RESEARCH PAPER The Historical Jesus: Can We Even Know Jesus Existed?

Matt Rittgers Understanding the Gospels and Acts NT-511 01 February 18, 2010

Introduction Christianity is not a religion of ethical and moral teaching. That is, Christianitys purpose is not to teach people how to be nice, care for others, and how to find happiness. Instead, Christianity is a religion about trusting and following in the life and actions of one man: Jesus. Truth be told, following Jesus does imply a certain moral lifestyle and may or may not lead to temporary happiness. Nevertheless, the crux of Christianity is whether or not Jesus really existed and whether or not the Bible is an accurate account of his life. If Jesus neither existed nor are our biblical accounts of him accurate, then Christianity is nothing more than an interesting story. This essay will show that there is solid evidence concerning the existence of Jesus and that the New Testament reliably teaches us about his life. Jesus Outside of the Bible Many scholars are quick to dismiss the accounts of Jesus in the New Testament simply because they believe the authors to be biased. Realistically, however, there may be no historical record, whether ancient or modern, that is completely objective. Fortunately, historical evidence for the life of Jesus Christ is not limited to Christian literature. Indeed, there has been multitudes of accounts written about Jesus throughout history. However, this essay will limit its scope only to the earliest and arguably most objective and accurate of accounts. One of the most celebrated non-Christian historians who mentions Jesus in his work is Flavius Josephus. Josephus was born shortly after Jesus death and died around 100 AD.

He was a Pharisee and a military commander during the Jewish revolt in the 60s. When the Jewish forces were defeated, Josephus was captured, and whether through divine providence or political maneuvering, he grew in favor in Rome. While in Rome Josephus took upon himself the task of chronicling Jewish history and the Jewish revolt. 1 Although the vast majority of Josephus works do not reference Jesus or Christianity, there are three short passages that mention Jesus or the Christian movement in passing. One passage in particular mentions John the Baptist when describing the death of Herod Agrippa I. Josephus describes John the Baptist who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as righteousness towards each other, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.5.2) While historians need to search for alterations and additions to any document transcribed through history, even the secular scholar G.A. Wells accepts Josephuss account that John the Baptist lived and ministered in the first century AD.2 Although evidence for John the Baptist is helpful, Josephus text concerning Jesus Christ is even more valuable. In one passage, Josephus writes: Festus was now dead, and Ablinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as

The New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed., s.v. Josephus, Flavius (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). 2 G.A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982), 226.
1

breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned (Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1) G.A. Wells is more skeptical of this passage than the one concerning John for only one discernable reason: the phrase called the Christ is identical to the wording in Matthew 1:16. To Wells, the two words legovmeno cristov (legomenos christos) appear as irrefutable evidence that this passage was written not by Josephus, but a Christian.3 However, Robert E. Van Voorst vocally disagrees with Wells. He asserts that the vast majority of scholars accept this passage as authentic and that (t)he passage fits its context well.4 Likewise, Van Voorst believes that the Josephus using the title of Christ was done in a neutral way intended neither to confess or deny Jesus as the Christ.5 Clearly Wells is stretching to describe this passage as fabricated. Instead, this passage is evidence that a secular historian believed that there was a man named Jesus, who some accepted as Christ, who had a brother and followers that were stoned. In addition to these two passages, there remains another passage that is even more well-known and has been the focal point for much debate. In what has come to be known as the Tesimonium Flavium (the testimony of Flavius), a passage emerges which describes Jesus bluntly: Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful worksa teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the

Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, 210. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 83. 5 Ibid., 84.
3 4

principle men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.3.3) While this is indeed a remarkable passage, scholars nearly unanimously believe it to either have been fully fabricated or at least tampered with after written by Josephus. Perhaps the best evidence of this is that none of the early church fathers although familiar with Josephus quoted this text, and more importantly, Origen recorded that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the messiah.6 Another trustworthy non-Christian historian from antiquity is Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (ca. 79- after 122).7 In a short passage concerning the life of Emperor Claudius, Suetonius wrote, Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome (Claudius, 25.4). While there is some debate whether or not there was a Jew by the name of Chrestus, Van Voorst maintains that Chrestus was a simple phonetic spelling mistake of Christus. Indeed, this misspelling contributes to the authenticity of the passage, for if a Christian were to have tampered with the document, they surely would have spelled Christus correctly. 8 History also provides letters written between the Emperor Trajan and a governor, Pliny the Younger (ca. 61-ca. 113).9 In one such letter, Pliny asks Trajan how he should

Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 92. The New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed., s.v. Suetonius (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). 8 Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 32, 38, 33. 9 The New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed., s.v. Pliny the Younger (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992).
6 7

proceed with the trials of Christians who refused to denounce their faith and worship the Emperor. From this letter, a few telling details about Christians come out. First, Christians refused to worship the Roman Gods nor offer wine and frankincense to the Emperor. Second, Christians were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light Third, Christians sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a God. Finally, Christians committed themselves to not perform any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word(Letters 10.96) Remarkably, in addition to these three sources, there are other references to Jesus and Christians in the early second century that are trustworthy. Tacitus recounts that Christus was punished by Pontius Pilate, yet his movement broke out once again in Judea. Likewise, it is from Tacitus record that recounts Emperor Nero blaming and persecuting Christians for the 64 AD fire in Rome.10 Also, Lucian of Samosata insults the Christians in Palestine by mocking them of their worship of a man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world (The Passing of Peregrinus 11-13)11 Therefore, even without opening the Bible and using evidence dating only until the mid-second century, much can be said about Jesus and early Christians. First, John the Baptist lived, preached repentance, and was executed by Herod Agrippa. Second, Jesus Christ had a brother named James, who with some others were stoned at the order of the Sanhedrin under the charge of breaking the law. Third, Jews following Christ were

Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, 41. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels, (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997), 115-116.
10 11

bothersome enough to be kicked out of Rome during the reign of Emperor Claudius in the 40s and 50s AD. Fourth, Christians were persecuted in Rome under Emperor Nero in the 60s AD. Fifth, Christians refused to worship the Roman gods and the Emperor. Sixth, Christians regularly met together on a fixed day. Seventh, Christians worshiped Jesus as a God. Eighth, Christians lived notably moral lives. Ninth, Pontius Pilate punished Jesus. Tenth, Jesus was crucified. Given that Christianity arose in an obscure part of the empire and saw its leadership crucified and stoned, it is remarkable that the movement was strong enough to spread one and a half thousand miles to Rome in as little as ten to twenty years after Christs death especially to the extent that the emperors were taking notice! Clearly the amount and variety of these historical accounts demand that scholars take seriously the existence and life of Jesus Christ. Yet many scholars visible in popular culture ignore the evidence. in a video interview writer Christopher Hitchens denies there being any evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.12 Unfortunately witty remarks and clever rhetoric from individuals like Christopher Hitchens mislead popular culture away from any actual evidence. Evidence of Jesus in the Gospel Accounts

Silverstream314, The Existence of Jesus- Christopher Hitchens, YouTube, Online Video Clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZXXqVZFyEpg (accessed 28 January, 2011).
12

When searching for historically reliable information about Jesus, one is inevitably lead to the New Testaments account of his life, ministry, death, and resurrection. Indeed, while other historical documents are helpful when it comes to establishing whether or not Jesus was an actual historical figure, the earliest evidence of what Christians actually believed about Christ have been preserved in the pages of the New Testament. Within the New Testament, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contain the broadest selections of Jesus life and ministry as recorded by his followers. The next section of this essay, will examine the historical validity in two accounts of Jesus birth and resurrection as found in Luke. Then, this essay will examine a text in John considered to be added at a later date to the original manuscripts, and this essay will study how Christian scholars have treated this and other texts similar to it. Luke 2:1-5 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child (Lk 2:1-5 NIV). When discussing anyones life, it is usually best to start at the beginningwhere they were born and the circumstances surrounding their birth. The story that Luke paints concerning Jesus birth is marvelous indeed. After tales of angelic encounters and supernatural conception, Luke 2:1-5 describes the political and geographic circumstances that lead to Jesus birth. If a skeptic of the life of Jesus wants to call into question the

