Scholars Agree: Luke and Acts are History 

In this short post, Lenny Esposito quotes respected scholar Craig Keener on the issue of the historicity of Luke’s writing.

(2 min read; 417 words)

Source: Scholars Agree: Luke and Acts are History | Come Reason’s Apologetics Notes

Belief Map – Did Jesus rise from the dead?

This resource (from beliefmap.org) provides the evidence and logic behind a resonable faith in Jesus Christ.

Belief Map – Did Jesus rise from the dead?.

William Lane Craig Explains the Importance of History to Faith

I love the clear-cut way he answers the question.  He reflects and then draws a deep breath before he answers.  When he does answer, he hangs faith completely on fact, just as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20.  This is the kind of moral clarity that should mark every Christian voice.

What Is the Connection Between the Facts of History and True Faith? – YouTube.

J. Warner Wallace – The Top Three Reasons the Bible Is Reliable – YouTube

J. Warner Wallace – The Top Three Reasons the Bible Is Reliable – YouTube.

Muhammad and the Messiah: Comparing the Central Figures of Islam and Christianity – David Wood

Christian apologist David Wood presents a well-written comparison of Muhammad and Jesus, making a case that would be hard for a Muslim to either support or deny.

Here’s his synopsis:

Although some varieties of relativism compel adherents to treat all religious claims as equally true, and while the “new atheists” often maintain that all religious claims are equally false, a cautious examination of the evidence shows that all religions are not created equal. Whereas Christian beliefs about Jesus are based entirely on sources written within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses, Muslim beliefs about Muhammad are based on documents composed more than a century after his death. Nevertheless, even if we take these late Islamic sources seriously, additional problems immediately arise. Muhammad’s moral teachings and example, especially in the areas of sex and violence, can be shocking to those unfamiliar with Muslim sources. When viewed against the backdrop of the New Testament picture of Jesus, Muhammad’s example only serves to highlight Jesus’ moral excellence. Further, Jesus and Muhammad taught radically different theologies, but we have firm grounds for accepting Christian theology and rejecting Islamic theology. All available evidence confirms that Jesus rose from the dead. Islam, however, falls short on two fronts—Muhammad could offer no compelling reason to believe he was a prophet, and his teachings lead to a dilemma that can only be avoided by abandoning Islam.

 

As Jesus of Nazareth hung from a cross—barely recognizable, skin dangling like ribbons, muscles and inner tissues exposed, covered only by His own drying yet still flowing blood—He asked His Father to forgive the people who had treated Him this way. Six centuries later, Muhammad lay dying, his internal organs shutting down after being poisoned by a Jewish woman whose family had been slaughtered by Muslim invaders.3 His prayer was for Allah to curse Jews and Christians.

A careful comparison of Jesus and Muhammad reveals that Christianity and Islam are far more different than is commonly thought. In terms of historical evidence and ethical teachings, the founders of history’s two most popular religions are poles apart. When we factor in the dissimilarity of their central messages and of the divine support backing these messages, the gulf between Christianity and Islam couldn’t be deeper. Muhammad seems inextricably tied to a particular culture during a specific time period. Jesus appears timeless.

(13 min read; 3,232 words including footnotes)

Muhammad and the Messiah: Comparing the Central Figures of Islam and Christianity – Christian Research Institute.

Early Christian Writings Claiming Apostolicity, but Rejected as Such

What distinguishes the writings of the New Testament from all other early Christian writings was their apostolic origins.  That is, all writings that were ultimately determined by the ancient church to be apostolic were included in the New Testament.  This required the ancient church to make decisions because there were many writings in the first three hundred years making a claim to to have been from the apostles, including those listed below.

Probably because of their claim to apostolicty, the following books achieved what Bruce Metzger has called “temporary and local canonicity.”  That is, they never received widespread acknowledgement as apostolic and were ultimately rejected from the New Testament canon.

The Gospel of Peter

The Acts of Paul

The Acts of John

The Acts of Peter

The Epistle of the Apostles

The Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians

The Epistle to the Laodiceans

The Correspondence Between Paul and Seneca

The Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocalypse of Paul

Source:  Metzger, Bruce M.  The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Oxford University Press, 1987.

