" and that after his resurrection, "he [i.e., Jesus] ate and drank with them like one who is composed of flesh" (3:2- 3). In the same letter, he writes, "Do pay attention, however, to the prophets and especially to the Gospel, in which the Passion has been made clear to us and the resurrection has been accomplished" (7:4). In his letter to the Philadelphians, Ignatius writes concerning the gospel, which of course was at the center of Christian preaching, `But the Gospel possesses something distinctive, namely, the coming of the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, his suffering, and the resurrection" (9:2). In his letter to the Magnesians, he writes, "I want to forewarn you not to get snagged on the hooks of worthless opinions but instead to be fully convinced about the birth and the suffering and the resurrection, which took place during the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate. These things were truly and most assuredly done by Jesus Christ" (11:2-4). These translations are from The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, Michael W. Holmes, ed. and rev.; J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans., 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).
42. It is possible that the first-century Jewish historian Josephus reports that the disciples claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them. Josephus was born in A.D. 37 in Jerusalem to Matthias, a popular Jewish priest. See Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Josephus and the Scriptures," Fides et Historia 13 (1980), 42; F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 32-34; Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 81-83. This places Josephus geographically and chronologically in a position to know about Jesus, since he is growing up where and when the disciples were preaching of Jesus and his resurrection. He became a Jewish priest in his early twenties, hated the Romans, fought the Romans, was defeated by the Romans, and later joined the Romans as the court historian for the Emperor Vespasian. See Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 10. In Commentary on Matthew (2.10.17), Origen in about A.D. 200 comments on Josephus: "And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 10). In Contra Celsum 1.47, Origen reiterates that Josephus was not a believer.
In Antiquities of theJews(A.D. 95), extant manuscripts of Josephus include a remarkable passage on the disciples' claims that Jesus rose from the dead, which has come to be referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. (18.3.63-64, Feldman trans., 49-51)
It is questionable whether all of the Testimonium contains the authentic words of Josephus. Origen's testimony that Josephus was not a Christian creates a problem. If Origen is correct, it would be odd that a non-Christian Jew would make statements such as Jesus was "a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man," "He was the Christ," and "he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." Unfortunately, the question cannot be answered by textual criticism, since no early manuscripts of the works of Josephus still exist. The earliest of three manuscripts of Book 18 where the passage is found is from the eleventh century, a difference of one thousand years between the original and our first manuscript. However, this is not unusual for a work of antiquity. The earliest manuscripts of the works of Julius Caesar, Plato, and Aristotle are all at least seven hundred years removed from the originals. Origen quotes this passage of Josephus much earlier-inc. 246, and Eusebius quotes it about 325. Thus, the questionable reading appeared relatively early.
If Josephus was not a Christian, how do we explain his laudatory statements about Jesus, even referring to him as the "Christ" (i.e., Messiah) and acknowledging his resurrection? The majority of scholars hold that a Christian editor doctored the original text sometime between the second and fourth centuries. This is referred to as "interpolation." The majority of scholars also agree that there was an original form of the Testimonium in which Josephus says of Jesus that he was a miracle worker, that he gained followers, that Pilate crucified him, and that Jesus' followers remained loyal to him. Several reasons support this conclusion and three are compelling: (1) The term, wise man is typical for Josephus and less than we would expect from a Christian editor (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 88. Van Voorst adds, "Josephus says the same about Solomon [Ant. 18.5.2 §53] and Daniel [Ant. 10.11.2 §237 1, and something similar about John the Baptizer, whom he calls'a good man' [Ant. 18.5.2 § 1169]"; cf. Yamauchi, Jesus Under Fire, 213). (2) The style belongs to Josephus (Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:62; Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 90. Yamauchi, Jesus Under Fire, 213). (3) The Greek word for "tribe" is not a typical Christian expression (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 91-92; Yamauchi, Jesus UnderFire, 213). Still, the three laudatory parts saying'if indeed one should call him a man," "he was the Messiah," and 'for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him" may be the additions of a later Christian editor.
We just do not have enough data to know with certainty whether Josephus included the resurrection claims in this passage. Louis Feldman, one of the most informed Josephus scholars, comments that "until unquestionable proof is found, in the form of a manuscript containing the genuine version of Josephus' passage, no decisive answer can be given, and the entire matter remains in the domain of sheer speculation" (Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Joseph us, the Bible, and History [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 19891, 339). For more on the Testimonium, see Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, ch. 3. Feldman expressed agreement with Meier in a personal e-mail to one of the authors (Aug. 28, 2001). Zvi Baras writes that the "more plausible" position is "accepting parts of the passage and rejecting others" (Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 19891, 339). Morton Smith, professor emeritus of ancient history at Columbia University, is pessimistic about a reconstruction of the passage, but concludes that Josephus certainly mentions Jesus (ibid., 252).
Uncertainty about parts of the passage does not justify rejection of it in its entirety, and most scholars do not go that far. Although no formal research has determined the percentage of Josephus scholars who accept parts of the passage versus those who reject it in its entirety, Feldman is perhaps the most qualified to make an informed assessment. In Joseph us and Modern Scholarship: 19371980 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984), Feldman surveys more than one hundred scholarly writings on Josephus. In a personal e-mail to one of the authors (Nov. 26, 2001), Feldman admitted that his list for the period 1937 to 1980 is incomplete and that much on Josephus has appeared since 1980. Asked to make a rough assessment of where contemporary scholarship stands on the authenticity of the Testimonium as a whole, he responded, "My guess is that the ratio of those who in some manner accept the Testimonium would be at least 3 to 1. I would not be surprised if it would be as much as 5 to 1."
An old Arabic version of the disputed passage that is quite toned down from the Greek text may more accurately resemble what Josephus originally wrote. This Arabic text comes from an Arab Christian named Agapius and omits statements like 'if it be lawful to call him a man.' The text also contains statements which appear less embellished, such as "he was perhaps the Messiah" or 'he was the so-called Messiah' rather than "he was the Christ" and that the disciples 'reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive' rather than 'he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.' However, there are reasons to reject the Arabic text as representing a more accurate rendering of Josephus's original words. Feldman comments, "the fact that the order of statements in Agapius differs from that in Josephus [Greek text] would seem to indicate that we are dealing here with a paraphrase. Furthermore, Agapius declares that according to Josephus, Herod burned the genealogies of the tribes, whereas there is no such passage in Josephus, but there is in Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica 1.7.13). This is further indication that Agapius did not consult Josephus directly" (Feldman and Hata, Joseph us, the Bible, and History, 433). This book is an excellent source for those interested in reading the arguments for and against the genuineness of the passage. He now certainly views the three questionable parts as interpolations while accepting the rest as authentic (e-mail to author, Aug. 28, 2001). Josephus scholar Paul Maier is more optimistic than Feldman. Maier once wrote to Paul Winter, the ranking authority on Josephus at the time, to ask whether he thought any part of the Testimonium Flavianum was genuine, and if he did, how he thought the original passage ran. "He wrote me back with a yes for 1) and a reconstruction on 2) that closely resembles the Agapian text! Tragically, he died before the AT [Agapian Text] was announced by Schlomo Pines" (correspondence with author, March 7, 2003). Thus, a tonedowned version of the Testimonium as proposed by Maier and Winter is certainly a plausible reconstruction. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz allow this reconstruction in The HistoricalJesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 72.
Van Voorst writes, In sum, Josephus has given us in two passages [ 18:3; 20:2001 something unique among all ancient non-Christian witnesses to Jesus: a carefully neutral, highly accurate and perhaps independent witness to Jesus, a wise man whom his persistent followers called 'the Christ'" (Van Worst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 103-4). Yamauchi comments, "Josephus knew that Jesus was the brother of James, the martyred leader of the church in Jerusalem, and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following, despite the fact that he had been crucified under Pilate at the instigation of some of the Jewish leaders" (Yamauchi, Jesus Under Fire, 213-14).
43. Norman Perrin, The Resurrection According to Matthew, Mark, andLuke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 80.
44. Someone might argue that to claim that the disciples suffered because they believed in the risen Christ is to claim too much, because they died for Christian teachings, of which the Resurrection was only one. After all, the Romans and Jews charged the early Christians with atheism and breaking the law. The Roman complaint was that they were atheists because they did not believe in the nation's gods. However, whatever reasons the authorities had, if Paul, James, and the original disciples had not believed that they had seen the risen Lord, there would have been no transformation in their lives. They would not have preached Jesus and his resurrection to the world, so they would not have suffered and faced death for their evangelistic actions. Christianity would not exist today. We will provide evidence for this view.