validity of Jesus existence, often they find themselves calling into question these first facts about his life. For example, Christopher Hitchens declares, But Herod died four years BC, and during his rulership the governor of Syria was not Quirinius. There is no mention of any Augustan census by any Roman historian, but the Jewish chronicler Josephus mentions one that did occurwithout the onerous requirement for people to return to their places of birth, and six years after the birth of Jesus is supposed to have taken place.13 Indeed, Hitchens charges demand attention, but unfortunately he acts as if no Christian scholar has attempted to address these issues. First, the best Christian scholarship attests that Jesus of Nazareth was not born in the year 1 AD. In fact, our current calendar which attempted to date Jesus birth was not introduced until the ninth or tenth century. Thus scholars are not bound to the year 1 AD for the date of Jesus birth (on this calendar there was no year zero). While some have tried to ascribe the date of Jesus birth to 6ADthe date of the Josephus recorded census, this appears to be a minority opinion.14 Instead, recent scholarship suggests that Jesus was born between 6-4 BC.15 Therefore, Herod was indeed alive and well at Jesus birth. There is little to no question concerning that Caesar Augustus was in power during this time period. Instead, what is called into question is whether or not he issued a census preceding the birth of Jesus. Using the corrected dates for the birth of Jesus, this census needed to have been declared not at 1 AD but 6-4 BC or shortly before. Although Hitchens

Hitchens, God is not Great, 112. J. Duncan M. Derritt, Further Light on the Narratives of the Nativity, Novum Testamentum, 17/ 2 (1975), 84. 15 Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 222.
13 14

is correct that Josephus mentions a census taking place in 6 AD, he is incorrect concerning there being no recorded census during the reign of Caesar Augustus. Blomberg attests that Augustus himself recorded calling a census in 8 BC in The Deeds of the Divine Augustus 8.24.16 Given that Augustus indeed ordered a census in 8 BC, it is perfectly reasonable for the order to take a couple of years for the distant region of Judea to oblige.17 One of the stickiest points for historians concerning the Luke 2 passage is that it appears to indicate that Quirinius was the governor of Syria at the time of Jesus birth. Yet, Quirinius did not govern Syria until 6-7 AD. However, the Greek in the Luke 2 passage has been called awkward and may in fact be translated This registration happened before Quirinius became governor of Syria. 18 Yet, Blomberg believes that this is not the most natural reading of the text. Instead, he argues that Quirinius was known to have served in a military role in the region and may have very well been considered a type of jointgovernor.19 Thus, while there are certainly questions surrounding Lukes usage of Quirinius in his nativity account, by no means can it be used as evidence against Lukes historical reliability. Other minor details concerning this passage include Marys inclusion in the census and the necessity of their trip to Bethlehem. Perhaps Mary was traveling not for herself, but for the birth of her son. If the child was born in Bethlehem, he would have been considered

Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd Edition, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), 248. 17 Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 248. 18 John Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, ????????(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 99, 101. 19 Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 248.
16

10

a citizen and exempted from fifty-percent of the poll tax when he was older.20 Or maybe Joseph wanted to protect his child from insults during his absence.21 Why however, did Joseph need to travel to Bethlehem? Nolland suggests that Joseph may have feared losing some ancestral claims to the land around Bethlehem if he did not register there.22 Luke 24:1-6a If beginning with the birth narrative of Jesus is a good place to start for the historical study of his life, then perhaps the story of his resurrection is a fitting place to look as well. For, if these two facets of Jesus life can be established, much else about Jesus can be affirmed. 1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! (Lk 24: 1-6a) Critics of the resurrection will find themselves in good company, for even the faithful women visiting Jesus tomb did not expect Jesus to have risen from the dead. This is evidenced by the spices that they carried to anoint his dead body. Undoubtedly they were shocked when they realized that Jesus body was not present in the tomb!23 Yet, this clearly would not seem to be convincing evidence to a skeptic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Certainly one could have fabricated the story and included the

20 21 22 23

Derritt, Further Light, 93-94. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects, 342. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20, 101. Darrell L. Bock, Luke, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 380.

11

shock of the women for dramatic effect. However, herein lies the rub: the story uses women as the first witnesses to the resurrection. Women at the time of Jesus were not considered to be reliable witnesses. In fact, womens testimonies were generally not allowed in the court of law. Surprisingly, all of the gospel accounts attribute women to being the first witness to the resurrection of Jesus.24 Since anyone fabricating such a monumental story would have certainly not have used women as the primary witnesses, it seems that the story itself has the air of reliability. Some skeptics offer suggestions other than resurrection as to how the body of Jesus may have disappeared. These include: the disciples stole the body, Jesus was accidentally placed in another tomb, or that Jesus had not really died on the cross but left the tomb on his own power. First, if the disciples would have stolen the body of Jesus (the first accusation of skeptics and listed in Mt. 28:12-15), it is most surprising to see what kind of men the disciples become. They do not stage a violent political revolution as they had expected and hoped. Instead, they lived pious lives preaching Christs resurrection up to the moment of their martyr deaths. Likewise, if Jesus did not appear as risen from the dead, then one would have expected that neither Jesus skeptical half-brother, James, nor Saul of Tarsus to have come to faith (1 Cor. 15:7-8).25 Second, if the disciples had merely confused themselves about the placement of Jesus dead body, then his body should still be there to this day! Jewish authorities could

