14 Evidences for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ—and 14 References

142 replies to "14 Evidences for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ—and 14 References"

• Robert Bowman

  2013-03-31

  Vinny,

  You wrote:

  “Evidence is an effect from which we infer a cause. Therefore, we need to understand the process of cause and effect in order for anything to be evidence of anything.”

  That isn’t so. I need to have some understanding of the concept of cause and effect to infer a cause from an effect, but I don’t have to understand the process of the specific cause-and-effect event in each case in order to infer a cause from the effect.

  I walk into a room in my house. I see that a picture that hung on the east wall is now hanging on the west wall. I infer that someone moved the picture. I do not need to know who moved it, how many people participated, how long it took, or any number of other things one might ask about the process of the event, in order to infer that someone moved the picture.

  I am very sick. The doctor prescribes a pill. I take the pill and I quickly start to feel better. I don’t know anything about how the pill works, but I infer that the pill caused something to occur in my body that is alleviating the symptoms.

  Of course, these are natural occurrences. I know even less about what might be involved in God causing something to happen. But as the above examples show, I don’t really need to know much or anything about the specific process of causation to infer a cause.

  You wrote:

  “Fingerprints on a knife may be evidence of who used that knife because we understand the process by which the patterns on the human finger come to appear on other objects. If we thought such patterns appeared randomly or by divine fiat, fingerprints wouldn’t be evidence of anything.”

  As I have explained in my previous comment, explaining as purely random occurrences or as miracles of divine fiat patterns that occur in predictable ways with regularity (such as fingerprints) would be unacceptably ad hoc. By contrast, explaining a resurrection from the dead as a miracle caused by God is not ad hoc.

  It is important here to distinguish between the event and the cause. Jesus was crucified. His body became dead. It was buried in a tomb. On the third day the tomb was discovered empty. The body was no longer there. That same day, several persons independently had experiences they reported to have been encounters with Jesus, very much alive, speaking with them and performing various actions in their presence. These are events. The causes are something else; for example, that Jesus’ body died from a combination of the injuries he had sustained and asphyxiation is a causal explanation for the fact of his death on the cross. This explanation may or may not be precisely accurate, but the fact remains that Jesus died on the cross and that we can know this to be true even if we are unsure of the best medical description of the process by which his body came to die. Analogously, we can know that Jesus was brought back to life even if we are unsure of how this might have been done—even if we do not understand the process by which his body was reanimated.

  That having been said, the conclusion that God raised Jesus from the dead is not an abductive guess from mysterious reports of “Jesus sightings” following his death and burial. The events of Jesus’ appearances came with the explanation that God had raised Jesus miraculously from the dead as part of God’s redemptive plan. One may accept this explanation or reject it, but it is an epistemological error to maintain that the explanation is unknowable merely because we lack understanding of how God does miracles.

  You wrote:

  “I don’t see how we could claim to have evidence of miracles when they don’t follow the processes of cause and effect that we observe and understand. The problem isn’t one of presupposing miracles don’t occur. The problem is that our method of drawing inferences from evidence depends on the consistent functioning of cause and effect.”

  I hope I have satisfactorily answered this objection. One marvelous capacity of the human mind is its capacity to learn not just new facts of the same kind it has previously acquired but to learn new categories of understanding, to recognize not only the predictable but also the unpredictable, to be able to think outside the box of what the person has previously experienced. Our knowledge of the consistency of natural cause and effect is precisely what enables us to recognize events for which no natural cause is adequate. Knowing that dead bodies do not spontaneously come back to life, it is perfectly reasonable to accept the resurrection of Jesus as the explanation for the available evidence despite our ignorance of the “process” by which God would perform such a miracle.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-03-31

  Staircaseghost,

  In regards to your comment #41, the empty tomb is not the “linchpin” fact of his minimal-facts apologetic. Indeed, it isn’t one of the “minimal facts” in his argument. The same is true for Michael Licona’s doctoral dissertation advancing the minimal-facts argument (The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach). See Habermas’s article from 2012 on the minimal-facts argument, in which he specifically comments on this issue: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/southeastern_theological_review/minimal-facts-methodology_08-02-2012.htm.

  Reply
• vinnyjh57

  2013-03-31

  Rob,

  The important distinction to make is between the evidence and the cause. The evidence in this case is the stories that have come down to us. The events that you describe are the causes of the evidence that you infer. You infer from the appearance stories that someone had an experience which they interpreted to be an encounter with the risen Christ. You infer that such an event is the cause of the story which is the evidence. All those events you cite are explanations of the evidence.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-03-31

  Vinny,

  You’re close to exactly right in what you say. But that people had experience which they interpreted to be encounters with the risen Christ is not only an inference, except insofar as accepting someone’s statement to be honest is an inference. In the case of at least two individuals we have explicit assertions by the authors of the texts themselves that they had such experiences: John and Paul. These two men definitely claimed to have had experiences that they interpreted as encounters with the risen Christ. Either they made it up, or they were deluded, or they misinterpreted their experience, or they really saw Jesus Christ alive from the dead. So what we have is not limited to stories about such experiences, but first-hand testimonies from individuals reporting such experiences. In addition, of course, we also have third-person accounts of other individuals reportedly having such experiences and reportedly interpreting those experiences in the same way.

