. Flew eventually became a theist. See Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007).
. Lee Strobel might be an example of someone who was in this category. See Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998).
. James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 5-7.
. In scholarly discussions these can be referred to as atomism and holism.
. For similar approaches, see Terry L. Miethe and Gary R. Habermas, Why Believe? God Exists! Rethinking the Case for God and Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1999), 248; Michael R. Licona, “Is the Sky Falling in the World of Historical Jesus Research?,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 3 (2016): 358.
. Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, “The Historical Jesus and the Biblical Church: Why the Quest Matters,” in Jesus, Skepticism and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, ed. Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 23.
. For example, if one were inventing a religion, one would think that only heroes would be used as the primary contributors or that one would only find great feats and successes. However, this is not the case, as Paul readily acknowledges that he did nothing of his own and that salvation was a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9). Additionally, Paul moved from someone who persecuted to someone who was persecuted (2 Cor 11:16-28).
. It is also expected that readers will find certain topics/disciplines more interesting than others.
. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 74; see also 259-63.
1 New Testament Textual Evidence
. Jacob W. Peterson, “Math Myths: How Many Manuscripts We Have and Why More Isn’t Always Better,” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019), 68, emphasis added.
. T. H. Irwin, “The Platonic Corpus,” in The Oxford Handbook of Plato, 2nd ed., ed. Gail Fine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 87, emphasis added.
. For proper nuances and limitations of these considerations (and others), see Hixson and Gurry, Myths and Mistakes.
. N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 47-48 (see also 32).
. Finding even this general figure is admittedly extremely difficult. See Martin L. West, Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad (München: K. G. Saur, 2001), 86-129. West provides a catalogue of papyri for the Iliad, which consists of 1,569 entries. Some of those listed in the catalogue are bracketed. West states, “For my own edition I have been able to make use of 1543.” West then goes on to provide 142 additional items related to “Homeric glossaries, commentaries, and scholia minora” (130). This list is on 130-36, while a list of witnesses appears on 136-38. Prothro notes several discoveries that have been published since West’s 2001 publication. See James B. Prothro, “Myths About Classical Literature: Responsibly Comparing the New Testament to Ancient Works,” in Hixson and Gurry, Myths and Mistakes, 76n16. Clay Jones offers a count of over 1,750 in “The Bibliographical Test Updated,” Christian Research Journal 35, no. 3 (2012): 33. Craig Blomberg lists under 2,500 copies of the Iliad and Odyssey combined but provides no documentation for his estimate. See Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, B&H Studies in Christian Apologetics (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 644. The Leuven Database of Ancient Books indicated over 2,300 attestations for Homer as of November 2022, but the database ends at AD 800, and not all are manuscripts (some entries are quotes, some are on pottery, etc.).
. West does not include this mention with the catalogue of papyri but rather in the w-series (w38), which are various papyri or inscriptions in which the Iliad is quoted. (Derveni papyrus; see Studies in the Text, 137).
. More recent publications suggest a number closer to 210. See Jones, “Bibliographical Test Updated”; Robert S. Brumbaugh, “Plato Manuscripts: Toward a Completed Inventory,” Manuscripta 34, no. 2 (1990): 114-21. An earlier publication by Nigel Wilson appeared to list 263 manuscripts in “A List of Plato Manuscripts,” Scriptorium 16, no. 2 (1962): 386-95.
. Irwin, “Platonic Corpus,” 71.
. Richard D. McKirahan, Philosophy Before Socrates: An Introduction with Texts and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2010), 1. See also Irwin, “Platonic Corpus,” 70.
. For those interested in the dating of additional ancient sources, see Jones, “Bibliographical Test Updated”; Prothro, “Myths About Classical Literature.”
. The abbreviation is INTF because it comes from the German name Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. The website is also in German: https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/liste.
. Their site allows users to view their photographs: www.csntm.org/. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research site also has images.
. While various figures have been given (see below), Jacob Peterson conducted a recent count in “Math Myths.” He points out that 5,300 (see pp. 62, 66, 68-69) is possible, but he also suggests 5,100 as another likely possibility (see pp. 68-69).
. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 23.
. Peterson, “Math Myths,” 51-58. Peterson notes that the Liste is constantly updating and evaluating its figures to reflect these issues and that one should avoid simply counting all the entries. The INTF also notes the difficulties of counting the total number of manuscripts on their site.
. As noted above, Peterson thinks 5,100 and 5,300 are reasonable figures. Peterson’s discussion is especially helpful here as he notes that the “typical approximation for how many Greek New Testament manuscripts we have is a bit north of 5,500” (“Math Myths,” 52). Peterson provides a sampling of over a half dozen publications over the past twenty years or so. The figures range from around 5,000 to over 5,800 (52n9). Ehrman, too, has provided different general figures over the years. In 2005 he gave a general figure of “over 5,000 copies” in Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 260. This is found in editions of Misquoting Jesus that contain a “Plus” section at the end of certain editions. In 2004 he gave a figure of 5,400. See Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 480. The most recent number is about 5,700. See Ehrman, New Testament (2019), 23.
. Some from the Liste are P52, P77, P90, P98, P103, P104, P129, and P137.