45. See Acts 4, where Peter and John are arrested and imprisoned; Acts 5, where the apostles are arrested, imprisoned, and flogged; and Acts 12, where James, the brother of John is martyred and Peter is imprisoned. Other persecutions are reported in Acts but not targeted specifically against the original disciples. We are specifically told that the Resurrection was their central message (Acts 4:2, 33).
46. First Clement 5:2-7 (author's translation). Clement reports that Peter and Paul suffered multiple attacks, and likely refers to their martyrdoms, although the latter is not without question. Unto death is the Greek, hens thanatou. This construction appears sixteen times in Jewish writings in the Septuagint, Old Testament apocrypha, and New Testament and can mean dying or almost dying (2 Chron. 32:24; Isa. 38:1; 39:1; Jon. 4:9; Zech. 5:3 (two times); 4 Macc. 1:9; 14:19; Sir. 4:28; 18:22; 34:12; 37:2; 51:6; Odes Sol. 16:6; Matt. 26:38; Mark 14:34). Observe how hens thanatou is used in Matthew 26:38, where Jesus says, "My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death." Jesus did not die at the moment of this grief, but his sorrow was so intense that it could have killed him. Clement's friend and colleague Polycarp used the same phrase around the same time in a manner certainly referring to the death of Jesus: "our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but]'whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave" (To the Philippians 1:2). Thus, without contextual considerations, an interpretation based solely on language is inconclusive.
Others have interpreted the Greek word, martyresas for "testified" or "martyred" in 1 Clement 5:4, 7. However, it appears that those in the Asia Minor church did not use the word in that sense until the middle of the second century. Our first discovery of the word being certainly employed in this manner is in The Martyrdom ofPolycarp (see Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19811, 4:504-8) where the author uses it several times in this sense. A possible earlier exception is found in Revelation 2:13, although we cannot be certain this is what the author had in mind. It is possible that Clement employs it here in the sense of being a martyr. However, it is arguable that Clement used the term to refer to being a witness and not a martyr, since Clement writes around 95 from Rome.
But the context in which Clement uses the term may lead us to conclude that he was referring to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. In 1 Clement 6, Clement continues his thoughts from 5:1-2. Clement says that, in addition to Peter, Paul, and possibly all of the apostles, there was a vast number of other believers who became examples for us, because they had been through horrible persecutions. He adds that Christian women suffered horrible torture but that they reached and achieved the suitable honorable prize." Note 16 (page 35) in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, rev. 2d ed., J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans.; M. W. Holmes, ed. and rev. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999) comments on the women Danaids and Dircae: "In ancient mythology, the daughters of Danaus were given as prizes to the winners of a race; thus it is likely that this is a reference to Christian women being raped prior to being martyred. Dirce was tied to the horns of a bull and then dragged to death." So it seems that Clement is saying that Christian women were martyred, and the language used was euphemistic (i.e., "they safely reached the goal"). Thus, there is good reason to hold that similar words used for Peter and Paul (i.e., "went to his appointed place of glory" and "went to the holy place') meant that they died a martyr's death, especially since this is attested elsewhere and no conflicting accounts exist.
At minimum, Clement refers to the continuous sufferings of Peter and Paul and probably refers to their martyrdoms for two reasons: (1) A euphemism similar to what Clement uses for their deaths, "went to his appointed place" and "went to the holy place," is used in the chapter that follows for other Christians who were certainly martyred: "they safely reached the goal" (6:2). (2) Their martyrdoms are attested by other sources. See discussion of Eusebius, Origen, and Tertullian, pp. 58-59 (see also chapter 3, n54). Either way, Peter and Paul are described as willing to suffer both continuously and greatly for their faith, whether or not they were martyred.
47. To the Philippians 9:2 (author's translation).
48. To the Smyrnaeans 3:2 (author's translation).
49. Ibid., 3:4.
50. Kittel and Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 3:631- 32. Colin Brown, gen. ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 1:461-62. See also Hebrews 12:2.
51. Scorpiace, 15, in Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, eds. and trans., TheAnte-Nicene Fathers.
52. It is uncertain whether "the lives of the Caesars" is the title or the subject matter of a book. This book has either been lost, or Tertullian is referring to the work of Tacitus and is only using it in reference to Nero's campaign to kill Christians (The Twelve Caesars 15.44).
53. The text reads:
But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed. (Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb translation)
For the entire text of The Annals, go to the Web site www.classics.mit.edu/ Tacitus/annals.html. This passage is also interesting in that Tacitus wrote that Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate "checked for the moment" Christianity, but then it "broke out not only in Judaea ... but even in Rome." This is strikingly consistent with the accounts in the Gospels and Acts of the transformation of the disciples, who were emboldened through seeing the risen Jesus to publicly proclaim him in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth" (Acts 1:8).
It should be noted that most scholars accept this passage in Tacitus as authentic, but a very few question it. Some assert that Tacitus cannot be regarded as a source who confirms the existence of Jesus, because he was not born until about twenty-five years after Jesus, so all of his information is secondhand. This type of thinking is seriously flawed. If we conducted historical inquiry that way today, we could know very little about ancient history. For example, much of what we know about Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus comes from the ancient Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius. However, Tacitus and Suetonius are even more removed in time from Julius and Augustus than they were from Jesus. If we listened to this reasoning, we could know very little about these two most famous Roman Caesars. In fact, no one today could write a history of the American Civil War, since it would by no means be firsthand knowledge. But we can write an accurate history of the Civil War, since there are letters, documents, and the written testimonies of those who were there. Tacitus and Suetonius were a lot closer to the events they write about than we are to the American Civil War.
In his book, A Marginal Jew, volume 1, critical scholar John Meier states, "despite some feeble attempts to show that this text is a Christian interpolation in Tacitus, the passage is obviously genuine. Not only is it witnessed in all the manuscripts of the Annals, the very anti-Christian tone of the text makes Christian origin almost impossible" (90). Similarly, in Jesus Outside the New Testament, Van Voorst writes that only a few words in the text are generally disputed, such as Tacitus's spelling of the word Crestians for Christians, and his identification of Pilate as "procurator" instead of the more accurate "prefect." He writes that, on the basis of these problems, a few have claimed that the entire passage is the result of a subsequent Christian editor, but he calls this "pure speculation" (42-43, n. 60). The differences are easily reconciled. Moreover, the style of the text definitely belongs to Tacitus. Pagan editors did not express themselves in the Latin that Tacitus uses, a unique style with an economy of words. He was not prone to use redundant phrases within a sentence, but made his words count in other phrases if possible (ibid., 43) and a Christian editor would not have had Tacitus call Christianity a "deadly superstition." Besides all of this, the passage fits well in the context. Tacitus was a Roman governor and could have had knowledge of past events concerning the Roman Empire. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that Tacitus mentions Jesus as a historical person and his crucifixion by Pilate and the brutal executions of Christians by Nero as historical events.
54. Origen, Contra Celsum, 2.56 in Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, eds. and trans., The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
55. Ibid., 2.77.
56. Origen's commentary on Genesis, volume 3. This work has been lost but is cited by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 3.1. Crucifying victims upside down or in positions other than upright is mentioned by Seneca (Dialogue 6, 20.3) and Josephus (Jewish War 5.449-51). A recent study by a critical historian concluded with the likelihood that Peter was executed between 64 and 68 by Nero. See Michael Grant, Saint Peter: A Biography (New York: Scribner's, 1994), ch. 13.
57. Ecclesiastical History 2.25.8; 3.1. Ben Witherington III sees the manner of Peter's death reported in John's gospel (21:18-19): "In the reference to the stretching out of his hands, which is a common metaphor for crucifixion, it is likely that we are being told not only how Peter would die but how Peter did die, some twenty-five to thirty years before this Gospel was published, at least in its present form" (Ben Witherington III, John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995], 356).
58. Ecclesiastical History 2.23. Some critical skeptics like to portray Eusebius as a liar. On what basis do they make this assertion? In the table of contents of his work, Preparation of the Gospel (or Evangelical Preparation) under book 12, chapter 31, he writes, "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." Some critics have claimed on the basis of this statement that Eusebius promoted the practice of deceit in order to advance Christianity. A closer look, however, reveals that this is not the case.
Evangelical Preparation contains fifteen books by Eusebius. In books 1012, Eusebius argues that Greek writers like Plato had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of Hebrew writers such as Moses (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel, Edwin Hamilton Gifford, trans. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 19811, part 1, books 1-9). In order to accomplish his goal, Eusebius's format throughout is to cite the Greek writers, often at length, with acknowledgements, and then to cite the Bible on the same topic. In chapter 31, Eusebius begins by quoting Plato: "But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly? 'Truth, 0 Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it'" (p. 657). The reference is from Plato's "Laws" 663D where he, of course, is establishing principles with which to base civil law in the land. Eusebius then compares Plato's words with the Old Testament: "Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction! Chapter 31 is concluded with that statement, and Eusebius moves on to another topic.