  In any case, your general point is correct, but so is mine: the conclusion that people had experiences they sincerely understood to be resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ is one that can be reasonably accepted even though we are unable to describe the “process” by which God would perform such a miracle. And in fact nearly all historians who have commented on the matter agree on at least that modest conclusion, even if they are agnostic or noncommittal on whether it really was Jesus risen from the dead:

  “That the experiences did occur, even if they are explained in purely natural terms, is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever can agree.”—Reginald H. Fuller

  “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgement, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know.”—E. P. Sanders

  “It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.”—Bart Ehrman

  Reply
• vinnyjh57

  2013-03-31

  Rob,

  I am aware of Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to him in I Cor 15. I am not aware of anywhere where someone identifying himself as John makes so explicit a claim. Unfortunately, Paul tells me virtually nothing about what that experience entailed so I don’t see how acknowledging that he claimed to have such an experience really gives me anything upon which to base any further conclusions.

  I think that delusion, invention, and misinterpretation are all possible causes that have to be acknowledged just as they are all possibilities when it comes to Mohammed and Joseph Smith. I am not aware of any principled basis for concluding that someone’s claim to have encountered a supernatural being is really the product of an actual encounter with a supernatural being.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-03-31

  Vinny,

  As you know, the Fourth Gospel has been attributed to John since the early second century, and while the author does not name himself (in keeping with the practice of the other three Gospels) he was clearly known to his original readers and tells us a lot about himself so that the identification is really not that difficult. I realize that creative scholars in recent years have taken an “anyone but John son of Zebedee” approach to the question but I see no good reason for it. In any case the author explicitly identifies himself as an eyewitness and gives plenty enough details about Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection appearances.

  At the end of the day, my contention is that the case for the resurrection is best made as part of a holistic case for the basic elements of the Christian faith: that there is a God who made the world and who can do and has done miracles, that Jesus Christ died on the cross, and that he rose from the grave. Such a holistic case involves evidence pertaining to the origins of the world and of life, to miracles modern and ancient, to the Bible, to the historical Jesus, and to the early church, and not narrowly to the empty tomb and the appearances alone, as important as those are. This was the point of the second part of my article. The first part of the article is really more of a “cheat sheet” of brief summaries of some of the evidences that pertain more narrowly to the historicity of the Resurrection, for the convenience of those who would like to see a simple overview of such evidences. Of course, I am happy that those brief summaries have been as provocative as the comments here reflect, but I don’t see those evidences carrying their full force if treated abstractly apart from the broader worldview and biblical issues.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-01

  Greg,

  I can “know” something without knowing it with absolute “certainty.”

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-01

  Greg,

  Brother, I’m sorry to have to say this, but you’re not helping.

  If it were necessary for me to have absolute certain knowledge of everything in order to know anything, then I would not know anything. Happily, this epistemological burden is not mine. God has absolute certain knowledge of everything, and I trust whatever he says; but such absolute certain knowledge of everything is simply beyond my capacity. God is not uncertain about anything; you’re right about that. But we creatures do not have God’s omniscience. God graciously enables us as creatures made in his image to know some things, and what we know we know, but (1) we do not know in the same way that he knows, (2) we do not know as much as he knows, and therefore (3) we do not know everything with the same absolute certainty that God has in knowing everything.

  It is also possible for human beings to “know” something with a kind of certainty, or perhaps certitude would be a better word for it, that goes beyond what they can show by argument. This kind of subjective certitude that transcends empirical evidence or rational demonstration is especially relevant to personal, relational knowledge. One can thus know that what God says is true and have a kind of certitude about it based on one’s confidence in God even if the subject matter is such that humans do not have access to “evidence” that would decisively prove what they believe. But in order to have this certitude one must first have come to the point of accepting God’s revelation in Scripture. People get to that point in various ways; I’m not of the view that there is only one right way to come to such faith. But for those who are not there yet, it is perfectly legitimate to provide pointers to the truth using arguments that do not pretend to yield absolute certain knowledge. That is essentially what apologetics does.

  Reply
• mbaker

  2013-04-02

  Greg,

  You are too funny! Nothing would please me less than having a Christian brother “thrown out” as you put it, and knowing Rob as the biblical scholar he is, I very seriously doubt he would either.

  However, you keep talking about epistemology so please define for us, especially and exactly where you differ. That would be much more helpful and positive to this discussion in understanding your position.

  Reply
• vinnyjh57

  2013-04-02

  I am unaware of any identification of John as the author of the fourth gospel prior to Irenaeous late in the second century. I am aware of John 21:24, which seems to be a note added by someone other than the writer who describes the appearances. This leaves me with 1 Cor. 15:8 as the only identifiable eyewitness claim.

  Once again, most of your “evidences” are not evidence. They are explanations or conclusions or interpretations based on the evidence. How can we ever have any more confidence in the explanations than warranted by the evidence underlying the explanations? In this case, the evidence consists of a collection of ancient supernatural stories composed decades after the fact by mostly unidentified authors based on mostly unknown sources which were themselves removed an indeterminate number of times in the oral tradition from anyone who might have been an eyewitness to the relevant events.