. Ehrman, New Testament (2019), 23. Recent evaluations have sought to provide a wider range (AD 100–200) for P52’s date, as adopted here. See Elijah Hixson, “Dating Myths, Part One: How We Determine the Ages of Manuscripts,” in Hixson and Gurry, Myths and Mistakes, 101-7. For a more technical work see Brent Nongbri, “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” Harvard Theological Review 98, no. 1 (January 2005): 23-48.
. Ehrman, New Testament (2019), 23; see also 29.
. For a helpful introduction to this see Daniel B. Wallace, “Has the New Testament Text Been Hopelessly Corrupted?,” in In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture, ed. Steven B. Cowan and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: B&H, 2013), 152-60. See also Peter J. Gurry, “Myths About Variants: Why Most Variants Are Insignificant and Why Some Can’t Be Ignored,” in Hixson and Gurry, Myths and Mistakes, 191-210.
. Ehrman, New Testament (2004), 481.
. “Lastnightatdinnerisawabundanceonthetable” Ehrman uses this example before noting relevant types of accidental errors (New Testament [2019], 26).
. While it is true that it is more difficult for us today to read this than it would have been for ancient people, it does not follow that therefore that they were so accustomed to it that it was not an issue for them. With our capitalization and punctation today, people still make mistakes when copying texts even though we are accustomed to these features.
. Ehrman, New Testament (2019), 23.
. Wallace, “Has the New Testament Text,” 155. For another example, this time in Lk 1:34, see J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2006), 97-101, 105.
. Craig Blomberg points out various reasons to hold to the account in John being historical even if John did not write it. See Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the New Testament, 628.
. Wallace, “Has the New Testament Text,” 160.
. Blomberg provides a helpful commentary on various biblical footnotes, including from his own NIV 1984 Bible as well as those in the more technical Greek edition (Historical Reliability of the New Testament, 630-44). See also Gurry, “Myths About Variants,” 206.
. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 252, emphasis added, found in the “Plus” section.
. Bart D. Ehrman, “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Boston: Brill, 2014), 825.
. Ehrman, New Testament (2004), 481. Though technically nothing in history is 100 percent certain.
. Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, 114.
. Wallace, “Has the New Testament Text,” 160, 163.
. Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, 75-82.
. Gurry, “Myths About Variants,” 208, emphasis original.
2 New Testament Genres and Audience Expectations
. Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 247.
. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 253.
. Charles H. Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 101. Later, he adds, “It is patently not the case that I began by assuming that the Gospels are biography. . . . I set out initially to criticize the biographical hypothesis” (283).
. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 34, 51.
. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 104 (Mark), 130 (Matthew), 154 (Luke), 170 (John). Ehrman also notes the difficulty of accepting a sui generis genre (94).
. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1:185.
. Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 78.
. Dunn, Jesus Remembered 1:185. See Luke 1:1-4.
. Note, for example, that historians could recreate speeches in a way that was considered appropriate and accurate for the situations. Thucydides writes, “With reference to the speeches in this history . . . some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one’s memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said” (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, 1.22. Rev. T. E. Wick, trans. Richard Crawley. Modern Library College Edition [New York: The Modern Library, 1982]).
. Other examples here include what Keener refers to as “novelistic biographies or historical novels,” which sought to “subvert the biographic genre for fiction.” Nevertheless, these do not appear analogous to our discussion, as they “certainly differ significantly from mainstream biographies and histories.” Craig S. Keener, Christobiography: Memory, History, and the Reliability of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019), 68.
. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 249-50. It is somewhat challenging to find ancient biographies with reports so close to the events, as pointed out in Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 81.
. Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 81-83.
. Dunn, Jesus Remembered 1:185.
. David Edward Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Library of Early Christianity 8 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 36. He cites Plutarch as one example.
. Ehrman, New Testament, 98.
. It should be noted that there were biographies of Jewish leaders (e.g., Josephus), but the relevant analogy here is to rabbis. Burridge provides greater detail and analysis on this aspect in What Are the Gospels?, 288-94, 300-4, 322-40.
. Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 304.
. Ehrman, New Testament, 318.
. Keener, Historical Jesus of the Gospels, 93-94.
. Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 42.
. For example, see Simon Gathercole, “The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 16, no. 2-3 (2018): 183-212.
. Patrick Gray, The Routledge Guidebook to the New Testament, Routledge Guides to the Great Books (New York: Routledge, 2017), 137, emphasis added. Gray also observes, “Most religions do not include letters in their canons of Scripture. And for good reason. Letters ostensibly belong to the category of occasional literature; that is they are prompted by and written for particular occasions” (136).
. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 40. Barnett also notes that whereas the Gospels are “self-consciously historical,” Paul is not (164).
. Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 832.
3 New Testament Dating
. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 6, emphasis added. I will cover some of these other Christian writings in later chapters.
. There are a number of well-qualified scholars who prefer the AD 33 date, and they have some arguments worth considering. However, for our purposes of introducing the dating of NT writings, I will use the more common date of AD 30.
. For an introduction to the arguments for Markan priority, see D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 95-98. For an overall discussion on the Synoptic problem, see 85-103.
. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, B&H Studies in Christian Apologetics (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 13. An example of two nonevangelicals who take early dates would be James Crossley and Maurice Casey. They date Mark to the 40s AD and Matthew to around the 50s AD. See, e.g., Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (London: Continuum, 2010), 97-98; see also 39.
. Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the New Testament, 17.
. Thich Nhat Hanh, The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation (NY: Harmony Books, 1999), 13, emphasis added. For an even larger gap see Edward Conze, Buddhist Scriptures (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1959), 11.
. Hanh, Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching, 14.
. For evidential comparisons of other worldviews, see Gary R. Habermas and Benjamin C. F. Shaw, “The Historical Uniqueness of Jesus Christ Among the Founders of the World’s Major Religions,” Christian Research Journal 41, no. 4 (2018): 40-45.
. Eugene N. Borza, “The Nature of the Evidence,” in The Impact of Alexander the Great, ed. Eugene N. Borza (Hinsdale, IL: Dryden, 1974), 21-25. Borza names Arrian’s as the best biography (22). Though earlier is typically preferred, Arrian and Plutarch provide an example of how a later source could be considered more reliable than an earlier source (Diodorus).
. Some examples, both contemporaneous with the author and substantially later, are noted in Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the New Testament, 17n33. Contrast this with Ehrman, who confusingly asks readers to compare the Gospel dates with modern Western examples (New Testament, 83).
. Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 41-42. Dale Allison helpfully warns against extremes in this vein, which he refers to as “Pauline fundamentalism.” See Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus: Apologetics, Polemics, History (New York: T&T Clark, 2021), 92-93.
. I will discuss this evidence in .
. While dates often vary from 49 to 52, in this work I will use AD 50 as a helpful marker.
. Sometimes Galatians or Paul’s writings to Thessalonica are dated to the late 40s AD.
. Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022).
. John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976).
. As indicated by the comments in E. Earle Ellis, “Dating the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 26, no. 4 (July 1980): 487, 501-2.
. Bernier, Rethinking the Dates, 280.
4 New Testament Authorship
. See Gal 1:17, where Paul mentions a return to Damascus.
. Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 55.
. Paul also makes explicit when he is personally writing: 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; Philem 19.
. My comments here reflect the historical nature of Paul’s authorship. Divine inspiration and the authorship of the Holy Spirit (see 1 Tim 3:16) are beyond the scope of the present comments.
. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010), 241-42. Similarly, though noting apparent subcategories, D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 482-86.
. Luke Timothy Johnson writes, “The discussion of authenticity has thus been distorted by doubtful premises” (Writings of the New Testament, 242). See also Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, chap. 8. The use of secretaries is another factor in these discussions.
. A point also noted in Johnson, Writings of the New Testament, 241.
. Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1985), 64-84. More recently, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 300-305; Simon Gathercole, “The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels,” Journal of Theological Studies 69, no. 2 (2018): 447-76.
. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 300; Gathercole, “Alleged Anonymity,” 458. Gathercole gives several other examples (455-59). One might add Plutarch’s well-known biographies to these lists.
. One might add to this that modern-day examples abound as well. Many papers, books, and articles do not include the author’s name in the body of the work, but we nevertheless know who wrote them.
. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 303.
. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 300. Gathercole provides seven possibilities in “Alleged Anonymity,” 459-60. For other practical considerations, see 461-63.
. Gathercole raises these two points of silence regarding the Gospels and contrasts them with the book of Hebrews (“Alleged Anonymity,” 473-75). This consideration alone does not necessarily mean that Hebrews was intended to be anonymous, as the original author could have been lost, mistaken, etc. (Heb 13:13, 23). See Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 671.
. Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 82.
. A similar point is raised by Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (New York: Image, 2016), 19.
. Gathercole, “Alleged Anonymity,” 460. Additional arguments include the “inconceivable” nature of a work like Luke–Acts having a dedicatee be anonymous (Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 301).
. Gathercole, “Alleged Anonymity,” 463-73.
. In the early 100s, Papias also made a reference to at least two Gospels (Matthew and Mark), and his words are preserved in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39. Gathercole notes that John is likely mentioned in other fragments of Papias and Luke may possibly be mentioned as well (“Alleged Anonymity,” 470-71).
. Gathercole, “Alleged Anonymity,” 472. Additionally, “The most common attestation is to John and Matthew . . . with Mark and Luke in the lower tier, facts which roughly dovetail with the evidence from papyri as well as with the relative frequency of biblical references from the period.”
. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 303.
. Pitre, Case for Jesus, 101.
. Regarding Matthew, there are questions regarding whether he actually wrote in Hebrew or Greek, why he would use a source such as Mark if he was a witness, and others. For an example of scholars engaging in the depth of these issues, see W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., Matthew 1–7, ICC 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). One may be surprised to learn that scholars recognize that “at one level very little hangs on the question of the authorship of this gospel. By and large, neither its meaning nor its authority is greatly changed if one decides that its author was not an apostle” (Carson and Moo, Introduction to the New Testament, 150). See also Ben Witherington III, Invitation to the New Testament: First Things, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 252-53. Part of the reason for this, it might be suggested, is that eyewitness material has been found in the Gospels, as argued in Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
. Papias comments, “Mark being the interpreter of Peter whatsoever he recorded he wrote with great accuracy but not however, in the order in which it was spoken or done by our Lord, for he neither heard nor followed our Lord, but as before said, he was in company with Peter” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15).