Gary R. Habermas, The Case for Christs Resurrection, in To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, ed. by Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland, (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), 188. 25 Ibid., 190.
24

12

have simply have exhumed Jesus body as evidence of the Christians error, yet there is no recording in any literature that the Jews were able to have done any such thing.26 Third, the belief that Jesus had simply appeared to be dead but regained his strength and walked out of the tomb on his own power is fanciful thinking. Crucifixion was the cruelest from of execution known to the Roman world, and when Jesus appeared to have died, the Roman guards stabbed Jesus with a spear just to be sure (Jn 19:34). Certainly Jesus was dead. Blomberg notes that each of these scenarios are often rejected because they seem even more difficult to believe than the resurrection itself. Instead, it is currently more popular to suggest that the disciples did not believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead, but that Jesus spiritually appeared to them instead. 27 Yet, this theory stands against the accounts themselves in which Jesus is clearly missing from the tomb (Lk 24:6), he is touched by Thomas (Jn 20:27), and he eats (Lk 24:40-43). Cleary, early Christians believed in the resurrection stories from the start. Perhaps some of the strongest evidence for this is that they separated their holy day from the Jewish Sabbath to coincide with Jesus resurrection on the first day of the weekthat is, Sunday.28 With all of these considerations taken into account, Habermas notes that most critical scholars still think that the tomb where Jesus was buried was later discovered to be empty.29 Even more, Blomberg professes: It is also arguable that of all the alleged

Ibid., 189. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 409, 412. 28 Ibid., 411. 29 Habermas, The Case for Christs Resurrection, 189.
26 27

13

miracles in ancient history, the resurrection is actually the one with by far the most historical support.30 John 7:53-8:11 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 7:53-8:11) While often considered to be one of the favorite passages of many believers, most would be surprised to learn that scholars are very certain that John 7:53-8:11 was not in the original manuscripts of the Gospel of John! In fact, this happens to be one of the chief cornerstones of Hitchens criticism of the New Testament. In his work, Hitchens displays Bart Ehrman as marvelous scholar who realized that some of the best-known Jesus stories were scribbled into the canon long after the fact.31 Indeed, Hitchens and Ehrman are both correct that the John 7:53-8:11 were not in the original manuscripts. However, they are gravely wrong by not acknowledging that this fact was well established centuries

30 31

Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels, 412. Hitchens, God is not Great, 120.

14

ago. Christian scholarship, it seems, is fully committed to determining the original manuscripts of its own sacred literature. John 7:53-8:11 is found neither in Origens commentary on John nor in any of the Eastern Greek fathers writings until the twelfth century. Other church fathers in the west did in fact mention it, including Ambrose and Augustine, which enabled it to have been considered part of the canon for the Western Catholic Church.32 Nevertheless, the story itself is missing in many manuscripts, and when it is included, its location varies wildly. 33 Today the vast majority of scholars have concluded that this passage was not in the original manuscripts. It includes vocabulary unlike that in other Johannine literature. Nevertheless, the story itself may indeed harken to a real account of Jesus.34 Due to the storys popularity, as well as its alignment with other theological teachings of Jesus, the passage remains in most modern Bibles yet often denoted as being a later tradition. Similar to the John 7:53-8:11 passage, there are other variants found in scriptural manuscripts that can cause scholars question the authenticity of a text. Some make claims that this disables scholars today from ever reconstructing the original biblical texts. However, the vast majority of variations in the text are stemmed from variations in spelling, word order, and the usage of definite articles. Apart from these, only a handful of variants (such as the John 7:53-8:11 passage) hold any significance in the text. Nonetheless,