  Apologetic arguments like these seek to sidestep the problematic nature of the sources by extracting some intermediate facts based on the consensus of scholars and then using those facts as the premise of a further argument. However, the strength of an historical argument derives from its ability to explain the evidence, not on its ability to explain other explanations of the evidence. That many scholars agree with those intermediate facts as explanations doesn’t warrant any more confidence in them than the evidence will support.

  I would liken it to trying to draw conclusions from the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination. No matter how much we slow it down or blow it up, we cannot turn a grainy home movie into a high definition video. Even if experts agree about what it it seems to show, we are limited by the quality of the images. I think that any fact derived solely from the New Testament is as problematic as any fact concerning Joseph Smith that derives solely from his most devoted followers writing decades after the fact.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-02

  Greg,

  I responded to your earlier comments by offering you a direct response that specifically addressed your criticisms of my argument. You then responded by asserting that I “have clearly NOT thought this through… AT ALL.” You are entitled to your opinion, but you have done nothing to SHOW what is wrong with what I said, let alone that I have not thought through the matter at all (!).

  Have you read my book Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith? It is a book of over 650 pages that addresses the issues of faith, reason, certainty, etc., in relation to apologetics. I don’t mind someone disagreeing with me, but I frankly find it humorous to be told that I haven’t even thought through an issue when in fact I have both studied and taught on the subject at the graduate level and spent several years writing a major textbook on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Has-Its-Reasons-Integrative/dp/083085648X/

  Reply
• R David

  2013-04-02

  Vinnyjh57 #69-

  Although I think Rob’s points are valid, I do agree that we need to look at other, non-NT aspects. I particularly think the ancient credal traditions, and the related Regula Fidei, add important support.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-02

  Vinny,

  My statement on the origin of the earliest testimony to John’s authorship of the Fourth Gospel was imprecise. Irenaeus’s Against Heresies and the Muratorian Canon, both in the late second century, are our first written texts referring to the author of the Fourth Gospel as John. However, Irenaeus’s information appears to have come from Polycarp, a Christian bishop in the first half of the second century (see Against Heresies 2.22.5; 3.1.1; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.23.3-4; 4.14.3-8; 5.8.4; 5.20.4-8).

  Your claim that John 21:24 “seems to be a note added by someone other than the writer who describes the appearances” assumes that the “we” in that verse is distinct from the writer. This is probably incorrect. The author of the Gospel of John and of 1 John routinely uses the first-person plural in reference to or at least inclusive of himself as an eyewitness:

  “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
  “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life. The life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us. That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:1-5).
  “And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14).
  “I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing in spreading false charges against us…. Everyone has testified favorably about Demetrius, and so has the truth itself. We also testify for him, and you know that our testimony is true” (3 John 9-10a, 12).

  In the light of the above passages, the first-person plural in John 21:24-25, which forms a rather clear inclusio with 1:14, should probably be understood to include the disciple:

  “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:24-25).

  Even if the “we” here is an editorial postscript by an associate of John or a later editor, which I don’t think is correct, this verse explicitly claims that it was the disciple who “wrote these things.” The Gospel of John thus claims to be the writing of an eyewitness who personally witnessed Jesus’ death (John 19:26-27, 35), empty tomb (20:2-8), and resurrection appearances (20:19-31; 21:7, 20-25).

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-02

  Greg,

  You asked, “How long would it take for someone who has both studied and taught on the subject at the graduate level and spent several years writing a major textbook on it to spin together a few paragraphs?” Greg, I did so in comment #66.

  You wrote that “what you say even further reinforces my assertion that not only have you not thought epistemology through, but you don’t even know what it is.” Bold words from someone who does not even use his full name and who has offered no explanation of what he thinks epistemology is.

  You also assert, “You have NOT addressed my contention (which I am not so arrogant as to think that you are somehow obligated to do) because you have not yet understood what my contention is.” Well, I addressed what you said as best I could, and you have now TWICE asserted that my response was inadequate without offering any explanation for HOW it was inadequate.

  Sometimes it is best to give a person what they appear to be begging to be given. I grant your request and prohibit you from posting further comments in this thread, unless you choose to address what I said in comment #66 in a substantive and respectful manner or unless you post a sincere and unqualified apology. If I see any other further comments from you here I will unashamedly delete them.

  Reply
• Bits & Pieces (4/2/13) | nawinter.com

  2013-04-02

  […] Evidences & Resources – Fourteen concise descriptions of evidence of Christ’s resurrection. […]

  Reply
• C Michael Patton

  2013-04-02

  Hey Greg,

  You said the EXACT same thing to me: “what you say even further reinforces my assertion that not only have you not thought epistemology through, but you don’t even know what it is.” Or close 🙂

  Now I don’t feel special. 🙁

  Rob, Greg is a crazy ol’ chap. I vouch for his deep hearted intentions and his very unique style in pushing things. He doesn’t like my theology much about certainty and you wrote just about the exact thing I have written. So my friend Greg is jumpin’ on you for this epistemology crush he has.

  Greg, down boy, down!

  Reply
• C Michael Patton

  2013-04-02

  Well, I say this for you. At least you are encouraged by the one like! I suppose that I could get one like from saying I believed that Rob was an alien from outer space. Let’s try.

