The Bible teaches if Christ did not
resurrect, our faith is useless (1 Corinthians 15: 12-19). So if Christ had not
been raised from the dead, Historic Christianity cannot exist.
If Christ had not existed, then HE,
obviously, would not have been raised. So the existence of historical Jesus is
the causal factor to HIS resurrection.
Who
is the historical Jesus? Dr. Mike Licona defines the historical Jesus as, “…When
the data has been sifted, sorted, and assessed, the historical Jesus is the
Jesus historians can prove with reasonable certainty and apart from faith.”1
How
do historians determine the existence of the historical Jesus? Mike Licona
provides a list of criteria used by historians to affirm the existence of the
historical Jesus:2
1.
Criterion of Authenticity: The most common approach at present is to
recognize that Jesus was a Jewish itinerant preacher who lived in first-century
Palestine in a culture that was both Jewish and Greco-Roman. This provides
historians with a background knowledge that helps them obtain a more accurate
understanding of what Jesus taught and the impact it may have had on those who
heard him. They then apply what are referred to as criteria of authenticity to
the words and deeds of Jesus as preserved in the Gospels.
2.
Criterion of Multiple Attestation: If two or more sources that are
independent of one another provide similar reports of the same event, we can
have more confidence that the event had occurred than if only one source had
reported it. This is called the criterion of multiple attestation. For example,
the Gospel of Mark and Paul’s letters are independent of one another. So, when
both report that Jesus was buried, we have multiple attestation of the event.
3.
Criterion of Unsympathetic Sources: If a source that is unsympathetic or
even hostile toward the Christian faith provides a report that agrees with the
Christian reports, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred,
since the unsympathetic or hostile source would not have the bias carried by
the authors of the Christian reports. This is called the criterion of
unsympathetic sources. For example, Tacitus referred to Christianity as an evil
and mischievous superstition (Annals 15.44). This identifies him as an
unsympathetic source. So, when he reports Jesus’s execution by Pontius Pilate,
a report entirely compatible with what we find in the Gospels, historians can
have more confidence that the event had occurred.
4.
Criterion of Embarrassment: If a report in the Gospels provides data that
would have been embarrassing to the early Christian movement, we can have more
confidence that the event had occurred, since it is unlikely that the author
would have invented content likely to detract from the cause for which he
wrote. This is called the criterion of embarrassment. For example, Mark reports
that Peter rebuked Jesus and that Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, calling him
“Satan” (Mark 8:31-33). Since Peter was a leader of the Jerusalem church, it
seems unlikely that the early Christians would have invented and preserved a
tradition that casts him in such an unfavorable manner.
5.
Criterion of Early Attestation: Historians prefer to have reports that are
from eyewitnesses or from a source whose report was written close to the event
it purports to describe. This is called the criterion of early attestation. For
example, almost all scholars agree that Paul has preserved an oral tradition in
1 Corinthians 15:3-7 that goes back to the earliest days of the Christian
church and that the content of these verses, although not necessarily the
creedal form in which the content appears, very probably goes back to the
Jerusalem apostles.
How
can we be sure of Christ’s existence?
A must-read for every honest seeker
seeking the existence of historical Jesus is J. Warner Wallace’s article
entitled The Case for the Historicity and
Deity of Jesus (Free Bible Insert). This article has a marvelous compilation
of points for the existence of the historical Jesus.3
The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John) provide us with details of Jesus’ existence. But a skeptic would not
believe in the gospel account for he could claim that the gospel authors were biased.
The same skeptic is more likely to
believe in the affirmation of Christ’s existence by hostile non-Biblical,
non-Christian accounts. Affirmation of Christ’s existence by the enemies of
Christianity is a better source for a skeptic.
J. Warner Wallace in an article
entitled Is There Any Evidence for Jesus
Outside the Bible? has collated significant information about Jesus from non-Christian sources:4
…Let’s review
what we’ve learned from hostile pagan and Jewish sources describing Jesus…:
Jesus was born and lived in Palestine. He
was born, supposedly, to a virgin and had an earthly father who was a
carpenter. He was a teacher who taught that through repentance and belief, all
followers would become brothers and sisters. He led the Jews away from their
beliefs. He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had
unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He
accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He
said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink
vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the eve of the Passover
and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the
time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there
was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later
found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and
showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others Jesus was resurrected
and ascended into heaven. Jesus’ disciples and followers upheld a high moral
code. One of them was named Matthai. The disciples were also persecuted for
their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly
to worship Jesus, even after His death.
It is fascinating to learn that the
hostile non-Christian sources have affirmed the following:
1. Christ’s miraculous birth.
2. Christ’s claim to be God and the
Messiah.
3. Christ performed the miraculous.
4. Jesus was persecuted by the Jews.
5. Jesus’ gory death through
crucifixion.
6. The empty tomb.
7. Jesus’ resurrection, postmortem
appearances to HIS disciples, and ascension.
8. Disciples’ martyrdom.
9. Early Christians’ regular
worship.
Does the skeptic need more proof
than this to believe in the existence of Jesus Christ? If after learning this
information, if the skeptic refuses to believe in the Historical Jesus, then it
seems that the skeptic is dishonest in his search for truth.
One of the more hostile voices in
the highest academic forum is that of Dr. Bart Ehrman. Interestingly, he
believes that Jesus existed:5 [Emphasis Mine]
With respect
to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources
lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated
in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or
two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves).
Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of
any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one
first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of
years of Jesus’ life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus’ closest disciple
Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his
brother would know it.
Moreover, the
claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged
parallels between Jesus and the “pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in
the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to
virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from
the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their
propagandized versions).
Moreover,
aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone
wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that
he was a crucified messiah. But prior
to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought
that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure
of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a
messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because
they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well
that he was crucified. The Christians did not invent Jesus. They invented the
idea that the messiah had to be crucified.
One may well
choose to resonate with the concerns of our modern and post-modern cultural
despisers of established religion (or not). But surely the best way to promote
any such agenda is not to deny what virtually every sane historian on the
planet — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, pagan, agnostic, atheist, what have you —
has come to conclude based on a range of compelling historical evidence.
Whether we
like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.
Endnotes:
1https://www.risenjesus.com/assessment-present-state-historical-jesus-studies
2Ibid.
3https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/the-case-for-the-historicity-and-deity-of-jesus/
4https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/
5https://www.huffpost.com/entry/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544?
Websites last
accessed on 25th February 2020
No comments:
Post a Comment