It may be helpful to look at the Greek employed. The word used by Plato is pseudos, which typically means a lie or imitation. However, Plato's context and the passage may justify a nuance for the following reasons: (1) Plato uses the term, "good lie" (agathopseudesthai), eliminating harmful intent. Whereas elsewhere the term "lie" usually indicates ill will. One translator renders the term as "useful fiction," instead of "falsehood" (Plato in Twelve Volumes, 12 vols., R. G. Bury, trans. [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914-19351,10.125). (2) The context may justify a softer translation than "lies" or "deceit." Plato asks who is happier in life: the righteous person or the one who has everything-health, wealth, prestige, but who is arrogant and unjust. Plato then reasons why the righteous person is happiest. He then says that even if his conclusion is false, it is still a beneficial position to motivate one to live a devout and righteous life. Then he reasons why it is expedient to hold his position. Plato then sums up his position: (a) From arguments, we see that the unjust life is not only shameful, but also in all truth not as pleasant as the righteous life and (b) even if his reasoning is wrong, the conclusion that telling people that being righteous brings the greatest amount of happiness is expedient for the common good. Plato's colleague responds that truth is noble, yet to persuade men is not easy to do. Plato answers that it is quite easy and provides an example. Finally, he says we should pass this teaching to the children (that the just life is the happiest). By doing so we shall "not only be saying what is most true," but we will also convince those who may not normally choose to live a just life. Plato has not encouraged a person to lie. He has merely said that he believes he is correct in his belief, but even if he is not, his belief is still expedient. Finally, he claims we should pass his teaching on because it is true and because by using his reasons for living righteously those inclined toward being unjust may choose to bejust. With this in mind, let's see how Eusebius employs Plato.
When Eusebius refers to "falsehood," he is not encouraging Christians to lie for the benefit of the kingdom of Christ. (1) In his comparison with the Hebrew Scriptures he states that thousands of passages similar to Plato's can be found. He then lists a few examples of human passions attributed to God that he claims 'are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." These are Jewish reasons why one should live the righteous life. The result is that those who are not naturally inclined to live righteously may be encouraged to do so for fear of the consequences. Writers of the Old Testament obviously believed such consequences were real. So in Eusebius's comparison of Plato to the Hebrew Scriptures, he is saying that Plato copied the idea from them that certain devices that do not exactly reflect reality may be used to persuade to live righteously. The Hebrew writers attributed human qualities to God to explain why we should not worship other gods and the reasons behind other laws. Plato copied this principle, says Eusebius, when he wrote that he presented the truth for why men should be moral because a moral life makes one happier than an immoral one. However, Plato continues, even if he is mistaken and evil men comply, the goal of a moral society is obtained. (2) The Hebrew and Christian Scriptures never encourage one to lie. In fact quite the opposite is true (Ps. 120:2; Prov. 6:16-19; 12:19, 22; Rom. 3:7, Col. 3:9; 1 John 2:21; Rev. 21:27; 22:15). (3) A similar section is found in Eusebius's sequel, Proof of the Gospel (3.5) about lying to bring people into the kingdom of Christ. However, Eusebius is speaking in a very sarcastic tone in context, clearly intending his readers to understand that such is preposterous. Therefore, there is no reason to believe he would encourage just the opposite in this related writing. Further, Eusebius's examples of anthropopatheia indicate that he saw the value in offering reasons why one should be righteous; namely that this may motivate those to be righteous who would not normally be inclined to do so. God may not sleep or experience jealousy as humans do, but these figures of speech ("good lies"?) motivate people to live righteously. Thus, Eusebius has demonstrated how the Greeks have borrowed from the older Hebrew, which is the intent of the passage. The assertion that Eusebius encouraged deceit should be rejected. At the very least, his solitary statement cannot be taken as having proved this to be his meaning.
59. Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus and a leader in the church of the late second and early third century. In a work attributed to him the fates of the apostles are listed. The true dating and authorship of this text is doubtful. The fates given for Peter and Paul are consistent with what others wrote, for example Tertullian, Origen, and Dionysius of Corinth (as quoted by Eusebius). The accounts regarding the remaining apostles are interesting and may contain historical kernels, but they are anecdotal and cannot be accorded too much weight. Following is the list as it appears in the work attributed to Hippolytus:
On the Twelve Apostles: Where Each of Them Preached and Where He Met His End: 1. Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner. 2. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried. 3. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found. 4. James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there. 5. Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there. 6. Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia. 7. And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia. 8. And Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians, and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spear at Calamene, the city of India, and was buried there. 9. And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem, was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple. 10. Jude, who is also called Lebbaeus, preached to the people of Edessa, and to all Mesopotamia, and fell asleep at Berytus, and was buried there. 11. Simon the Zealot, the son of Clopas, who is also called Jude, became bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just, and fell asleep and was buried there at the age of 120 years. 12. And Matthias, who was one of the seventy, was numbered along with the eleven apostles, and preached in Jerusalem, and fell asleep and was buried there. 13. And Paul entered into the apostleship a year after the assumption of Christ; and beginning at Jerusalem, he advanced as far as Illyricum, and Italy, and Spain, preaching the Gospel for thirtyfive years. And in the time of Nero he was beheaded at Rome, and was buried there." (Roberts, Donaldson, and Coxe, eds. and trans., The AnteNicene Fathers, Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix I ECF 1.5.0.2.3.01)
In addition, Foxe's Book of Martyrs is a sixteenth-century book that gives details of the fate of all of the apostles. Foxe claimed to have reputable sources from which he received his data. However, he cites few of them, and those that he apparently used are now lost. Because of its late dating, we cannot assign much weight to his records for the purpose of historical investigation.
60. Acts 7:54-60.
61. Acts 12:1-3.
62. First Clement 5. From Acts 12 on, a theme of the Acts account is the fortitude of Peter, Paul and others in the midst of persecution and suffering.
63. Any recantation by the disciples would have provided much ammunition for Christian opponents like Celsus, who wrote strongly against the church in the third quarter of the second century (around 170). Celsus's work has since been lost, but he is cited frequently and Origen in particular wrote to answer his charges in Contra Celsum (200). Likewise, it would also have provided some powerful arguments for Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, first-century Jew ish scholars and many others who were critical of Christian claims. For details on these writers and their complaints against Christianity, see Habermas, Historical Jesus, chapter 9.
64. There are many statements on the Christians' willingness to suffer martyrdom that are made by friends and enemies. A selection of these sources might include Shepherd ofHermas(parable 9, section 28; vision 3, section 1, verse 9-2:1; 5:2); Melito of Sardis (cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.26.3); Dionysius of Corinth (cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.25.8); Hegesippus (cited by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.32.3; 2.23.18; 4.22.4); Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History2.25; 5.2.2-3; Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, in his letter to Victor of Rome; Josephus, Antiquities 20.200; and the correspondence of Pliny (10.96-97). The New Testament notes the martyrdoms of Stephen (Acts 7:59-60), James the brother of John (12:2), and Antipas (Rev. 2:13).
65. Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, and Origen.
66. In addition to the seven, there is also Paul, Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria. We have saved for the next chapter a discussion of the significant evidence for Paul and James the brother of Jesus regarding the two primary topics in this chapter-their beliefs that they also saw the risen Jesus and their suffering and martyrdom.
67. Rudolf Bultmann, New Testament and Mythology," in Kerygma and Myth, Hans Werner Bartsch, ed.; Reginald H. Fuller, trans. (New York: Harper and Row, 1961), 42; cf. 39.
68. Gerd Ludemann, What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection, John Bowden, trans. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 80. Ludemann holds that visions caused the beliefs.
69. In an interview by Peter Jennings in The Search for Jesus (American Broadcasting Corp. [ABC], July 2000).
70. See details in Gary R. Habermas, "Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What Are Critical Scholars Saying?" Philosophia Christi, forthcoming.
Chapter 4: A Quintet of Facts (4 + 1): The Last Three
1. First Corinthians 15:9-10.
2. Galatians 1:12-16,22-23.
3. Philippians 3:6-7.
4. We may ask the question, "How do we know Paul wrote these letters and why should we trust him?" The bulk of critical scholarship holds that there was a man named Paul who wrote some letters. This fact is attested by early and multiple witnesses (2 Peter 3:15-16; 1 Clem. 47:1-3 [c. 95-96]; Polycarp in To the Philippians 3:2; 11:2-3 [c. 110]; Ignatius, To the Ephesians 12:2 [c. 110)). Some early witnesses attribute specific letters to Paul. Clement of Rome (95) attributes I Corinthians to Paul (1 Clem. 47:1-3). Polycarp (c. 110) attests to Pauline authorship of Philippians and 1 Corinthians (To the Philippians 3:2; 11:2-3). Scholars also note a consistency of writing style and unified content throughout at least some letters ascribed to Paul.