  Reply
• C Michael Patton

  2013-04-02

  Rob is an alien from outer space.

  Reply
• C Michael Patton

  2013-04-02

  Thanks Greg my man.

  But, in truth, let me give you a bit of feedback so that you don’t feel like you are talking to the wind. When I hear something like “Could you please write a post on epistemology?” that is like saying “Can you please write a post on theology?” or “Could you please write a post on Soteriology?” You might just write me an email and tell me more specifically what it is you want me to write in the increadibly broad area of epistemology. But that will not mean 1) that I am qualified to write on such a subject (I don’t just write on anything just because someone asks…there is a whole lot about epistimology I have written on, especially the issue of certainty, but I have to feel like I have something to say and I am qualified before God to write such an article) and 2) it is an area that is relevant to this blog. Hope that makes sense.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-02

  Greg,

  You asked me if I disagreed with anything in the chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith that you quoted. No, I don’t disagree with any of it. In fact, it agrees with the very point I made in comment #66, a point you have yet to address. The WCF states: “In his [God’s] sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.” Please note the words I have emphasized here, In HIS sight, i.e., in God’s sight, everything is open and manifest and HIS knowledge is infinite and infallible. As a consequence or implication of this theological truth, it follows, according to the WCF, that nothing is uncertain TO HIM. However, since we do not have this attribute of seeing all things clearly and knowing all things infallibly, some things are uncertain TO US.

  Greg, I did not throw my credentials at you to impress or intimidate you. I cited them to refute your ridiculous claim that I have never thought through the epistemological issues and don’t even know what epistemology is. The fact that I might have the temerity to disagree with your epistemological position is not proof that I don’t know what epistemology is or that I haven’t thought through the issues; even if you’re right, it simply shows that knowledgeable Christians can and do disagree. The reason why this happens is that we are still finite creatures who do not know everything and do not understand fully even everything we do know. God blesses us with knowledge, but we ought to hold this knowledge with humility, acknowledging the imperfection of our grasp of his truth even as we confess the perfection and certainty of God’s knowledge of the truth.

  Reply
• C Michael Patton

  2013-04-02

  Greg, I don’t know if you have ever heard of The Theology Program. It is really what my ministry is all about (at least from the standpoint of the “what do you want us to do at your minstry?” standpoint. It is the most popular theological curriculum there is out there (granted, there is not that much!). It is in over two thousand churches and has been endorsed everyone from John Frame to J.P. Moreland. The first course, prolegommena, is devoted almost entirely to building a Christian epistemology. You can get it here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/what-we-do/the-theology-program/

  It is very expensive but you can get it on your iPhone for just 6.99 for the whole thing! Or, if you want, you can get the course on DVD. You can also have free access to it all, sreaming, if you become a member of Creo House (https://www.reclaimingthemind.org/members/). Either way, if you want to know what I know about epistemology, that would be a great place to start.

  Reply
• C Michael Patton

  2013-04-02

  And, btw, Rob’s book is hands down the best apologetics book I have ever read. I deals with methodology rather than just defending the faith. Such good stuff. It is why I have Rob bloggin’ here.

  Reply
• Andrew

  2013-04-03

  Rob Bowman,

  You keep mistakenly referring to theologians as “historians.”

  While history does factor into the study of religion, it is not the primary interest of the authorities you cite. Most or all of them have divinity degrees and work for seminary schools or solely within the field of biblical studies. They are scholars of religion.

  Reply
• Andrew

  2013-04-03

  “That Jesus was a historical individual is granted by virtually all historians and is supported by ancient Christian, Jewish, and pagan sources. Yet modern skeptics often feel that their best strategy for denying the evidence of his resurrection is to deny that he even existed.”

  Many, many figures that were well-attested in antiquity with multiple sources are now regarded as legendary, or hopelessly buried under myth. Given the extremely cultic, derivative, and mythical nature of much of the source material surrounding Christianity, it is reasonable to question whether a figure depicted as the constellation Aries (Rev 5:6) actually lived on the earth. “The Epistle to the Hebrews” is not the least bit concerned with what a humble rabbi said or did to some people in Galilee.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-03

  Greg,

  Sorry, I’m going to have to come down rather hard on you.

  Once again, your response to me doesn’t respond to the substance of what I said. Your own quotation from the Westminster Confession of Faith proves that absolute certainty about everything is beyond the capacity of human beings, since such knowledge is an aspect of the incommunicable attribute of divine omniscience. I don’t understand why you won’t engage this simple point: God has absolute certainty about everything; man does not. Calvin himself taught that the human mind is simply incapable of fully grasping God as he is in himself. According to Calvin, it “is not for us to attempt with bold curiosity to penetrate to the investigation of his essence, which we ought more to adore than meticulously to search out…. And as Augustine teaches elsewhere, because, disheartened by his greatness, we cannot grasp him, we ought to gaze upon his works, that we may be restored by his goodness” (Inst. 1.5.9). I would also point out to you that Calvin grounds the subjective certainty of believers not on an epistemology but on the testimony of the Holy Spirit to and in Scripture (1.8.4).

