What Non-Christian History Says About Jesus, His Followers, and His Resurrection

Table of Contents

I. Introduction: Personal Notes

II.  Sources

III.  Facts About Jesus Confirmed From History

IV.  Conclusions Drawn from These Facts

References

I.  Introduction and Personal Notes

For almost a year before beginning this research, I had been struggling with my faith in the God of the Bible.   In dealing with past struggles, I had read just enough to make myself feel better, and that has been enough, at least until another challenge came along.  When I began struggling with uncertainty again, I decided enough is enough.  Jesus said “The truth shall make you free.”  The best way to deal with doubts is to pursue them and see if they have any substance.  If doubts proved groundless, then faith would be that much stronger.  If not, at least I would know the truth.

At first I didn’t know where to begin, but I finally decided to focus my search on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians chapter 15, says that Jesus’ death and resurrection is “of first importance.”  In the Acts chapter 17, Paul is quoted as saying that the resurrection is God’s proof that salvation in Jesus is real.  This makes sense to me:  If Jesus actually conquered death, proving that he was the Son of God, then I know he is the truth.  If the Biblical claims of Jesus’ resurrection are false, then the foundation of the entire faith is crushed.

It is difficult to be objective while searching for evidence of these things.  I have been a Christian for a very long time; my entire world-view is based on Jesus’ wonderful teachings.  I am absolutely certain that I am a much better person as a Christian than I would be as a deist, agnostic, or atheist.  Jesus is more than an abstract principle or historical figure—like many Christians, I consider him my closest friend, confidant, and inspiration.  Pondering the possibility that this Jesus might not exist has been extremely painful.  

To avoid fooling myself, I have been very careful of the sources I have used, as described below.  Any time I have felt a twinge of uneasiness or dishonesty, I have attempted to pursue it rather than ignore and let it stand.  Finally, I subjected my findings to several friends and acquaintances from various academic and spiritual backgrounds—historians, scientists, mental health professionals, philosophy professors, Christians, atheists, and agnostics—asking them to point out to me where I went wrong.  Their feedback resulted in some changes to this paper, but did not change my mind on the meaning of my findings.

The Nature of Biblical Faith

Faith is a much misunderstood concept.  In the Bible, faith is more than just believing something is true.  Real faith is a relationship based on convictions, which in turn are based on evidence of various sorts.  

But evidence can only get us so far.  The Bible is mostly concerned with living, relational faith.  It is possible to be convinced that God exists but not act on that knowledge/belief.  Thus, purely intellectual faith is really no faith at all.  James comments on this extensively in chapter 2 of his letter (interesting aside:  this is thought to be the same James the Brother of Jesus mentioned by Josephus, see pg.19).  He plainly states that it is not enough to simply believe God exists—even the demons have that kind of belief.  True faith must show itself through actions/works.  (of course, good works without relational faith in God are no good either, c.f. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3; Matthew 7:22-23).

Hebrews 11 also gives some interesting perspective on faith.  It starts with a definition:  Faith is the substance (reality, foundation) of things hoped for, the evidence (confidence, conviction) of things not seen.  In other words, the writer is not telling us to say “I know this is true, because I have faith in it.”  Rather, “I have faith in it, because I am convinced it is true.”  This is a key difference.

Reading on through Hebrews 11, we find that all of the examples of faith involve people  trusting a God they know, and acting on that belief.  In verse 6, we learn that in order to get anything good out of seeking God, we have to trust, at least provisionally, that he exists, and that it is worth our while to seek him.  All of the stories themselves deal with matters of trust and action, not knowledge and assumption.  The Bible is very consistent on this point.  Active faith can indeed be based on wishful thinking, but such a faith is seldom stable, robust, or honest.  

  Honest questioning is not condemned in the Bible.  In fact, honest skepticism combined with humility is often commended.  Examples of this would include Job’s honest questions (Job 42:7), Nathaniel (John 1:45-47), and maybe even “doubting” Thomas (John 20), to whom Jesus gives exactly the evidence he had asked for.  Also see Proverbs 12:15, 14:12, 15:22, and 18:13 and 17.  The Bible does not discourage honest questioning, investigating, thinking.  It does discourage lack of trust among those who have already seen the evidence and become believers.  

Of course, faith is only a virtue if it is directed at a worthy object.  The only good reason to believe in something is to be convinced of its trueness.  Is there adequate evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that Jesus really rose from the dead?  If so, the honest Christian has nothing to fear from intellectual, scholarly pursuit of a basis for faith.  If not, if the basis of the Christian faith is a hoax, is it not better to know the truth?  

It is important to remember, with all this in mind, that evidence, be it scriptural, scholarly, or experiential, can only support the platform of faith.  It is still up to us whether to jump up on it.  Conviction can sometimes be forced upon us by overwhelming evidence, but faith remains a choice.  Matthew’s gospel tells us that even some of those who saw the resurrected Jesus still doubted, after all.

Four Basic Starting Assumptions

There are four basic assumptions I made going into this project, and it seems necessary to get those out in the open from the start.

1.  God, in some form, exists.  I consider the existence of some sort of intelligent creator to be a given.  My reasoning for this is beyond the scope of this paper. 

2.  Miraculous events, though unlikely, are not impossible.  This assumption flows naturally from the first.  By miraculous, I mean outside the realm of normal human experience and unexplainable by naturalistic reasoning.  If one takes a strictly naturalistic bias, a discussion of the evidence for a resurrection from the dead is pointless.  