We can trust Paul as a witness for at least two reasons: (1) Like the disciples, he was willing to suffer continually and to die for his belief that the risen Jesus had appeared to him. This is strong evidence that he was not intentionally lying. (2) Early leaders of the church acknowledged his place of authority to be like that of the original apostles. Polycarp wrote that Paul "accurately and reliably taught the word of truth" (To the Philippians 3:2), and Polycarp lists Paul among the apostles (9:1). Around the same time as Polycarp, Ignatius wrote of his high regard for Paul (To theEphesians 12:2). Ignatius seems to place Peter and Paul at an apostolic level of authority that is above his own (To the Romans 4:3).
In addition, Paul's writings are certainly cited twenty-one times by five of the apostolic fathers and perhaps alluded to on several other occasions. Ignatius cites him once: To Polycarp 5:1. Polycarp cites him sixteen times: To the Philippians 1:3; 2:2; 4:1 (3 times, the second of which may be a dual reference to 2 Cor. 6:2); 5:1, 3; 6:1, 2 (2 times); 9:2; 11:1, 2, 4; 12:1 (2 times). The author of 2 Clement cites him in 19:2. The author of Martyrdom ofPolycarpcites him in 1:2. Papias cites him twice in Fragments, in Traditions of the Elders 2 (2 Cor. 12:4) and 5 (1 Cor. 15:25), although this portion of Fragments must be considered later, since it is from Irenaeus rather than the apostolic fathers. The epistle To Diognetus, which is included among writings of the apostolic fathers, cites Paul (12.5), but this epistle was probably written after 150 and is, therefore, not included among the twenty-one citations.
The following letters of Paul are certainly cited by the apostolic fathers, although not necessarily attributed to him: Romans twice (one of the references could be from Romans or 2 Corinthians, so it has only been counted once); 1 Corinthians three times; 2 Corinthians five times (one of the references could be from Romans or I Corinthians so it has been counted once); Galatians once; Ephesians five times; Philippians twice; 1 Thessalonians once; 2 Thessalonians once; I Timothy twice.
5. Acts 7:58; 8:1-3; 9:1-19; 22:3-16; 26:9-23. Luke's record of Paul's remarks concerning his pre-Christian actions against the church are found in 22:1-5; 26:4-5, 9-11. In 22:4-5, Paul says that he persecuted the church to the death, arresting men and women, throwing them into prison, and finally bringing them to Jerusalem in order to be punished ("to death" from the Greek achri thanatou. This phrase is not found in the LXX. In the New Testament it appears only in Revelation 2:10 and 12:11. Paul's testimony in Acts 26:10 indicates that these persecutions included seeing Christians put to death. Thus, the phrase achri thanatou, like hens thanatou (e.g., Matt. 26:38; Mark. 14:34), most likely includes death. In Acts 26:4-5, Paul says that "all the Jews" knew of his prior life in Judaism as a strict Jew and is very similar to what he writes in Galatians 1:22- 23. In Acts 26:9-11, he confesses to imprisoning many Christians, voting that they be put to death resulting in their execution, punishing them often (perhaps through torturous beatings), trying to make them blaspheme Christ, and persecuting them even outside of Jerusalem to foreign cities. See note 4 in this chapter for more information on Paul.
6. Galatians 1:22-23.
7. It would be nice to also have a letter by Paul written prior to his conversion, expressing his hatred for the church or a mention of Saul/Paul by a non-Christian source confirming his anti-Christian actions. Unfortunately, if any of these ever existed, they have not survived.
8. Acts 9:1-19; 22:3-21; 26:9-23; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:8. Some ask why Paul added his name to the list in the creed in 15:8. Many hold that by adding his name to the list, Paul regards his experience of the risen Jesus to be in some sense on par with the appearances of Jesus to the other apostles. However, the extent of the comparison is debated. Atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann believes that this passage indicates that Paul viewed the nature of his experience to be precisely like those experienced by the disciples (Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, eds., Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000 1, 61). Liidemann's theory is somewhat aggressive. The highly critical New Testament scholar John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar writes, "Paul needs in 1 Cor. 15 to equate his own experience with that of the preceding apostles. To equate, that is, its validity and legitimacy, but not necessarily its mode or manner.... Paul's own entranced revelation should not be ... the model for all the others" (John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography[San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994], 169).
9. The fact that Jews would have considered that Jesus was cursed by God (Gal. 3:13; cf. Deut. 21:23) complicates any suggestion that Paul was leaning toward Christianity.
10. Atheist philosopher Michael Martin attempts to downplay this factor in Paul's conversion by stating: "Why should the fact that Paul persecuted Christians and was subsequently converted to Christianity by his religious experience be given special existential significance? Whatever his past record, at the time of his report he was a zealous, religious believer and not a religious skeptic" (Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity [Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 19911, 84). It seems that for Martin, it is not good enough to be anti-Christian in order to be considered a good witness. One must also be anti-religious-as though that carries no biases. But the knife cuts both ways here-some religious skeptics reveal a different sort of religious bias.
Bible critic Roy Hoover makes a similar move: "No New Testament text claims that the risen Jesus appeared to anyone who had not been a follower of Jesus or who did not become a believer" (Copan and Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? 134). This is quite a leap for Hoover to make, simply writing off those who became believers because they thought they saw the risen Christ. Both Martin and Hoover fail to address the question concerning what led them to this belief against their previous wishes to reject this false Messiah and his followers. So how do Martin and Hoover account for Paul's experience? Hoover writes, "The risen Jesus was seen by one Pharisee who was a zealous enemy of the early church-Paul, from Tarsus; but so far as we know, Paul never met the Jesus of history and cannot, therefore, be counted among his enemies" (ibid., 135). If we followed Hoover's logic, no one who fought against the Nazis in World War II could consider Hitler his enemy unless he had personally met him.
In answer to Paul's conversion, Martin cites the conversion of Muhammad, whom he says converted from polytheism to monotheism based on his testimony of a primary source of revelation (i.e., the archangel Gabriel). Muhammad claimed that Gabriel directly gave him revelation from heaven, which eventually became the Qur'an. Martin is saying that if a primary source of revelation is so strong, why accept Paul's testimony while rejecting Muhammad's (Martin, Case Against Christianity, 84). Martin overlooks a few important data: First, testimony as a primary source is only one factor in historical considerations. Anyone can claim to have an experience (e.g., Sun Myung Moon, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones). But one must look at the evidence as well. There is evidence against the Qur'an being from God. This evidence involves textual, historical, and source challenges. Second, it is thought by many that Muhammad's dissatisfaction with the paganism and idolatry in his society existed prior to his alleged revelations. If this is true, his embracing of monotheism is not out of the ordinary, and no conversion from polytheism is required. On the other hand, Paul seems to have been quite content with, and extremely sold out to, his cause in Judaism. Indeed, he was on his way to arrest Christians on his own initiative when his experience occurred. His radical conversion must be accounted for. Third, the quality of the testimony concerning Muhammad is not on the same level as that for Paul. We have Paul's own testimony of what happened to him, described in his own writings. The conversion of Muhammad is recorded in the Hadith, containing traditions that developed much later than Muhammad's lifetime and which were recorded by others. Even if reliable, these are secondary sources, as are Luke's accounts of Paul's conversion, although Luke's accounts are much closer to the time of the events they describe. Another example Martin could have provided is Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, who claimed to have received direct revelation through the angel Moroni. However, Smith's credibility as a prophet is highly dubious due to problems with the Book ofAbraham, as well as the challenges posed by no specific archaeological confirmation for the Book of Mormon, not to mention very serious problems with those who are said to have personally seen Smith's golden plates. For more on Smith and these challenges, see Michael Licona, Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock (Virginia Beach, Va.: TruthQuest, 1998), chaps 3-4.
In spite of the problems intrinsic to the unwillingness of Martin and Hoover to see the full value in Paul's testimony, at least one other problem is evident: Do Martin and Hoover consider more valid the testimony of someone who had seen the risen Christ or believed that he had risen, yet still refused to become a Christian? Wouldn't we want to question the credibility of such a witness?