  I knew Van Til was going to get dragged into this sidebar/derailment of the thread at some point. On the other hand, I have no idea why you started arguing against Frame, who has not been mentioned here.

  In case it means anything at all to you, I got an “A” in a doctoral course I took on Van Til — at Westminster Theological Seminary (in Philadelphia). So apparently my professor (Robert Knudsen), who had known and worked with Van Til for years, thought I had at least a decent grasp of Van Til’s position. But I’m guessing that Knudsen wasn’t purist enough in his epistemology for you.

  I asked you in comment #70 if you had read my book Faith Has Its Reasons. You have so far not answered that question. Have you read it? I have read practically everything Van Til ever wrote (as one can see by reading my discussions of Van Til in that book). But you haven’t read my book dealing with the same subject, have you? You don’t say, but either way you clearly have not understood my views on epistemology, based on the criticisms you have expressed here. Not that I am anyone important, but you are attacking my epistemology apparently without first doing the due diligence to understand it. What would you say to someone who claimed to be able to refute Van Til without reading him? I know what Scripture says about people who criticize others before understanding them (Prov. 18:13).

  My earlier decision to prohibit you from further diversionary posts in this thread went unheeded. I would really have preferred that the discussion remain on topic, dealing with the evidence for the Resurrection. I will wait and see what you say in response, but if it is more of the same, I will ask to have action taken to make it the last such comment.

  Reply
• Laurie Trlak

  2013-04-03

  It seems to me that one key point has been overlooked: Let’s assume for a moment that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul all made up or imagined what they report in the Bible. Considering that Christians were persecuted, pursued, imprisoned, and executed for following Christ, why would any of them do so in light of said persecution? No evidence exists that any of them recanted, which would be a reasonable expectation if they were lying.
  Could they have hallucinated the whole thing? I supposed anything is possible, but on what is such an assumption based? Raising such objections is fine as long as evidence is presented to support the objections, but when the evidence is lacking, as is the case with the multiple theories which skeptics have put forth, one is well-advised to stick with the simplest explanation.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-03

  Andrew,

  You wrote:

  “You keep mistakenly referring to theologians as ‘historians.’ While history does factor into the study of religion, it is not the primary interest of the authorities you cite. Most or all of them have divinity degrees and work for seminary schools or solely within the field of biblical studies. They are scholars of religion.”

  No, I meant what I said. Virtually all historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. Religion scholars also agree with these statements, but you can leave them out and consider only academic historians who do not work in religion, biblical studies, or theology departments and my statement is accurate. The historians who are not part of such schools or departments but who are likely to comment on such matters would generally be historians of the ancient Mediterranean world, classical scholars, and archaeologists. Of course, scholars trained in historical studies have also contributed heavily to biblical studies and religious studies, and I see no reason to exclude them from my statement. Many “religion scholars” are trained historians whose work in “religion” is primarily in the history of religion. There is no reason to exclude them from the category of “historians.”

  Furthermore, my statement encompasses scholars of varying religious and irreligious perspectives. Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Amy-Jill Levine, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and many other scholars are hostile to orthodox Christian beliefs but have no trouble acknowledging that Jesus was a real person who was crucified under orders from Pontius Pilate.

  You asserted: “Many, many figures that were well-attested in antiquity with multiple sources are now regarded as legendary, or hopelessly buried under myth.” Examples, please. Since you know of “many, many” such figures, please give us two examples that are comparable in terms of how well attested they are but that are now regarded as legendary or mythical.

  You wrote: “Given the extremely cultic, derivative, and mythical nature of much of the source material surrounding Christianity, it is reasonable to question whether a figure depicted as the constellation Aries (Rev 5:6) actually lived on the earth.”

  Your statement here is so embarrassingly wrongheaded that the only difficulty is knowing where to start. First, Revelation 5:6 does not depict Jesus as the constellation Aries. The vision depicts Jesus as a lamb, drawing on Jewish religious imagery and associations (most prominently, the Passover lamb and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 who goes to his death as a lamb to the slaughter). It has nothing to do with Aries.

  Second, even if Revelation 5:6 did have some connection with Aries, it would mean nothing so far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned. It would simply mean that some later literature portrayed Jesus using the imagery or symbol of Aries.

  Third, Revelation uses apocalyptic imagery; the images are symbolic. It uses a variety of such images to portray the significance of Jesus in Christian belief, such as its reference to Jesus as “the bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16). It is hermeneutical folly to confuse apocalyptic imagery with mythology; the two are simply different genres of literature. Apocalyptic depicted real people, nations, and places in highly symbolic visions; mythology personified forces or aspects of nature as typically anthropomorphic deities.

  Using Revelation 5:6 to question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is about as bizarre an argument as I’ve seen in a long time.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-03

  Greg,

  It is unacceptable for you to make baseless accusations irrelevant to the subject of the article here and then claim that I am somehow responsible for derailing the thread by responding to those baseless accusations.

  Please do not post any more messages in this thread.

  Reply
• Andrew

  2013-04-03

  Rob,

  Thanks for your reply.