. Additionally, Luke seems an unlikely invention of the early church. As D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo point out, the “universal identification of a non-apostle as the author of almost one-quarter of the New Testament speaks strongly for the authenticity of the tradition” (Introduction to the New Testament, 206).
. Tertullian notes that not only was Luke Paul’s traveling partner, but Marcion, the second-century heretic, “singled out Luke for his mutilating process” (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.2). This indicates that even opponents of the church, such as Marcion, recognized Luke as the author.
5 New Testament Creedal Traditions
. Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. J. K. S. Reid, ed. Gary Habermas and Benjamin Charles Shaw (repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2018), 18.
. Almost a dozen different classifications are given in Richard N. Longenecker, “Christological Materials in the Early Christian Communities,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 69.
. Paul W. Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 44-45.
. “This does not affect the basic point to be made. . . . What counts is the heart of the formula is something Paul knows the Corinthians will have heard from everyone else as well as himself, and that he can appeal to it as unalterable Christian bedrock.” N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 319.
. For a brief summary of eight reasons, see Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 98-99. For a more extensive list, see Longenecker, “Christological Materials,” 69-71.
. Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 20n1
. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 16. Similarly, the agnostic Ehrman writes, “It defies belief that Paul would have spent over two weeks with Jesus’s closest companion and not learned something about him.” Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 145.
. James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15.3-5,” New Testament Studies 60, no. 4 (2014): 475, emphasis added.
. Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 38, emphasis original. For a list of other skeptical scholars who follow similar dating, see Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), 18.
. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131; see also 164, 251, 254. Ehrman notes the early date of this material and Paul’s trip to Jerusalem (130-32, 144-48, 155-56, 173, 261).
. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1:855, emphasis original.
. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 144-45; see also 146-48.
. Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 99.
. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006), 308, emphasis original.
. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131. Similar comments can be found regarding multiple traditions dating to the 30s on 92-93, 97, 141, 251, 260-63. Emphasis added.
. Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, New Testament Tools and Studies 5 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963).
. Longenecker, “Christological Materials,” 71.
. One might add another level of reliability here in that Peter, James, and Paul were all willing to suffer and die for their beliefs.
6 Historical Criteria
. Ben Meyer helpfully provides this clarification. See Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament (Allison Park, PA: Wipf & Stock, 1989), 141.
. Related to this are disinterested sources that have no vested interest in the outcome of an event.
. In the final chapter, I will discuss these criteria in relation to events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection.
. Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999); Twelftree, “The Miracles of Jesus: Marginal or Mainstream?,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1, no. 1 (January 2003): 104-24. See also Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 281-83.
. It should be noted that this comment comes in a questioned portion of Josephus’s text. Nevertheless, scholars such as James D. G. Dunn find it relevant here. See James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 222 (Dunn). I will discuss this more in .
. See .
. Marcus J. Borg, Jesus: A New Vision—Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 61.
. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 345.
. Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 284-302; Michael Licona, “Did Jesus Predict His Death and Vindication/Resurrection?,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 8, no. 1 (2010): 47-66. Even skeptical scholars are willing to accept this fact without assigning the cause to divine agency. Rather, they affirm Jesus’ wisdom to recognize what would likely happen as a result of challenging the Jewish authorities.
. The reason for this is that the majority of scholars hold that Mark wrote first and Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources. Thus, if Mark reports an event and Matthew and Luke merely copy Mark, it only counts as one source. In modern terms, retweets do not count. One must be careful concerning the use of multiple attestation with Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
. For more details see Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 285.
. The list here should not be understood to be exhaustive.
. Atheist/agnostic Bart Ehrman is a good example. See Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee (New York: HarperOne, 2014), 94.
. See, for example, the list of historical facts provided in Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, “The Historical Jesus and the Biblical Church: Why the Quest Matters,” in Jesus, Skepticism and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, ed. Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 22-23.
7 Undesigned Coincidences
. J. J. Blunt, Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings Both of the Old and New Testament: An Argument of Their Veracity (New York: Robert Carter, 1847).
. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard, 2017), 13.
. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 91. This applies to other areas of reliability as well.
. McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, 12.
. Historians sometimes refer to this as illumination. See Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 111. One need not concern oneself here with various nuances that can be made regarding the differences between an undesigned coincidence, illumination, etc. One can be content here with a general idea of how a bigger picture is presented.
. Peter J. Williams, Can We Trust the Gospels? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 87.
. McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, 15, emphasis original. She then goes on to cite the work of a cold-case detective, J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013). See also Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs, B&H Studies in Christian Apologetics (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 273.
. This is referring to Herod Antipas, the tetrarch, who was the son of Herod the Great.
. It is highly unlikely that Herod had any type of reincarnation in mind here.
. In Mk 6:14-16 and Lk 9:7-9, there is no mention of the servants.
. One should note, however, that people in the past, just like today, do not always act logically. Fears, desires, and so on can play a factor in decisions. See the notable but comical example made by C. S. Lewis regarding fears before a surgery in Mere Christianity, in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 115-16.