The Historicity of the Resurrection of Christ

“I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”  –  Thomas Arnold (1795-1842), Professor of History Oxford, Author of the three-volume History of Rome (Source: Christian Life, Its Hopes, Its Fears, and Its Close, 6th ed., London: T. Fellowes, 1859, pp. 15-16. per Apologetics 315)

#####

Speaking of his doctoral studies under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich, William Lane Craig writes, “I was astonished to discover as a result of my study that the main facts undergirding the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection are actually agreed upon by the majority of historical Jesus scholars today, not just conservative scholars but the broad mainstream of New Testament scholars, including a good number of Jewish scholars, who teach at secular universities and non-evangelical divinity schools. So I think faith in Jesus is historically quite well-founded.”  (Source: Response to a question on Reasonble Faith, Craig’s Blog; by this statement Craig, of course, is not saying that the majority of today’s scholars believe in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, but that they agree about the main historical facts upon which belief in that resurrection is based.)

#####

The Historicity of Jesus

Whether or not a scholar of ancient times believes that Jesus was raised from the dead may be considered a spiritual, theological, or religious question.  But whether or not said scholar believes that Jesus was in fact a Jewish preacher who was crucified in Jerusalem by the Romans under Pontius Pilate 25-35 AD is simply a historical question.  Practically speaking, modern scholars unanimously attest to these facts, as evidenced by the quotes that follow.

“Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed.”  –  Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford University Press, 1989) 145.

“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus … agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.”  –  John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (HarperOne, 1995). p 145.

“Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [theories of the nonexistence of Jesus] as effectively refuted.”  – Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Eerdmans Publishing, 2000) p. 16

[The theories of non-existence of Jesus are] “a thoroughly dead thesis.”  –  James D. G. Dunn, “Paul’s Understanding of the Death of Jesus” in Sacrifice and Redemption, ed. S. W. Sykes (Cambridge University Press: 2007) 35-36.

“Combining the evidence of Thallus, Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonius one can accumulate enough data to refute the fanciful notion that Jesus never existed without even appealing to the testimony of Jewish or Christian sources.”  Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 1987)  p 197.

“Despite [an] enormous range of opinion [on Jesus], there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree.  Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.  […T]his is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet…”  –  Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 12). HarperOne, 2012) 

“I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.”  —H.G. Wells (Source: Apologetics315.com)

The source for the first five quotes above is How to Answer a Jesus Critic (p. 7-9) by Scott M. Sullivan, PhD.  In these same pages, Sullivan himself says:

“When we use the same historical standards as we do in other areas of ancient history, the historical evidence that Jesus existed is overwhelming.”

“[T]he evidence for Jesus is far greater than nearly all other figures from ancient history.”

“Virtually every professional historian regards the existence of Jesus as historically certain.”

“The Christian has every good reason to comfortably rest within the academic mainstream that Jesus really existed.  Those who deny this intellectually marginalize themselves to the crackpot realm.”

See also the Wikipedia article “Historicity of Jesus,” from which the following two quotes are taken:

“There is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically…”

“Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.”

“There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity.”

Abundant substantiation for these statements, and other like them, can be found in the article.  While some scholars can vary wildly from the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, there is near-universal agreement among all scholars to 1) Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist, and 2) his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.  (Perhaps needless to add, John the Baptist, Paul, James are likewise acknowledged as actual historical persons.)

To say that Jesus did not exist puts you in a category with the sort of people who say that the 1969 moon landing was faked or that the U.S. was behind the 9/11 attack.

All that said, merely believing that Jesus lived and died is not what He’s looking for from us.  Rather, it’s believing that He was raised from the dead and that He lives and reigns forevermore that He wants to see.  But if you let someone talk you into the absurd notion that Jesus never existed, you’ll spend your life as a conspiracy theorist and never even give yourself a chance to believe in His resurrection.

Even Bart Ehrman Believes That Jesus Lived and Died

Like John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman is a biblical scholar who denies that Jesus was raised from the dead.  But also like Crossan, Ehrman, along with practically all other modern scholars, is convinced of certain historical facts about Jesus.  When he says “virtually all scholars of antiquity” in the quote below, Ehrman indeed means “all” – he is not just talking about Christian scholars.

“Despite [an] enormous range of opinion [on Jesus], there are several points on which virtually all scholars of antiquity agree.  Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified (a Roman form of execution) in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.  […T]his is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet…”

Source:  Ehrman, Bart D. Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 12). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.  (373 pages total)

Even John Dominic Crossan is certain that Jesus was crucified.

 “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus … agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.”

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145.

Source: Wikipedia article on the Crucifixion of Jesus