  You assert:
  “Many “religion scholars” are trained historians whose work in “religion” is primarily in the history of religion. There is no reason to exclude them from the category of “historians.”
  Furthermore, my statement encompasses scholars of varying religious and irreligious perspectives. Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen, Amy-Jill Levine, Burton Mack, E. P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, and many other scholars are hostile to orthodox Christian beliefs but have no trouble acknowledging that Jesus was a real person who was crucified under orders from Pontius Pilate.”

  I was mainly going by your list of references, which, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively draws upon some of the most conservative theologians out there, several actual working as ministers. You still haven’t actually listed any historians of the Greco-Roman world.

  I’ve read Michael Grant, and his best reason for asserting that the historical Jesus must have existed is your #3. “Nobody would have made it up” is not a criteria normally used in historical studies to establish facts. This is the only time I recall Grant using that line of argument in his many books.

  Reply
• mbaker

  2013-04-03

  Rob,

  Thanks for this post and the references. I am always looking for these to convince my non-Christian friends. I know these last few comments have somewhat derailed this post, but i hope you will keep on keeping on with this type of thing.

  God bless.

  Reply
• vinnyjh57

  2013-04-03

  Rob,
  I can see from 1 John 1 that the author uses “we” when he means “we,” and he uses “I” when he means “I.” I cannot see anywhere where he uses “we” to refer to himself alone. (Interesting, where he seems to use “I” the most is in sentences beginning “I am writing.”) I particularly do not see anything that would lead me to believe that he was in the habit of referring to himself by the royal “we” in the same sentence where he referred to himself in the third person. I am not as concerned with what “the gospel” claims as with what the writers claim, and in this case, I don’t think that the writer who describes the appearances is making the claim that he is an eyewitness.

  As far as Irenaeous’s source appearing to be Polycarp, I don’t see how you get there other than by question begging. You want Polycarp to be Irenaeous source, but your only reason for thinking that Polycarp knew John to be the author of the fourth gospel is by inferring it from Irenaeous. If we had some independent means to establish John’s authorship, it would be perfectly reasonable to infer the link to Irenaeous through Polycarp, but we can’t just assume it because it’s convenient.

  Reply
• Andrew

  2013-04-03

  Rob, in reply to this:

  “Many, many figures that were well-attested in antiquity with multiple sources are now regarded as legendary, or hopelessly buried under myth.”

  You asserted:
  Examples, please. Since you know of “many, many” such figures, please give us two examples that are comparable in terms of how well attested they are but that are now regarded as legendary or mythical.”

  We have actual letters written by Attis, not to mention statues and inscriptions. Should we accept those letters as authentic?

  Plutarch’s “Life of Romulus” seeks to portray an actual historic figure. True, the author was hundreds of years removed from the events, but the point is, Plutarch and the culture of his time didn’t think it was just a myth.

  Just about all of the Greek heroes were historicized and rationalized by one historian or another at the time. The surviving fragments of Diodorus’s Biblioteca bear this out.

  “The Life of Apollonius of Tyana” is one of the longest surviving biographies from antiquity, full of actual towns, historic figures, etc. Should we therefore believe his miracles?

  I wouldn’t say Jesus was “well-attested.” Citations in Suetonius, Tacitus, Lucian, and possibly Josephus are certainly important, but not really much different from similar statements made about Apollonius or Romulus.

  Reply
• Andrew

  2013-04-03

  Rob:

  “Your statement here is so embarrassingly wrongheaded that the only difficulty is knowing where to start. First, Revelation 5:6 does not depict Jesus as the constellation Aries. The vision depicts Jesus as a lamb, drawing on Jewish religious imagery and associations (most prominently, the Passover lamb and the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 who goes to his death as a lamb to the slaughter). It has nothing to do with Aries.”

  Really? That’s not what New Testament scholar Bruce J. Malina writes in his book and commentary on Revelation.

  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genre-Message-Revelation-Visions-Journeys/dp/1565630408/ref=la_B000APRY4A_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1365036541&sr=1-16

  “Using Revelation 5:6 to question the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is about as bizarre an argument as I’ve seen in a long time.”

  You obviously are unfamiliar with the extensive use of Hellenistic astrology permeating virtually every chapter of Revelation. Absolutely nothing in Revelation even hints at the author being concerned with the earthly biography of a recently living rabbi in Galilee.

  Reply
• C Michael Patton

  2013-04-03

  Malina also seems to think the sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus represents a comet. Very bizzare stuff that I don’t think I have ever seen anyone actually reference.

  You must understand that there are people who from the world of unorthodox scholarship present some novel theories that are not unlike the DaVinci sources. Do you know of anyone else who presents this cosmological interpretation of Revelation and their sources?

  Being a student of church history makes these type of interpretations as far out there as anything I have ever seen. But, if this is your source, I suppose that one has to deal with it.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-03

  Andrew,

  Perhaps you missed Bart Ehrman’s book on my list of 14 references. Ehrman is an agnostic professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. His book specifically makes the case for Jesus’ historicity against the Jesus myth theory. According to Ehrman, Jesus “certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence” (Forged: Writing in the Name of God, 256-57). In the book I listed above he points out that “the view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet” (Did Jesus Exist, 4). Acknowledging that scholarly consensus is not to be confused with proof, Ehrman goes on to present the proof. And again, he is a rank unbeliever.