Gary M. Brge, A Specific Problem in the New Testament Text and Canon: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11) Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27/2 (1984), 142-143. 33 Timothy Paul Jones, Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrmans Misquoting Jesus, (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007), 63. 34 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 735-736.
32

15

Timothy Paul Jones proclaims, Most importantly, none of the differences affect any central element of the Christian faith.35 To be sure, John 7:53-8:11 displays a picture of Jesus that is completely reconcilable with the other accounts of him that are found within the New Testament. The gospels establish well that the Pharisees and teachers of the law continually looked for opportunities to trip Jesus up (Mt 16:1, 22:15, 22:33-36, Mk 8:11, 10:2). Likewise, here Jesus follows his similar pattern of being full of grace to the sinner but being harsh with the righteous (Mt 9:12, Mk 2:17, Lk 15:1-2). Christians can be confident that the Bible they read today is trustworthy. In fact, if John 7:53-8:11 can teach Christians anything, it can teach them that the Bible is treated with utmost scrutiny and care. While John 7:53-8:11 is included it is almost always bracketed or labeled as being not in the original texts. Likewise most Study Bibles clearly label questionable passages and/or variant readingseven to the extent of indicating minuscule differences. In Defense of the Reliability of the Gospel Accounts A common assault on the validity of the Christian scriptures is voiced clearly by Christopher Hitchens: just like the Old Testament, the New one is a also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right.36 While Hitchens book is loaded with unsupported facts (his entire chapter on the New Testament includes only four

Jones, Misquoting Truth, 43-44. Emphasis Jones. Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, (New York: Twelve, 2007), 109.
35 36

16

references), the concerns he raises do need to be addressed and in fact are done so to great length by a great number of scholars. Indeed, the earliest gospel, Mark, was written no earlier than the late 50s AD.37 Even so, recent scholarship has declared that twenty to thirty years is not a long enough time for stories in an oral culture, such as first century Palestine, to become overtly corrupted. In fact, it is believed that oral cultures can reliably transmit trustworthy history for events 80 to 150 years earlier!38 Nonetheless, the earlier a text can be dated the more certain scholars can be that a passage is faithful to the original beliefs of early Christians. Fortunately, this is what scholars find in 1 Corinthians 15. In the midst of 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is writing a letter to the Corinthian church in which he references a creed about Jesus that almost certainly he received from others in the early church. 1 Corinthians itself appears to have been written in in the mid-50s AD.39 However, the date of the creed within 15:3-7 dates much earlier as Kirk R. MacGregor claims: virtually all critical scholars agree that Paul received the tradition no later than five years after the crucifixion, with a majority holding that the material was passed on to him when he visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion40 Thus the oral creed within 1 Corinthians 15 is some of the earliest Christian doctrine and beliefs about Christ that are available to scholars and Christians today.

Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Edition, (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2009), 137. 38Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2007), 395. 39 Verlyn D. Verbrugge, 1 Corinthians, in Expositors Bible Commentary Revised, ed. David E. Garland and Tremper Longman III, vol. 11 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 248. 40 Kirk R. MacGregor, 1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49/2 (2006): 226.
37

17

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Cor. 15:3-8). The text presented in bold indicates what most scholars seem to agree on as the core of the creed in which Paul is quoting.41 However, MacGregor argues that the text presented in italics may have also been part of the initial creed as well.42 Christians can celebrate the fact that the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15 agrees with many of the most important claims about Jesus found in the gospels. It attests that Christ died, was buried, and rose from the dead three days later. Then, Jesus was seen by Peter and the other disciples. This evidence shows that the beliefs in Jesus resurrection were not later doctrines that were hammered on to the Christian faith. Instead, Christs life, death, and resurrection were widely believed by Christians in the immediate years after the crucifixion. Conclusion This essay has shown that Jesus, according to the best scholarship, was a really historical figure evidenced by his life displayed in the gospels and other secular historical documents. Likewise, this essay has proven that Christian scholarship is immensely critical

J. Paul Sampley, The First Letter to the Corinthians: Introduction Commentary and Reflections, in The New Interpreters Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, ed. by Leander E. Keck, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002): 976. 42 MacGregor, 1 Corinthians, 227-229.
41