. A point observed by McGrew in her treatment of this coincidence (which she attributes to Blunt; Hidden in Plain View, 87-89).
. One should note, however, that there are other references to those who are related to the house of Herod that could be relevant in a more detailed discussion (see Acts 13:1).
. For more information on Tacitus, see .
. C. K. Barrett, Acts of the Apostles: A Shorter Commentary (New York: T&T Clark, 2002), 301.
. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 15:1–23:35 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 3:2938. Similarly, “Luke is not to be accused of ignorance of an elementary and universally known fact” (Barrett, Acts of the Apostles, 301).
. Another possibility is that the proconsuls were those who were part of the envoy that assassinated Silanus.
. We should note that Keener suggests that it is also a “safe guess” to say that Luke is simply using a “generalizing plural” (Acts 3:2939). For his whole discussion, see 2937-40. See also Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 386-87.
. Examples might include why James and John were mending their nets; whether Peter was married; whether Simon of Cyrene is mentioned as the father of Alexander and Rufus; and so on. Many of these can be found in Blunt’s Undesigned Coincidences or McGrew’s Hidden in Plain View.
. Although the chapter here focused primarily on the Gospels, other works investigate other NT writings and/or OT writings. As the title of Blunt’s work suggests, he covers both OT and NT writers. McGrew, on the other hand, focuses primarily on the Gospels and Paul’s writings.
8 Archaeology
. Verisimilitude has to do with the quality or appearance of being true.
. Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Remains of His Day: Studies in Jesus and the Evidence of Material Culture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015), 53-54.
. I am not saying that all archaeological discoveries are of this zoomed-out nature. One controversial piece of evidence that could be an example of a zoomed-in piece of information is the shroud of Turin, which is considered by some to be the burial cloth of Jesus. Although recent scholarship by Tristan Casabianca and others has offered serious challenges to the view that the shroud was made in the Middle Ages, this artifact—one of the most studied in history—is beyond our scope here. See Casabianca et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud: New Evidence from Raw Data,” Archaeometry 61, no. 5 (2019): 1223-31. On the shroud in general, see, at the popular level, Mary and Alan Whanger, The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure in Discovery (Franklin, TN: Providence House, 1998). For a more technical work, see Mark Antonacci, Test the Shroud at the Atomic and Molecular Levels (Brentwood, TN: Forefront, 2016).
. Noting also that the sign appeared in Greek and Latin (Jewish War 5.194).
. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 95. A similar translation is found in Peretz Segal, “The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 39, no. 1/2 (1989): 79.
. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 15:1–23:35 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 3:3146. For his full discussion for this episode, see 3144-54.
. Bruce, New Testament Documents, 95. More recently, Darrell Bock considers this as one of three possibilities. See Bock, Ephesians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 10 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019), 77-79.
. Evans, Jesus and the Remains, 121. Similarly, “Jehohanan was crucified closer to the time of Jesus’ own crucifixion.” Joseph Zias and James H. Charlesworth, “Crucifixion: Archeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 284.
. Nails could be used multiple times, so soldiers would attempt to take them out and reuse them when possible.
. James Charlesworth believes this to be one of the top archaeological findings related to Jesus. See James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism: New Light from Exciting Archaeological Discoveries (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 122.
. For a list of original sources, see Martin Hengel, Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 31-32 (and related footnotes). Hengel’s work is a concise yet robust historical assessment of crucifixion practices.
. For nuances to this, see Craig A. Evans, “Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidence Right,” in How God Became Jesus: The Real Origins of Belief in Jesus’ Divine Nature—A Response to Bart D. Ehrman, ed. Michael F. Bird (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 71-93.
. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 123.
. Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 132; see also 110-15.
. Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 137.
. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, 120.
. Charlesworth considers this to be within the top five archaeological discoveries for the historical Jesus (Jesus Within Judaism, 119). In addition to this finding, literary manuscripts were also discovered in Qumran that appear to make mention of the pool.
. Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 75.
. Gibson, Final Days of Jesus, 76.
. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 585.
. Evans, Jesus and the Remains, 58-59. Evans helpfully points out that Pilate is referred to as a “prefect” and that Tacitus’s reference to Pilate as a “procurator” is anachronistic.
. Charlesworth presents a list of the archaeological findings he believes to be the most significant to studying the historical Jesus (Jesus Within Judaism, 104-27).
. Ramsay’s story is summarized in Edwin M. Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott/A Holman Book, 1972), 92-125. Within these pages Yamauchi highlights the findings of William Ramsay and how they challenged the skeptical interpretations of the Tübingen school. Although Ramsay initially held to a more unreliable portrait that was close to the Tübingen theory, the evidence ultimately caused him to change his mind. Yamauchi’s chapter is aptly titled “Ramsay vs. the Tübingen School.” For a briefer account see Bruce, New Testament Documents, 91-93.
9 Non-Christian Sources
. For a helpful description of this from an agnostic, see Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (New York: Basic Books, 2019).
. Recall in our discussion on archaeology the image of Alexamenos.
. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 69. Voorst provides a series of other helpful considerations in his conclusion that are also worth exploring (68-74).
. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 72.