11. The sufferings of Paul appear on numerous occasions in Acts: Paul is stoned, dragged outside the city and left for dead (14:19); Paul and Silas are flogged, thrown into prison, and their feet fastened in stocks (16:19-24); Paul and Silas are hunted by a mob (17:5); the crowds are stirred up against Paul, forcing him to be escorted out of the city (17:13-15); the Jews arrest Paul and bring him before a Roman proconsul (18:12-13); a Jewish crowd seizes Paul, based on false accusations, drags him from the temple, and attempts to kill him, an action stopped by a Roman commander and troops (21:27-36); more than forty men take an oath not to eat or drink until they have killed Paul, an action again stopped by a Roman commander (23:12-35). This does not include other persecutions of believers recorded in Acts in which the apostles' involvement is not specified. In 2 Corinthians 11:23-28, Paul says that he has been imprisoned on account of the gospel multiple times, beaten so many times that he cannot count them. He has lived often in danger of death, having received thirty-nine lashes five times from the Jews. He has been beaten with rods three times, stoned once, shipwrecked three times, been in danger in every conceivable place, gone sleepless nights, and endured times without food, as well as cold and exposure. For sources on Paul's tribulations and martyrdom outside of his own writings and Acts, see pp. 57-59.
12. See the previous endnote.
13. For example, Muhammad (see n. 10).
14. Gary R. Habermas, "Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions," in Religious Studies 25 (1989), 167-77.
15. For details on the find, reasons for accepting its authenticity, and a historical study on James, see Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).
16. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3. That Jesus had brothers is well attested, being recorded in all four gospels and some of the earliest writings in the New Testament: Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:13-14; 1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19.
17. Josephus, Antiquities 20:200. Unlike Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum (18:3), this passage is accepted as authentic by the majority of scholars. Among the reasons for accepting the authenticity of this passage by Josephus are: (1) a Christian editor would have used complimentary language to describe James and more laudatory language referring to Jesus (Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 20001,83-84).(2) The point of Josephus is that Ananus was deposed because he instigated illegal executions of several enemies, including James. However, James is mentioned simply as an example. If a Christian editor was responsible for the inclusion of James, we would expect more information to be provided. (3) Josephus's account differs from other Christian accounts of the death of James and, therefore, appears to be independent of Christian tradition (see Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23).
Louis Feldman writes, "The passage about James [20.197-200] has generally been accepted as authentic" (Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds. Joseph us, the Bible, and History [ Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987 ], 434). Elsewhere Feldman mentions "the authenticity of which has been almost universally acknowledged" in regard to this text (Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity [Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 19891, 56). Another Jewish scholar, Zvi Baras, states that this passage "is considered authentic by most scholars" (ibid., 341). Evangelical Christian historian Edwin Yamauchi comments, "Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage" (Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Jesus and the Scriptures,"Fides et Historia 13 [ 19801:53). New Testament scholar Van Voorst writes, 'The overwhelming majority of scholars holds that the words'the brother of Jesus called Christ' are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found" (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 83). For more on Josephus and the disputed Testimonium Flavianum, see pp. 250-54, and chapter 3, n42.
18. Galatians 2:12-13.
19. Acts 15:19-20.
20. Hegesippus's works have been lost. However, Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2.23 devotes a chapter to the martyrdom of James, in which he writes, "But the most accurate account of him is given by Hegesippus, who came in the generation after the apostles. He writes, in Book 5 of his Memoirs ..." (Eusebius, Eusebius: The Church History, Paul L. Maier, ed. and trans. [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 19991, 81). Eusebius then provides this information on James's martyrdom from Hegesippus. Ben Witherington III comments, however, that "the Josephus account is probably both earlier and more circumspect and deserves the nod as best reflecting the historical realities of the situation. While Eusebius is a careful historian by ancient standards, he does not always exercise the sort of critical judgment of his sources one might wish" (Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III, The Brother of Jesus [San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 20031, 192).
21. John 7:5 is interesting. When verses 3-5 are considered, it seems that his brothers had heard of his alleged miracles, did not believe the reports, and were, in a sense, daring their brother to do them in front of crowds. They were calling his bluff.
22. Matthew may also imply that Jesus' brothers were not sympathetic to his mission. In Matthew 13:55-57 (cf. Mark 6:3-4), Jesus' mother, his brothers, and sisters are mentioned by those in his hometown who were offended at him. Jesus responded, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor" (NIV, emphasis added). This may imply that Matthew was aware that some in Jesus' own home did not believe in him and, thus, would agree with Mark and John that his brothers were unbelievers. This is confirmed by Mark, who distinguishes between Jesus' birth mother and brothers and those considered his brothers in the faith (3:31-3 5). New Testament critical scholar John Meier adds, 'Mark himself makes this scene even more negative in his redactional introduction (3:21), where he depicts the family of Jesus (hoi par' autou) setting out to seize him because they think he has gone mad" (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 3 [New York: Doubleday, 20011, 69). Further, the comments of the dying Jesus committing Mary to John's care by designating John as Mary's son and Mary as John's mother may indicate that James was not a believer at this point, since Jesus seems to imply that his mother had no other son in a spiritual sense to care for her (ibid.). Meier also points to the principles of multiple attestation and embarrassment in order to demonstrate the historical veracity of those in Jesus' family who did not believe in him. Unbelief on the part of several of Jesus' family members is found in multiple gospels and may have been "embarrassing, if not deeply offensive, to a good part of the early church" (ibid., 70).
23. We can only speculate when the appearance to James occurred. Luke reports that Jesus' brothers were gathered with his disciples and mother for constant prayer a few days before Pentecost (Acts 1:14), indicating that James had become a believer by then. This would place the appearance within fifty days of Jesus' resurrection.
24. Acts 1:14 and 1 Corinthians 9:5 indicate that more than one of Jesus' brothers became believers. Church tradition reports that two letters in the New Testament were by the brothers after whom they were named: James and Jude.
25. Eusebius cites Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria on the martyrdom of James (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23). Josephus reports that James was executed as a lawbreaker (i.e., one who broke the Jewish law [Josephus, Antiquities 20.2001). In the New Testament, Christians were often considered lawbreakers by the Jewish authorities because of their beliefs (Acts 6:13; 18:13; 21:28). Darrell L. Bock adds, `What Law was it James broke, given his reputation within Christian circles as a Jewish-Christian leader who was careful about keeping the Law? It would seem likely that the Law had to relate to his christological allegiances and a charge of blasphemy. This would fit the fact that he was stoned, which was the penalty for such a crime, and parallels how Stephen was handled as well." See Darrell L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 196 n. 30.
26. Reginald H. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 37.
27. It is generally agreed that the evidence for the empty tomb is not as strong as that for the disciples' belief that they had seen the risen Jesus. However, this is a testimony to the strength of the fact concerning the beliefs of the disciples, rather than the weakness of the evidence for the empty tomb, which is indeed strong. Prominent critical scholars who accept the empty tomb include Blank, Blinzler, Bode, von Campenhausen, Delorme, Dhanis, Grundmann, Hengel, Lehmann, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schenke, Schmitt, Schubert, Schwank, Schweizer, Seidensticker, Strobel, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vogtle, and Wilckens. These are listed by New Testament critic, Jacob Kremer, whose own name can be added (Die Osterevangelien-Geschichten um Geschichte [Stuttgart, Germany: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 19771, 49-50). Craig lists sixteen additional prominent scholars, most of whom are not evangelical: Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, Ellis, Gundry, Hooke, Jeremias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Marshall, Moule, Perry, Robinson, and Schnackenburg (Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection ofJesus, 374). These forty-five prominent scholars believe that there was an empty tomb, for whatever reason. Gary Habermas's very recent study identified more than one hundred scholars who accept one or more arguments in favor of the empty tomb versus thirty-five who accept one or more arguments against it. This is about a 3:1 ratio.
28. Habermas has counted a total of twenty-three arguments for an empty tomb posited by a number of critical scholars from 1975-2002.
29. Not only is this the testimony of the New Testament (Acts 2), but Tacitus reports that the church started in Judea (Annals 15:44).
30. Pentecost came fifty days after Passover. It was not until after receiving the Holy Spirit that they began their public preaching concerning the risen Jesus.
31. This is much the view of New Testament critic Gerd Liidemann. See Copan and Tacelli, eds., Jesus'Resurrection: Factor Figment? 153.
32. This information was obtained from the Medical Examiner's Office for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The physician in charge said that even in Virginia, which has a climate warm and damp enough to promote quick decomposition, an unprepared corpse undergoing a normal rate of decomposition should still after fifty days have its hair and an identifying stature. The wounds would "definitely" be identifiable. Thus, a corpse in a much worse state than what would be expected for arid Jerusalem would still be identifiable after fifty days.
33. We have argued that theft of the body by the disciples is an extremely implausible explanation for the empty tomb, given the obvious sincerity of the disciples in their beliefs, as shown in their willingness to suffer death to bear witness to Jesus' resurrection. Also see the discussion on fraud as an explanation, pp. 93-95.