  Yes, most of the books I listed were written by conservative Christian scholars. I did not list them to document the consensus of academic historians that Jesus existed. I listed them to provide what I consider to be well-done references that provide details supporting the 14 evidences I listed in the first half of the article.

  Sorry, but I’m not going to shoulder the burden of proof to demonstrate that historians of ancient Greco-Roman civilization who do not work in the fields of biblical studies or religious studies have acknowledged the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. (After all, what I said was “historians,” a true statement that cannot be negated by narrowing the relevant pool in that way.) Rather, I’m going to put the burden of proof on you and anyone else who claims that a significant number of academic historians deny Jesus’ historicity.

  However, I will cite an example for you. A. N. Sherwin-White was an Oxford professor of Roman history, and most of his scholarship was in that field (Roman Citizenship; Ancient Rome; The Letters of Pliny; etc.). However, he also wrote Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, in which he examined the historical narratives in the NT in the light of his expertise on Roman law and culture. Sherwin-White demonstrated in that book that much of the modern scholarly skepticism about specific elements in the NT, particularly in the trial narratives, was unfounded.

  Your comments exemplify the truth of the observation I make in my evidence #1, which is that “modern skeptics often feel that their best strategy for denying the evidence of his resurrection is to deny that he even existed.” To put the matter another way, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical person who was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate is an inconvenient truth for many skeptics. While I am happy to meet the challenge of providing evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, the skeptic must meet the challenge of providing evidence that Jesus never existed. In fact, simply pointing out that Jesus clearly did exist goes a long way toward meeting my challenge, because once it is admitted that Jesus was a real person, skepticism is forced to look for ever smaller windows to escape from the building.

  Reply
• mbaker

  2013-04-03

  Andrew,

  You are obviously arguing from a position of non-faith primarily. Suppose for a change you try to convince of us YOUR position, giving US evidence?

  Reply
• C Michael Patton

  2013-04-03

  It also frustrates the situation for Christians as they are required to support a wholistic Christian theology in every book the references Jesus or that document either has no relevance or, worse, actually argues against the orthodox positions. But what an odd situation we would have if every mention of Christ made by the first century writers did reform an entire biography of Christ. At this point we would find the faith being legitimately attacked based on overstatement of that which it claims (a common characteristic of fabrications).

  So be careful that you gain some perspective and find that you might be unable to ever find evidence that satisfies. This is simply the position of the hyper-critic. As such, one should not fool themselves into believing it is the most intellectual position to take. I think they have pills for this. 🙂

  Reply
• mbaker

  2013-04-03

  Michael,

  You said:

  ‘I think they have pills for this’.

  Would that we did! Wouldn’t that make this business of ‘proving’ Christianity so much easier?

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-03

  Andrew,

  You had claimed that “Many, many figures that were well-attested in antiquity with multiple sources are now regarded as legendary, or hopelessly buried under myth.” So I asked for “two examples that are comparable in terms of how well attested they are but that are now regarded as legendary or mythical.” You gave me Attis and Romulus!

  I’m almost speechless.

  First of all, so far as I am aware no one ever thought Attis was a human being.

  Second, we have no texts mentioning Attis from the same century as when he would have existed, or even from the same MILLENNIUM.

  Third, I admit you’ve stumped me about these alleged letters written by Attis. I may not be as up on ancient Greek and Roman mythology as you. So, when did these letters first show up in history and where might one consult these texts? All I know is that they must have originated sometime in the first millennium AD, well over a millennium after the Attis mythology began to develop.

  Fourth, “statues and inscriptions” of a Greek or Roman god are not attestations of their historical existence as mortal human beings.

  Fifth, I asked for examples of figures as well attested as Jesus. Your examples don’t come within hailing distance. The earliest stories about Romulus and Remus date from at least three CENTURIES after the time-frame of the foundation-myth about them. The earliest literature about Jesus dates from less than three DECADES after his ministry and death.

  Sixth, there is the whole matter of the historical quality of the primary sources. Sober scholars of all backgrounds have examined the Gospels thoroughly and even if they regard the supernatural elements as questionable are convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical individual and that many significant facts about him can be known.

  You also brought up Apollonius of Tyana. We have ONE account about him, written by Philostratus, who wasn’t even born until about 75 years after Apollonius died. He evidently finished his book about Apollonius roughly 125 years after Apollonius’s death. That having been said, scholars generally agree that Apollonius was a real historical person. So this example doesn’t do anything to address my objection to your claim.

  Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus all wrote within less than a century after Jesus’ death, and this is in addition to the NT writings which originated 25 to 65 years after Jesus’ death and several apocryphal Christian texts that probably originated in the early second century and that attest to Jesus’ existence as a historical figure. Nothing even remotely comparable to this attestation is available for any of the figures you mentioned.

  Reply
• Carrie Hunter

  2013-04-03

  Rob, excellent job here engaging folks.

  I would like to point out the sharp contrast between your gracious approach to dialog and other believer’s combative, bombastic tactics.

  We are to be salt and light. And you Rob, carry yourself in a way that reflects that. You always have, to the glory of God.

  Carry on brother!