. For an introduction to some ways in which historians can ascertain reliable data, see James H. Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdon, 2008), 15-32.
. See the excellent discussion in N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 89.
. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 74. One should note that agnostic Maurice Casey focuses on NT texts in his discussions with the most extreme skeptics. See Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014).
. These are not the only non-Christian authors who refer to Jesus or Christianity. Others typically found in these discussions include Suetonius, Mara bar Serapion, and Thallus, among others.
. Assistance in this re-creation is also provided by an Arabic source of Josephus’s text. See comments below.
. For those interested, see any number of discussions on the subject in John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1, The Roots and the Problem of the Person, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 56-88; Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 192-96; Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 81-104.
. Meier, Marginal Jew 1:61; similarly Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 93. It is worth noting that an Arabic version was found that includes a clause that mentions Jesus appearing to his followers after the crucifixion. See Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971), 16; see also Habermas, Historical Jesus, 193-94; Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 97-98.
. Josephus, Antiquities 20.9, in The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston (London, 1737).
. Tacitus, Annals 15.44. Hadas, Moses, ed. The Complete Works of Tacitus. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb (New York: Modern Library, 1942).
. Pliny thought such stubbornness to recant was an offense in itself.
. Pliny the Younger, Book 10, Letter 96, in Letters, vol. 2, Books 8-10. Panegyricus, trans. Betty Radice, Loeb Classical Library 59 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969). “Genuine Christians” would not deny Christ or worship another; however, recall Peter’s three denials. Those who denied being Christian in the face of persecutions raised various challenges for the early church since some who recanted being a Christian also regretted their denial.
. Pliny the Younger, Book 10, Letter 96, trans. Radice.
. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 27.
. Pliny the Younger, Book 10, Letter 97, trans. Radice.
. Noting the corroboration of Jesus’ existence as opposed to a mythical figure of the past. See Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 73. The biggest discrepancies one finds in this regard are in later Jewish sources (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a), though these sources have numerous issues that cannot be discussed here.
10 Noncanonical Christian Sources
. Recall that historians would not exclude American sources when examining the Revolutionary War. One might add that neither would historians ignore Jewish sources when studying the Holocaust. Other similar examples abound.
. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 98-105. Ehrman covers Papias, Ignatius, and Clement. Concerning Papias, he states, “This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. . . . This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves” (101).
. An example of how this applies to a specific event should be noted. Peter and Paul are reported to have seen the risen Jesus personally. It is unlikely that they knowingly lied about their own personal and direct experiences and were then willing to suffer and die as a result. This adds significant weight to their testimony and is different from others who died for their beliefs.
. Gnosticism developed primarily in the second through fourth centuries and was considered heretical by the early church. In the late second century, Irenaeus discusses many Gnostic teachings in Against Heresies, as he had traveled to Rome to study many of them firsthand.
. All citations in this chapter follow the translation of Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995).
. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 105. Ehrman includes a list of eleven bullet points regarding the historical Jesus that are found in 1 Clement.
. The other churches Ignatius wrote to were those in Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Philadelphia, and Smyrna. Johannes Quasten considers the “most important“ letter to be the one written to Rome. See Quasten, Patrology: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1983), 1:64. Undoubtedly part of the reason for this is the moving comments Ignatius makes in requesting the church at Rome to not hinder his pending martyrdom, with comments such as, “I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb” (Ignatius, To the Romans 4).
. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 103-4. One should note that Ehrman does not think Ignatius is too late of a source to provide valuable information regarding Jesus (or early Christianity) even though this letter was written around AD 110.
. Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 233.
. Another area that sounds very similar to Paul in 1 Cor 15:32 is Ignatius, To the Trallians 11, where he writes, “But if, as some that are without God, that is, the unbelieving, say, that He only seemed to suffer (they themselves only seeming to exist), then why am I in bonds? Why do I long to be exposed to the wild beasts? Do I therefore die in vain? Am I not then guilty of falsehood against [the cross of] the Lord?”
. Ignatius also references Paul in To the Ephesians 12.
. This is particularly important since, as church historian Bryan Litfin notes, there were challenges of legalism in Antioch that led to Paul having to confront Peter (Gal 2:11-21). See Litfin, Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2007), 35. As bishop of Antioch, Ignatius was in a position to have known, and he, among others, gives no indication that this disagreement led to any sort of civil war within Christianity. Rather, the issue was one that appears to have been resolved, as with other confrontations (e.g., Paul and John Mark).
. Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010), 370; Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), 213, 224.
. Justo L. González, A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, 2nd rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970), 1:73.
. Habermas, Historical Jesus, 231-33. Habermas identifies eighteen areas within the letters of Ignatius that are relevant for the study of Jesus. He applies a similar systematic approach to other early Christian and non-Christian writings outside the NT.
. Quasten, Patrology 1:64.
. We can note that Irenaeus states his own connection to Polycarp as well.
. Polycarp’s letter might be two letters combined. See Quasten, Patrology 1:80; González, History of Christian Thought 1:80-81.
. Robert M. Grant, The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, vol. 1, An Introduction (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1964), 66.
11 New Testament Canon and Credibility
. This is not to say that sources outside the NT are of no historical value. Several prior chapters, as well as this one, demonstrate why the NT books are good historical sources.