34. Luke 24:12; John 20:3-9.
35. It is interesting to note the context in which this statement appears in the Talmud (Kiddushin 82b):
Happy is he who sees his parents in a superior craft, and woe to him who sees his parents in a mean craft. The world cannot exist without a perfume-maker and without a tanner-happy is he whose craft is that of a perfume-maker, and woe to him who is a tanner by trade. The world cannot exist without males and without females-happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females. R. Meir said: One should always teach his son a clean and easy craft, and earnestly pray to Him to Whom fall] wealth and property belong....
Perfume-makers and tanners (i.e., leather workers) are contrasted. The former is highly regarded, while the latter is not. The analogy of male and female children seems to be an attempt to clarify the point: the former is highly regarded, while the latter is not. This makes sense, especially if contemporary writers confirm that tanners were not considered among those esteemed. In Contra Celsum, Origen quotes the second-century critic of Jesus, Celsus, as saying, "We see, indeed, in private houses workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and persons of the most uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to utter a word in the presence of their elders and wiser masters" (3.55). According to Celsus, workers in wool and leather were considered to be of questionable character. Given that exceptions could be cited, as a general rule, tanners and females were lowly esteemed.
Origen recorded other remarks by Celsus concerning women: "Speaking next of the statements in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks of His punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, 'Who beheld this?' And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related to have seen him, he replies, 'A half-frantic woman, as you state.' And because she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Savior after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of Celsus culminates these statements also in adding, 'And some one else of those engaged in the same system of deception" (Origen, Contra Celsum, 2.59); 'Only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make converts" (ibid., 3.49); cf. ibid., 3.55.
The principle of embarrassment applied to the women's testimony can be pressed only so far. There are references where a higher view of women are found. Elsewhere in the Talmud it is written, "God has endowed women with a special sense of wisdom which man lacks" (Niddah 45), and where a woman's testimony is accepted (Ketubot 2:6-7). Of course, the Talmud is later than Josephus, whose Judaism was contemporary with that of Jesus' time. While exceptions exist, by and large a prejudice against the testimony of women can be shown in antiquity. What can be stated with certainty is that a woman's testimony concerning an empty tomb and a risen person would not have been preferable to a man's, whether or not it may have been allowable. The more important the testimony, the less likely a woman's word would have been taken at face value.
36. Josephus, The Life and Works of Flavius Joseph us, William Whiston, ed. and trans. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987).
37. W. Arndt, F. W. Danker, and W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. leeros.
38. Gaius Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44, Robert Graves, trans. (New York: Penguin, 1989), 80.
39. Osiek, Carolyn, "The Women at the Tomb: What Are They Doing There?" in Ex Auditu 9 (1993): 97-107.
40. That the disciples did not believe when they saw the empty tomb and were recorded as being stubborn doubters was unquestionably embarrassing to them. Thus we have a double use of the principle of embarrassment regarding the empty tomb.
41. Atheist philosopher Keith Parsons argues that the women naturally would be the first to see the risen Christ in an invented story, since it was their responsibility to anoint the body. However, this does not square with the Gospels' testimony that Joseph of Arimathea and/or Nicodemus prepared the body for burial with a substantial amount of spices. This was before the women's visit (Matt. 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-40). Moreover, an invented story of the resurrection could have recorded the appearance to the men while waiting at the tomb for the women to show up or after the women did their part in dressing the corpse. The women need only have played a secondary role.
42. William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson, 1972), 93-94.
43. New Testament critical scholar John Dominic Crossan believes that after Jesus' body was taken off of the cross, it was put in a common grave for criminals and eaten by dogs. However, there is no evidence whatsoever in support of his theory, not even a single competing account to the empty tomb that would imply that Jesus was buried elsewhere. There is only the assumption that Jesus' body was placed with the corpses of other executed criminals, which is in contrast to all of the accounts that we have. Moreover, it appears that the burial account is accurate and that the tomb's location was known (see "Wrong Tomb Theory," pp. 97-99). See Habermas, Historical Jesus, 126-29 for nine critiques of this view.
Introduction to Part 3: Is Jesus' Resurrection the Only Explanation?
1. See Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1998), 125, which notes in part:
David Strauss delivered the historical deathblow to the swoon theory held by Karl Venturini, Heinrich Paulus, and others. On the other hand, while Strauss popularized the hallucination theory, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Paulus pointed out errors in it. The major decimation of the hallucination theory came later in the century at the hands of Theodor Keim. Liberal scholars had long before dismissed fraud theories, while the legend theories, popular later in the century, were disproved by later critical research. So these scholars demolished each other's theories, thereby burying the major naturalistic attempts to account for Jesus' resurrection by the late 1800s.
2. Pronounced "bart."
3. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, vol. 4, part 1, E.T., G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, eds. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), 340.
4. Raymond Brown, "The Resurrection and Biblical Criticism," Commonweal 24 (Nov. 1967): esp. 233. Brown repeated a similar indictment against these theories in Raymond Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology(New York: Paulist, 1994), 163-65.
5. See Gary R. Habermas, "The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus' Resurrection" in Trinity Journal22NS (2001), 179-96.
6. Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? Terry L. Miethe, ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 142.
7. This is referred to as methodological naturalism, the method of explaining phenomena by looking for natural processes rather than supernatural causes. This is to be distinguished from metaphysical naturalism, which is a philosophy rather than a procedure that rules out even the possibility of a supernatural cause before any evidence is considered. Metaphysical naturalism has serious problems intrinsic to it that are discussed in chapter 8. Methodological naturalism is sometimes accepted as a valid method for scientific investigation by Christian philosophers, although other Christian philosophers are opposed to it. Properly used, it should not limit possible causes to the natural sphere. In explaining phenomena, if we never looked further than "God caused it," we would know very little about the world around us. Nevertheless, this does not justify the leap to metaphysical naturalism made by some critics. Certainly we are justified in seeking a natural cause when attempting to account for an event like a resurrection from the dead. However, this search does not justify the conclusion that resurrections never occur or are impossible, since the event being afforded consideration may be the very event that would overthrow such a conclusion. Philosopher and mathematician William Dembski warns that extreme methodogical naturalism is indistinguishable from metaphysical naturalism. See William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 119-20; cf. 67-69.
8. See pp. 166-71.
9. It is in such an evaluation that C. Behan McCullagh's criteria are helpful. See C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), ch. 2. Also see Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979), ch. 4, and N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), ch. 4, esp. sec. 4.
10. Since we have attempted to write this book in a manner that would be as easy as possible for the layperson, and because one of our objectives is that the readers remember the refutations, we have not included every possible refutation. We have only included those that we believe are the strongest.
Chapter 5: Always Looking for a Way Out
1. Buddhism scholar Kenneth Ch'en observes,
Obviously, since these various accounts of the Buddha's life are separated by such long intervals of time, they must be assigned different values. Chronologically, the fragments found in the Pali canon form the earliest stage, and for this reason must be accorded the highest consideration as far as reliability is concerned.... We will find that the former [Pali] recorded just a matter-of-fact description of the master's experience, with no attempt at adornment and embellishment, whereas the later [Sanskrit] included numerous details embroidered with interesting and miraculous episodes. (Kenneth K. S. Ch'en, Buddhism [Woodbury, Conn.: Barron's Educational Series, 19651, 16-17)
2. Robert M. Price, "Is There a Place for Historical Criticism?' Religious Studies, 27 (1991):371-88.
3. For information on the textual purity of both the Old and New Testaments, see Michael Licona, Behold, I Stand at the Door and Knock (Virginia Beach, Va.: TruthQuest, 1998), ch. 2.
4. It is insufficient to establish that the biblical text we have today is faithful to the original to refute the embellishment form of the legend theory. The reason is that today's critics deny that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. Rather they argue that the authors recorded and embellished oral traditions about Jesus that were being spread in the latter part of the first century. A major reason for this charge, though not the only one, is that most critics reject the possibility of supernatural events. This, of course, includes the fulfillment of specific prophecies. If specific prophecy is never supernaturally given, then Jesus could not have accurately predicted the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70 as was claimed (Matt. 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6). The Gospels recording this claim must have been written after 70. Therefore, in order to use the biblical records to refute the legend/embellishment theory, one must either establish that the specific Gospel texts are early and/or that the traditions contained in them are early. In our minimal facts approach, the latter approach has been adopted.
5. See discussion of the experiential testimony of the disciples in chapter 3.
6. In fact, simply for the sake of discussion, since we are using a minimal facts approach, one could even grant that some legend may exist in the New Testament and still demand that the critic must show that legend is responsible for the story of Jesus' resurrection. Indeed, we could go still further and say that details such as the angels and guard at the tomb might have been legends that crept into the story or deliberately placed there for literary functions without weakening our argument for Jesus' resurrection, since the facts we have are strongly established. This move does not compromise a high view of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, since certain points are being granted as possible only because (1) they are not relevant to determining whether Jesus rose from the dead in our minimal facts approach and (2) granting them allows us to focus on the relevant points.