18

when it considers the reliability and authenticity of texts as seen in the Testimonium Flavium and John 7:53-8:11. By using the best historical research, it has been established that Jesus was born, ministered in Palestine, died by crucifixion, and disappeared from the grave. While the miracle accounts of Jesus actual resurrection from the dead may need to be something taken on faith, the fact of the matter is that early Christians clearly believed that Jesus rose from the dead and gave their lives in service to him. Without belief in the resurrection, Christianity even in the earliest centuries would have had no foundation and thus would have vanished into the plethora of Roman cults and beliefs. Application It is often said today that belief in Jesus is a matter of faith, not history or science. Undoubtedly, stories of miraculous events need to be examined critically in todays day and age. Therefore, many Christians in America today find themselves with an uncertain faith. They may believe that the teachings and stories about Jesus are true in a spiritual sense, but they might not believe that Jesus really walked the earth, performed miracles, or rose from the dead. This is a problem because the Christian faith without the Biblical statements about Jesus being empirically true is empty. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:17-19, And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. As a pastoral leader in a church, I must embrace the academic study of the life of Jesus. I must learn how to use this careful study to look for ways to lead more into believing Jesus. Too often today well-educated individuals are told that belief in Jesus or God is

19

completely foolish. Therefore too many today reject the message of Jesus before even hearing what it is. However, if I commit myself to not being lazy and become a knowledgeable student of history, then I may very well find myself being powerfully used by God to reach college professors, business professionals, and bright students of all ages. The historical-reliability wall that has too long separated the academic community from faith is built on the lie that Jesus was not a historical figure. Instead, with simple scholarship and study, this wall can become a bridge to faith for many. Likewise, the study of the historical Jesus can be very helpful in my discipleship of other believers. Particularly, when a Christian begins to question their faith, I hope to have more advice than to simply say, Just believe, have faith in things unseen. Without a doubt, some things in the Christian faith cannot be empirically proven; nevertheless pastors such as myself must look to opportunities to strengthen faith by displaying the things that can be seen to those questioning their faith. In addition to this, if I discover how to teach Christians to study the history of Christ critically, then they will be protected and armed to engage with sly skeptics such as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Recently, church leaders found themselves scrambling when The Da Vinci Code was released. Many churches had not prepared their members about the certainty of what Christianity professes and the great care that has occurred in preserving the tradition as authentically as possible. Thus many Christians found themselves confused and questioning the roots of their faith. This is appalling and perhaps one of the greatest problems in the Western Church today. As a pastor, it is my

20

God-given duty to faithfully educate Christians and nonbelievers on the historical certainty of Jesus and the reliability of the biblical tradition There is too much at stake in our churches and communities to not take the historical credibility of Jesus existence seriously. As a pastor, it is my duty to introduce people to the real person of Jesus Christ. If I cannot say with confidence that Jesus truly is who the Bible says he is, then I am certainly a shepherd of a people that need to be pitied.

Works Cited: Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2nd Edition. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007. Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, 2nd Edition. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009. Bock, Darrell L. Luke. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1994. Brge, Gary M. A Specific Problem in the New Testament Text and Canon: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11). Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27/2 (1984): 141-148. Derritt, J. Duncan M. Further Light on the Narratives of the Nativity. Novum Testamentum 17/ 2 (1975): 81-108. Eddy, Paul Rhodes and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2007. Habermas, Gary R. The Case for Christs Resurrection. In To Everyone An Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, ed. by Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004. Hitchens, Christopher. God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve, 2007. Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ Part I: The Date of Christ's Birth. Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973), 338-351.

21

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997. Jones, Timothy Paul. Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrmans Misquoting Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2007. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003. MacGregor, Kirk R. 1 Corinthians 15:3B-6A, 7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49/2 (2006): 225-234. Nolland, John. Luke 1-9:20. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989. Sampley, J. Paul. The First Letter to the Corinthians: Introduction Commentary and Reflections. In The New Interpreters Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, ed. by Leander E. Keck, vol. 10, 773-1003. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002. Silverstream314, The Existence of Jesus- Christopher Hitchens, YouTube, Online Video Clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZXXqVZFyEpg (accessed 28 January, 2011). The New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed., s.v. Josephus, Flavius (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). The New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed., s.v. Pliny the Younger (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). The New Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed., s.v. Suetonius (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1992). Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Verbrugge, Verlyn D. 1 Corinthians. In Expositors Bible Commentary: Revised Edition, ed. David E. Garland and Tremper Longman III, vol. 11, 241-414. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Wells, G.A. The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1982.