. Despite what some scholars today think, history and theology are not mutually exclusive. Jesus’ death, for example, is a historical event with theological significance. Additionally, different definitions or understandings of canon can affect one’s conclusions. See Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), 45-46 (noting exclusive, functional, and ontological definitions).
. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997), 287.
. For three lists of criteria that each slightly differ from one another, see F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1988), 256-68; Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 251-54; Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 406-20.
. Lee McDonald suggests that the “widespread use of the NT writings in the churches may have been the most determinative factor in the canonical process” (Biblical Canon, 414). However, Michael Kruger suggests that “the apostolicity of a book has emerged as the primary or dominant one.” See Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 75.
. It should be clear that letters would naturally start with local acceptance before receiving a wider acceptance. It would take time for letters to be copied, be transported to new locations, be read, and so on.
. Kruger, Canon Revisited, 82, emphasis original. He agrees that they are helpful and that “the evidential case put forth by the criteria-of-canonicity model is strong and ought to be used in our defense of the canon” (81).
. For a helpful discussion on the role of the Holy Spirit, see Kruger, Canon Revisited, 88-122.
. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 287.
. It would be idealistic to assume that Christians would always and boldly stand against false teachings (see Gal 1:6).
. LCL 24.
. In the next chapter Justin says that these memoirs are read along with the prophets when believers come together to meet on Sundays. There thus appears a connection with OT Scriptures.
. After examining several other first- and second-century church comments (such as from Ignatius, Didache, Papias, Epistle of Barnabas, Polycarp, Shepherd of Hermas, and others), Metzger concludes that these accounts demonstrate that an authority was sensed in the church before any theories had developed (Canon of the New Testament, 73; see also 40-72). Kruger comments on the importance of their teachings getting a permanent form (Question of Canon, 71).
. The Muratorian Fragment is another, even earlier, list.
. For other helpful illustrations see Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 205; Kruger, Canon Revisited, 268.
. For fourteen total letters (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.5).
. Revelation is included in this section with some curious comments that are made more perplexing by the fact that he includes this work in the spurious writings as well. Note, however, that there are other apocalypses noted in the spurious section.
. Compare with Metzger’s “nevertheless familiar to the majority” translation in Canon of the New Testament, 309.
. For a brief analysis of these books see Kruger, Canon Revisited, 269-74.
. As also noted by Kruger, Canon Revisited, 82.
. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.25.6.
. Indeed, in the prologue to Thomas, it states that what is about to be presented are the “secret” teachings of Jesus. Presumably this indicates the author’s intention to convey information unknown elsewhere, which is also consistent with various Gnostic groups that appealed to secret knowledge.
. Translation by Simon Gathercole, The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary (Boston: Brill, 2014), 607.
. Moreover, one might note that it is the women who are reported to have found the empty tomb in the NT Gospels.
. Gathercole, Gospel of Thomas, 121, 124. Gathercole also notes that although Thomas could not be the author, its original author is unknown (124). Virtually nobody holds that Jesus’ disciple Thomas actually wrote this work.
. Kruger, Canon Revisited, 278.
. Gathercole, Gospel of Thomas, 184. “As scholarship currently stands, and with the primary sources that are available to us at present, the Gospel of Thomas can hardly be regarded as useful in the reconstruction of a historical picture of Jesus.”
. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 74; see also 259-63. Also, as I noted in , Ehrman also points out that almost all of the Christian writings we have that can confidently be dated to the first century are those within the NT (an example of an exception would be Clement of Rome). See Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 6.
. Metzger, Canon of the New Testament, 287.
12 Spiritual and Life Transformation
. Various religious, philosophical, and political texts have clearly made an impact, but that alone does not mean that they are therefore trustworthy.
. See comments and studies mentioned by philosophers Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke, Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 23-26, 106-7. Other studies include Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, 3rd repr. ed. (Boston Mariner Books, 2020); Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, rev. ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2017). The importance of the last study by Browning is that the Nazis did not go around collecting “bad people”; rather they simply used ordinary men.
. Tosi and Warmke, Grandstanding, 25.
. See Jn 16:8, which says that the Holy Spirit (“helper”) will come to “convict the world regarding sin, and righteousness, and judgment.” Tosi and Warmke also note that people often try to assuage guilt and moral reputation (Grandstanding, 25-26, 60, 102-3). Since forgiveness is not mentioned in their book, it is helpful to compare these concerns with the NT teachings of forgiveness as graciously offered through Jesus (e.g., Acts 3:19; Rom 3:24-25; Eph 1:7; 2:1-10).
. Where this confrontation or conviction leads will vary (see Mt 13:3-9, 18-23).
. Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1961), 178.
. Peter Hitchens, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 17, 103; see Prov 1:7.
. That we are a “new creation” is found in 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15, while putting on Jesus is found in several verses (Rom 13:12-14; Eph 4:24; etc.). Particularly helpful here is Anthony C. Thornhill, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Spiritual (Trans)Formation,” Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care 5, no. 2 (2012): 243-56.
. Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011), 54.
. Mangalwadi, Book That Made Your World, 55, emphasis added.
. Mangalwadi, Book That Made Your World, 31-37.