7. See John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 160-61. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Lifeofa Mediterranean Peasant(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 404. It is interesting that Crossan himself admits to at least three things concerning his view: (1) Paul is a Pharisee and believes in the general resurrection of the dead. (2) 'For Paul ... bodily resurrection is the only way that Jesus' continued presence can be expressed." (3) "The question is not what it is that Paul means, because that is surely clear enough" (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 164-65). Thus, even though Crossan may hold that we don't have to understand Jesus' resurrection in a literal sense, he believes that Paul did teach a literal resurrection.
8. For a straightforward example of this reasoning, see Nancy Gibbs, The Message of Miracles,' Time Magazine, 10 April 1995, 70:
Liberals argue that it is not blasphemy to say the Resurrection never happened, because accounts of Christ's rising are meant metaphorically. ... One robs the Bible of its richness and poetry by insisting it should be read literally. Jesus was resurrected in the lives and dreams of his followers; the body of Christ is the church, not a reconstituted physical body. The Resurrection represents an explosion of power, a promise of salvation that does not depend on a literal belief in physical resurrection.
9. See the evidence presented for the empty tomb in chapter 4. Note that the arguments of the Jerusalem factor and enemy attestation are practically independent of the New Testament.
10. See pp. 120-22.
11. Deuteronomy 21:23; c.f. Galatians 3:13. John P. Meier writes, "No doubt the Christian claim that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Jewish Messiah had seemed shocking to Saul the Jew. Becoming a Christian meant for him overcoming and accepting the scandal of the cross" (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 3 vols., [New York, Doubleday, 199120011, 3:324).
12. Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius. See pp. 57-58.
13. Acts 2:22-32; 13:34-37.
14. Also note that in Peter's sermon as portrayed in Acts 10:40-41, he claims that he and others "ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead." Luke seems to be intending to record historical events when in Luke 1:1-3, he writes,
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
New Testament critical scholar Bart Ehrman comments,
There may indeed be fictional elements in the account, as we will see; but judging from the preface to volume one [i.e., Luke's gospel], from the subject matter of the narrative (the spread of the Christian church), and from the main characters themselves (who are, after all, historical persons), we can more plausibly conclude that Luke meant to write a history of early Christianity, not a novel. Moreover, all of the ancient Christian authors who refer to the book appear to have understood it in this way." (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2d ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000], 124)
See also A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Tes- tamen t (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 188-89. 'The work of Luke cannot be evaluated properly if we group it with inferior contemporary literature that treats of heroes, thaumaturges and other popular characters. It is genuine history" (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, and G. Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19811, 3:395).
Some scholars have noted that the appearance language in the New Testament is the language of sight (Luke 24:34; Acts 10:40-41; 13:30-31; 1 Cor. 15:5-8). The writers did not use metaphorical language, so they at least thought that God had acted literally upon them in the appearances of the risen Jesus. For example, see Gerald O'Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection: Examining the Major Problems in the Stories of Jesus' Resurrection (New York: Paulist, 1988), 12-19, and Robert H. Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), ch. 13.
We can also note with New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, "A careful reading of the patristic evidence suggests that indeed the vast majority of early Christians did believe that the type of information the Gospel writers communicated was historical fact, even as they recognized the more superficial parallels with the mythology of other worldviews" (Craig Blomberg, "Resurrection Redux," in Paul Copan, ed., Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan [Grand Rapids: Baker, 19981 106). Furthermore, although 2 Peter cannot be part of a "minimal facts" argument because many scholars question its authorship by Peter, it still provides early testimony that at least some Christians within one hundred years after Jesus were interpreting events such as Jesus' transfiguration and resurrection as historical events.
15. The second-century critic Celsus (c. 170), who wrote against Jesus' resurrection, provides arguments against a literal and bodily resurrection. See Origen, Contra Celsum, 1.68 where Origen notes Celsus's reasoning says that if miracles or a resurrection were claimed by Christians, Celsus and others would view them as Egyptian trickery. In 2.56, Origen responds to Celsus's assertion that Jesus' resurrection could have been a deception in which Jesus simply left the area for a while and then returned. In 2.59, Origen notes Celsus's accusation that the first witness of the risen Jesus was a half-frantic woman and the others who claimed to have seen Jesus were engaged in a "system of deception." Whatever else may be said of Celsus's arguments, he obviously was answering the Christian claim that Jesus had a literal resurrection. There is no suggestion that there might have been nonhistorical genre of resurrection claims that were meant to honor Jesus by portraying him as risen from the dead or to symbolize the explosion of power in the church. Regarding the latter theory, without a historical resurrection of Jesus, there would have been nothing to account for the church's explosion of power. The leader was dead, and his followers were in hiding. It was not the explosion of power in the church that led to the resurrection accounts. It was Jesus' resurrection that led to the explosion of power.
16. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 21.
17. Ibid. In this chapter Justin Martyr scoffs at this Roman desire to deify emperors, "And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?" The account is likewise mentioned by Suetonius (The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 100): 'An expraetor actually swore that he had seen Augustus' spirit soaring up to Heaven through the flames."
18. Justin Martyr's First Apology was written to the Roman emperor entreating him to investigate the false charges of impiety and wickedness made against Christians. In chapter 11, he says Christians are not a threat to Rome because they don't look for a human kingdom. In fact, Jesus taught civil obedience (ch. 17). Jesus taught a higher level of morality than other religions. For example, not only our works but even our thoughts are open to God (ch. 15). Christians are taught to love their enemies and pray for them (chs. 7-8). In chapter 20 he contends that many Christian teachings reflect the teachings of those the emperor honors. Thus, if on some points Christians teach the same things and on other points present an even higher morality, 'and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others?" Justin Martyr's objective is to demonstrate to the emperor that Christianity has a lot in common with other religions that enjoy Rome's approval, so the persecution should cease.
19. Gary R. Habermas, "Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions," Journal of Religious Studies 25 (1989): 167-77. The first account in pagan religions appears in writing around A.D. 150, whereas the creed in I Corinthians 15:3-5 can be dated as early as the early 30s and no later than 51. This is approximately a century before the pagan account appeared. It is possible that the account from 150 is earlier in its oral tradition. But there is no evidence that this is the case. In another article, Habermas writes, 'the tale of Isis and Osiris seems to be the only known case among the mystery religions where there exists both clear and early evidence that a dead god was said to be resuscitated, which is dated prior to the middle or late second century AD. As far as is known, the other 'resurrection' stories actually postdate the Christian message" (`Replies to Evan Fales: The Appearances of Jesus," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, 3.1 [ 20011, 79).
20. Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967), 197-201.
21. Ibid., 213, 219, 221, 223-24, 229, 251, 265.
22. Ben Witherington III writes, "Why in the world would a group trying to attract Gentiles make up a resurrection story, much less emphasize the material resurrection of Jesus? This notion was not a regular part of the pagan lexicon of the afterlife at all, as even a cursory study of the relevant passages in the Greek and Latin classics will show. Indeed, as Acts 17 [vv. 31-321 suggests, pagans were more likely than not to ridicule such an idea" (Copan, ed., Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? 136).
Not only were accounts of the "mystery religions" uncommon in firstcentury Israel, but miracle workers were uncommon in the period. Graham Twelftree writes, "In the period of two hundred years on each side of the life of the historical Jesus the number of miracle stories attached to any historical figure is astonishingly small" (Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 19991, 247). Citing Werner Kahl's research, Twelftree states that of approximately 150 miracle stories from antiquity that we know of only one other case in the entire miracle story tradition before Philostratus's Life of Apollonius (written after A.D. 217) of an immanent bearer of numinous or preternatural power (and then in only a singular version of his miracle)-Melampous, according to Diodorus of Sicily (writing c. 60-30 B. C.). Other Jewish and pagan miracle workers of the period he categorizes as petitioners or mediators of numinous power" (ibid.). There is no information from the extant literature of the period to indicate that miracle workers like Jesus were common. Other sources on this subject are Werner Kahl, New Testament Miracle Stories in Their Religious-Historical Setting (Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1994), 236, and A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints ofHistory (London: Duckworth, 1982), 103.
This is not to claim that miracle accounts were unknown in ancient historical writings. Some miracle accounts did exist. However, although these historians did not a prioridismiss the possibility of miracles on philosophical grounds as most do today (see ch. 8), they viewed such stories with skepticism. In The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), Colin Hemer discusses ancient historiography (ch. 3), then later sums up his findings, "Miracle has some considerable prominence in many of the Hellenistic and Roman historiographers, especially in the form of bizarre prodigies popularly taken to presage disaster." Hemer points out "the fluctuation and ambivalence between skepticism and credulity which characterizes many of these writers. In any case the supernatural is little more or less than an anomalous curiosity with historians in antiquity" (428-29). Elsewhere he comments, "It is clear that ancient writers were not completely naive or gullible, but accepted or rejected miraculous stories on the basis of their regard for the evidence, albeit differently weighted than modern historians. See for example Herodotus (2.73) on the story of the Phoenix" (441). For examples of historians of the period who did not accept miracle claims uncritically, see also Tacitus, Annals 1:28, and Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, e.g., Nero 56, and Vespasian 4.