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-03

  Thanks for those generous and encouraging words, Carrie. One nice thing about writing is that I can censor myself! 🙂

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-03

  Vinny,

  I don’t understand how John 21:24 could be any clearer on the point at issue. It says expressly that the person who wrote the things the reader is reading is “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” who was an eyewitness to the events where the text says he was present. If the “we” is a group of people and not just John, it is probably inclusive of John, and even if you wish to dispute that interpretation, the text is still explicit that the disciple who was part of the events narrated wrote them down.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-03

  Andrew,

  One other corrective. You wrote:

  “I’ve read Michael Grant, and his best reason for asserting that the historical Jesus must have existed is your #3. ‘Nobody would have made it up’ is not a criteria normally used in historical studies to establish facts. This is the only time I recall Grant using that line of argument in his many books.”

  This characterization of Grant’s argument is inaccurate.

  First, Grant does not argue “Nobody would have made it up, therefore Jesus existed.” What he says is that the Jesus-myth theory that asserts that the story of Jesus was taken over from pagan myths of dying and rising gods is flawed because the earliest Christians were traditionalist Jews whose religious thought was steeped in the Jewish Scriptures and traditions, not in tales of Osiris and Mithra. “In the first place, Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit” (Jesus: An Historian’s View of the Gospels [New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992], 199). Put simply, the Jesus-mythers are misidentifying the soil in which the Jesus story originated.

  Second, this is not Grant’s only or even his main point. He immediately goes on to say:

  “But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms. That there was a growth of legend round Jesus cannot be denied, and it arose very quickly. But there had also been a rapid growth of legend round pagan figures like Alexander the Great; and yet nobody regards him as wholly mythical and fictitious. To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars’. In recent years ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus’ – or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary” (199-200).

  Please note that Grant rejects the supernatural and especially the divine claims of the Gospels for Jesus as legendary, but he still concludes that Jesus was a real historical person and rejects the Jesus-myth position as not even a serious option in scholarship. According to Grant, the historicity of Jesus must be acknowledged because the consistent application of the same historical methods that historians use in other matters to the study of the Gospels clearly leads to that conclusion. In short, the Jesus-myth position is a case of special pleading by skeptics.

  Reply
• vinnyjh57

  2013-04-05

  Rob,

  Might it not be a little clearer if John wrote “I am that beloved disciple who bears witness, and I have written these things to you so that you may know that my testimony is true”?

  I would remind you of the statement you made: “In the case of at least two individuals we have explicit assertions by the authors of the texts themselves that they had such experiences: John and Paul. These two men definitely claimed to have had experiences that they interpreted as encounters with the risen Christ.” I will agree as to Paul, but regarding John, reasonable minds can and do differ. One of the reasons that I tend not to take Christian apologetics seriously is that words like “definitely” are so frequently used about matters that are anything but.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-05

  Vinny,

  I can take what you say without challenge and the fact remains that we still have texts from two different authors who state explicitly that they had saw the risen Christ. Stipulate if you wish that it is not explicit that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John, he claims to have been a companion of Jesus during his ministry, to have seen him crucified, to have seen the empty tomb, and to have seen him alive from the dead. Alongside this testimony we have the testimony of Paul, who undoubtedly wrote Galatians and 1 Corinthians.

  Reply
• vinnyjh57

  2013-04-05

  Rob,

  No. The point is that the writer who describes the appearances does not claim that he was an eyewitness to those appearances. Someone else makes the claim that the writer who describes the appearances was an eyewitness. At least that’s the conclusion of enough scholars that you cannot justifiably use words like “definitely.”

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-05

  Vinny,

  There’s no evidence of two different writers for the Gospel of John, any more than there is in 1 John, which nearly everyone agrees was written by the same author as the Gospel of John. And the author of 1 John claims to have seen and touched Jesus Christ. Especially in this light, but even without it, the “we” of John 1:14 is clearly the same “we” as in John 21:24.

  I realize that most scholars deny that the Gospel was written by an eyewitness, but the reason is the Gospel’s attributing to Jesus such clear claims to be divine. As it stands, the text claims to be the work of an eyewitness.

  Richard Bauckham has done a good job addressing the evidence for the Gospel being written by an eyewitness in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (listed above).

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-05

  By the way, Vinny, thanks for hanging in here with me and sharing your viewpoint and objections so thoughtfully. I appreciate it!

  Reply
• vinnyjh57

  2013-04-06

  I am not an expert on the subject, but from what I have read, it seems to me that there is legitimate disagreement among reasonable scholars on the question of whether John 21 was written by someone other than the author of John 1-20. If that is the case, it is meaningless to speak of what “the text claims” as opposed to what the particular writer of a particular passage claims.

  Reply
• Robert Bowman

  2013-04-06

  Vinny, I disagree with the view that John 21 was written by someone other than the author of John 1-20 (again, Bauckham has a good discussion of this theory), but let’s suppose that was the case for the sake of argument. The author of John 1-20 claims to have been an eyewitness of Jesus (John 1:14). The author of John 21 claims that the disciple whom Jesus loved is the disciple who wrote “these things” (21:24), which I suppose you might suggest refers only to John 21:1-23 (does that make three different writers?); but that still would make John 21:1-23 written by an eyewitness.

  Reply