. Again, I want to stress that I am arguing that these individuals’ being transformed because of the NT message is consistent with that message being true. I am not arguing it is true because people were changed. Again, it is not conferring truth but is consistent with it.
. Justin Brierley, The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale Elevate, 2023).
. Richard Dawkins, Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide (NY: Random House, 2019), 99. Dawkins is referring to a God like the one in Christianity but is not referring exclusively to the Christian religion here.
. Dawkins, Outgrowing God, 99. Dawkins is not referring exclusively to the Christian religion here. It is worth noting that Dawkins scoffs at the idea that fear should play a role in morality (96-98). As noted above, Peter Hitchens saw fear as a gift of clear thinking and recognized its value in restraining evil, even in his own life. He acknowledges, “I faced a private moral dilemma in which fear of doing an evil thing held me back from doing it, for which I remain immeasurably glad” (Rage Against God, 104-5).
. Tom Holland, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World (New York: Basic Books, 2019), 15. He notes that he had only “vaguely continued to believe in God.”
. Holland, Dominion, 16-17.
. Holland, Dominion, 6-12; see also 464, 494-95.
. In many ways, Holland’s work is simply a longer treatment of Mangalwadi’s.
. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), 2. Ehrman sounds very similar to Holland when he states, “If one does not understand the New Testament, one cannot fully understand the course of history of the world we inhabit” (1).
. William Edward Hartpole Lecky, The Religious Tendencies of the Age (London: Saunders, Otley, 1860), 148. “To disbelieve Christianity is to believe that these things are the result of blind chance. . . . Truly there is no credulity like the credulity of unbelief.” Since Lecky was around twenty-two when he wrote this, it is possible that he changed his mind later in life and/or that he was skeptical of more organized forms of Christianity (or religion). See F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981), 3. Bruce states that Lecky was “no believer in revealed religion.”
. William Edward Hartpole Lecky, History of European Morals, from Augustus to Charlemagne, 3rd ed. (New York: D. Appleton, 1897), 2:8-9.
13 The Minimal Facts Approach
. Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008). See also Michael R. Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016). Licona has another upcoming book on the subject: Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, forthcoming).
. For the best introduction on the subject, see Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004). For more detailed works, see Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003); Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010). Especially significant here is Habermas’s latest work which is over a thousand pages (!): Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024).
. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard, 2017), 220-21.
. Tristan Casabianca, “The Shroud of Turin: A Historiographical Approach,” Heythrop Journal 54, no. 3 (May 2013): 414-23; Peter A. Lillback and Jerry Newcombe, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (Bryn Mawr, PA: Providence Forum, 2006), 30.
. One may wonder, if skeptical scholars think the Bible is unreliable, then how do they acknowledge this-or-that fact? The answer is that scholars use the same historical methods used when dealing with other sources that they believe to have various issues, biases, etc. See also .
. Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 44, emphasis original.
. For three different lists in two works, see Habermas, Risen Jesus, 9-10, 26-27; Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 43-77. More recently, Habermas, On the Resurrection, 1:283-747.
. See, for example, the qualifications in Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 69-74. Although they do not consider it a minimal fact, it is considered a “plus one.” The reason it is a “plus one” is because it is less accepted than the others, with around 75 percent acceptance. Nevertheless, this remains quite a large percentage of acceptance among scholars, especially given the debated subject. Moreover, recent figures indicate an even higher percentage of agreement among scholars (Habermas, On the Resurrection, 1:632).
. David F. Strauss, A New Life of Jesus, 2nd ed. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1879), 408-12.
. Other examples include the process of crucifixion itself, the spear wound, medical assessments, and other historical criteria (e.g., multiple forms, dissimilarity, etc.).
. John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994), 145.
. Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 323.
. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1:775.
. Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 256.
. Shimon Gibson, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 7.
. Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 32.
. Brant Pitre, The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ (New York: Image, 2016), 156.
. Habermas and Licona, Case for the Resurrection, 81-150. For a helpful chart, see H. Wayne House and Joseph M. Holden, Charts of Apologetics and Christian Evidences (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), chart 58.
. Angus Menuge, “Debating Christian Theism (Book Review),” Philosophia Christi 16, no. 2 (2014): 456.
. See Habermas, Risen Jesus, 89-169.
. This was in fact the move of the author, as these arguments were systematically presented after having studied the minimal facts approach first.
Conclusion and Final Thoughts
. James H. Charlesworth, “Jesus Research Expands with Chaotic Creativity,” in Images of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 7. Beyond the Gospels, we also observed the value of the writings of one who used to persecute the church—Paul.
. Robert M. Bowman Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, “The Historical Jesus and the Biblical Church: Why the Quest Matters,” in Jesus, Skepticism and the Problem of History: Criteria and Context in the Study of Christian Origins, ed. Darrell L. Bock and J. Ed Komoszewski (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 23-24, emphasis original.
. Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection, Volume 1: Evidences (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024).
. Jerry Walls and Trent Dougherty, Two Dozen (or So) Arguments for God: The Plantinga Project (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018). Others include Colin Ruloff and Peter Horban, Contemporary Arguments in Natural Theology: God and Rational Belief (New York: Bloomsbury, 2021); William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). For a more introductory work, see William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010).