23. Gunter Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1967), 164-66.
24. Ibid., 180-83, 195, 197-201. Wagner answers most of the alleged parallels of dying and rising gods in this work.
25. Gary R. Habermas. "Replies to Evan Fales: The Appearances of Jesus," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, 3.1 (2001), 79. In this article, Habermas provides other differences between the accounts of Osiris and Jesus.
26. This point is not insignificant. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in an afterlife. However, when someone dies and begins to experience that afterlife, he or she is not considered to have risen from the dead. Rather, a transition has occurred. Thus, Osiris did not rise from the dead, since the accounts report that he was assigned a high status in the underworld.
27. There are other marks that distinguish Jesus' death and resurrection from the alleged pagan parallels: (1) In the mystery religions, the gods did not die willingly as Jesus did. As Martin Hengel points out, "Attis and Adonis were killed by a wild boar, Osiris was torn to pieces by Typhon-Seth and Dionysus-Zagreus by the Titans. Heracles alone of the 'Greeks' voluntarily immolated himself [as a sacrifice]. However, not only did all this take place in the darkest and most distant past [so as not to be at all verifiable], but it was narrated in questionable myths" (Martin Hengel, Crucifixion [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977], 5-6). (2) Hengel likewise points out that "crucifixion plays no part in the mysteries" and cites the contribution of A. D. Nock, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, vol. 1, Z. Stewart, ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 170, as an authoritive refutation of those, specifically Charles Kerenyi, who claim that crucified gods are found in the mysteries. (3) In ancient romance literature, the hero was always saved at the last moment prior to being crucified, and there was the obligatory happy ending Mengel, Crucifixion, 81-82, 88).
Some critics appeal to the 1875 comparison of Christianity and other religions by Kersey Graves, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. However, this book suffers from the problems mentioned above and in this section. Even one of the Internet's main Web sites for skeptics, infidels.org, notes their concern regarding the conclusions and overall scholarship of the book, although they offer it online: "Note: the scholarship of Kersey Graves has been questioned by numerous freethinkers; the inclusion of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors in the Secular Web's Historical Library does not constitute endorsement by Internet Infidels, Inc. This document was included for historical purposes; readers should be extremely cautious in trusting anything in this book" (www.infidels.org/library/his- torical/kersey-graves/ 16/index.shtml. Accessed 20 December 2003.
No archaeological remains exist to tell precisely what pagan cults existed within first-century Palestine. According to Bruce Metzger of Princeton University, the earliest extant artifact is an early second-century invocation to Isis containing a list of sixty-seven places in Egypt and fifty-five sites outside Egypt where Isis was worshiped. One of those places was in Palestine (Bruce M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19681, 18-22). Thus, it appears that the cult had little if any known influence in the geographical region of Christianity's beginning.
28. Emory University's Islamic scholar, Gordon Newby, claims that the first account of Muhammad's phenomenal birth appeared between seventy-five and one hundred years after his death. He adds that there is no way to know if an oral tradition with an earlier date is responsible for the written account. He adds that the account is not historically reliable for several reasons: There is no Qur'anic base, the line of transmission is weak, and the tradition is not well substantiated by accounts known to be trustworthy (from a conversation with Gordon Newby, 21 October 1997). Another scholar writes the "oldest collections of historical traditions available to us date from about 125 years after the Prophet's lifetime" (Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad, Anne Carter, trans. [New York: Pantheon, 19801, 44). For this and other accounts, see Michael R. Licona, Cross Examined (Virginia Beach: TruthQuest, 1999), 153-55.
29. For discussion of Augustus's birth, see p. 170.
30. Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 94. Hemer cites two sources in support of this conclusion: D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1972); C. H. Holladay, 'Theos Aner" in Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977). Gary Habermas offers a number of serious problems with several ancient parallels, especially Apollonius's narrative in Gary R. Habermas, "Did Jesus Perform Miracles?" Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland, eds., Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 119-24.
31. See pp. 86-89.
32. In fact, many of the accounts of Jesus' miracles possess attributes that solicit historical confidence in the event. See note 12 in chapter 8. For in-depth analysis of Jesus' miracles and their historical credibility, see Twelftree, Jesus: The Miracle Worker, esp. 249-359.
33. Matthew 24:23-25; Mark 13:22.
34. Further refutations may be found on p. 143.
35. Matthew 28:11-15.
36. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 108: "You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven" (cf. ch. 17) in A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, and A. C. Coxe, eds. and trans., The An te-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Oak Harbor, Ore.: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
37. Charles Colson, "An Unholy Hoax? The Authenticity of Christ," BreakPoint syndicated column 020329, (29 March 2002).
38. Another difference between Jesus' disciples and those who suffer and die for their religious faith today is that the latter do it because they have believed the testimony of someone else. It is a matter of faith. The former suffered and died for what they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus to them. Those who suffer and die for their faith today die for what they believe is true. The disciples died for what they knew was either true or false. For example, being sure we saw someone on several occasions is generally a more sure belief than is accepting a religious ideology by faith. See the sections on the beliefs of the disciples (pp. 49-62) and Paul (pp. 64-66).
39. Arguably the most recent well-known critical scholar was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768) whose works were published posthumously in 1778 by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781).
40. Luke 24:9-11; John 20:8.
41. John 20:2, 13-15.
42. John 20:3-9. In Luke 24:10-12, we also are told the disciples rejected the women's story of the empty tomb.
43. John 20:24-25. The only disciple who seemed to believe was John. See John 20:8, which reports that John "saw [that the body was not in the tomb] and believed."
44. Matthew 28:17; Luke 24:34-53; John 20:15-20, 24-28.
45. See pp. 48-49.
46. Ignatius speaks of an apparent death theory that was circulating in about 110 (Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 1:1). He probably was referring to some form of Gnostic teaching.
47. William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ," Journal of the American Medical Association, 255.11, (21 March 1986): 1457.
48. Ibid., 1460.
49. Alex Metherell, in an interview with Lee Strobel in The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 197. Dr. Metherell is an engineer and medical researcher who specializes in bio-muscular physics, the study of what happens to muscles when they are under stress.
50. Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, "On the Physical Death," 1461.
51. With this in mind, the intent of breaking the legs of crucifixion victims in John's gospel is clear; to bring death on more quickly by making it impossible to breathe. SeeJohn 19:31-33.
52. Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, "On the Physical Death," 1463. Also of interest is Josephus' autobiography, The Life of Flavius Joseph us, in which he reports of seeing three friends on crosses during the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He went to Titus who had them removed from the crosses and provided with the best medical care. Of the three, two died and one survived:
And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealius, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered. (Josephus, The Life ofFlaviusJosephus, in The New Complete Works of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, trans. [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 19991, 420-21)
The fact that one of Josephus's friends survived crucifixion does not negate the modern medical opinion just stated. Taken from the cross, the victims could breathe normally. Further, the Gospels report that Jesus was brutally beaten and scourged prior to his crucifixion, whereas the Roman soldiers could not give such individual attention to the "many captives" crucified simultaneously as reported by Josephus. Even under the best of medical care of the day, two of the three still succumbed to their wounds. If historical, the spear thrust also confirms the death of Jesus. The medical implications of the spear wound are described in Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer, "On the Physical Death," 1462-63.
53. Quintilian, Declarationes maiores 6:9.
54. David Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 1:412.
55. In The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel quotes from his interview with Dr. Alex Metherell:
After suffering that horrible abuse, with all the catastrophic blood loss and trauma, he would have looked so pitiful that the disciples would never have hailed him as a victorious conqueror of death; they would have felt sorry for him and tried to nurse him back to health. So it's preposterous to think that if he had appeared to them in that awful state, his followers would have been prompted to start a worldwide movement based on the hope that someday they too would have a resurrection body like his. (Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19981, 202)
56. The acquaintance, Tom Dark, is a journalist.
57. Acts 9. Paul reflects on the implications of a physical resurrection in Philippians 3:21, a text that would be meaningless if Paul did not believe Jesus had been raised to a physical "glorious" body.
58. According to Raymond Brown, "Except for the romantic few who think that Jesus did not die on the cross but woke up in the tomb and ran off to India with Mary Magdalene, most scholars accept the uniform testimony of the Gospels that Jesus died" (Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 2 vols. [New York: Doubleday, 19941, 2:1373).