3.  We have the ability to know things.  Some philosophers say it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, and they make a good point, since our perceptions can deceive us.  Be that as it may, I am working under the assumption that my senses are generally reliable, that what I see, hear, touch, taste, smell are what really exist.  Unless there is reason to think otherwise, I assume this is the case for others, as well.

4.  Humility is always necessary when claiming to know something, because it is, again, difficult to know anything with absolute certainty; there is always a possible “Yes, but…”  Again, faith is not blind belief in spite of the evidence.  It is, at its best, based on reasonable conclusions, which in turn are based on evidence of various sorts.  The kind of faith I am pursuing requires a great deal of thought, humility, and at times a great deal of uncertainty and discomfort.  Perhaps this is as it should be.  “Through many hardships we must enter the kingdom of God.”  Acts 14:22

II. Sources

In the effort to achieve and maintain objectivity in consideration of the evidence, fairly rigorous standards have been applied to the sources of evidence considered.

First of all, no Christian sources have been used.  This excludes both early church historians (Clement, Ignatius, Justin, Africanus, et cetera), the New Testament letters of Paul etc., and the gospel accounts.  Occasionally, New Testament writings have been cited to shed light on other sources and on the character of the early church, but with one exception (page 23-24), they have not been considered as direct evidence for the resurrection.  Many Christians—and even some non-Christians--will insist that leaving them out is a mistake, and perhaps they are right.  There is a remarkable amount of information which speaks favorably toward the overall accuracy of the gospel accounts, and considering some of the historical details which follow, it is hard to imagine what motive the early writers would have had for falsifying their reports. However, for this study only neutral or hostile sources have been cited.

Second, whenever possible, an effort has been made to trace all information to primary sources.  Besides resulting in some truly remarkable library fines, this procedure has revealed some inaccuracies on the part of some popular apologists (see “Secondary sources,” below).  When consulting primary sources has not been possible, all quotes have been verified from multiple independent sources.  For the sake of brevity only two have been cited in most cases, but a simple internet search will generally reveal many more.

Secondary Sources  

Since the author has neither the time nor resources to read all the writings of antiquity since the time of Jesus Christ, some compilations have been used as guides of where to look.  By far the most valuable of these has been The Historical Jesus by Dr. Gary Habermas (1996).   Dr. Habermas has done an excellent job compiling the available evidence.  He is honest about problematic texts and very thorough in his references, making it easy to trace primary sources and assuming the reader will want to do so.  

Josh McDowell’s writings have also been consulted, especially A Ready Defense, compiled by Bill Wilson (1990).  In a few cases, McDowell’s information has proven disappointing due to what appears to be either sloppiness or dishonesty on the part of McDowell and his compilers.  Though much of the information is valuable, a few of the references are inaccurate, out of context, or otherwise do not stand up to scrutiny when examined against primary sources.  The author’s requests for clarification from Josh McDowell Ministries have not been answered satisfactorily.  Readers are urged to use all sources (including this one) with caution and do their homework.  

In the early stages of this study, the author used a video presentation entitled The Case for Christ by Lee Stobel (2007), a decent if rather shallow and incomplete overview of the available evidence.  The troubling thing about this source is that while Strobel claims to have been a reluctant convert who was almost forced to believe by the overwhelming evidence, this claim is not consistent with Strobel’s failure to interview anyone other than conservative Christian scholars.  While the information is valuable, this discrepancy strikes the author as perhaps less than completely honest.

I have also frequently consulted non- and anti-Christian sources.  The Secular Web (Internet Infidels, Inc. 2008) has been especially useful in keeping me honest.  Don Lindsay’s (2005) list of logical fallacies was also a huge help to me in spotting flaws in my own reasoning and that of others.

Primary Sources  

Outside the gospel accounts and other early Christian writings, I have found six primary sources which contain pertinent and reliable information about the incidents in question.  They are presented here in approximate chronological order.

Flavius Josephus (c. 94 A.D.)  Antiquities.  Josephus was a soldier, historian, and statesman who lived and wrote during the first century AD, when Christianity was still a relatively new phenomenon.  It is a shame that his life has never been made into a movie: it would be a great one.  There are two passages of particular interest to this study.

The first, often called the “Testimonium Flavianum,” is to be used with caution because almost all modern scholars agree that it has been severely tampered with by medieval Christian scholars.  Interestingly, Whiston, one of the most widely used translators, considers the passage entirely authentic (Whiston, William, 1998, pg. 977ff.), but he seems to be in a small minority.  There is an Arabic text of the Testimonium dating to the tenth century and discovered by Pines (Tabor, 1998;  Habermas, 1996, page 193), which is considered by most scholars to be much closer to Josephus’ actual words, though parts of this passage remain in dispute.  When quoting this passage, I have used this Arabic version, and whenever possible I have verified the basic claims contained therein from other sources.

The other passage refers to the trial and execution of James, brother of Jesus, called Christ.  It is almost universally considered to be genuine.

Suetonius (C. 110 A.D.).  Another Roman historian who makes one indirect reference to Jesus (Crestus, an alternate spelling of Christ) and the disturbance he caused among the Jews in the mid-first century A.D. (Halsall, 2000.  Habermas, 1996, Page 191), and another to Nero’s persecution of the Christians, not cited here.

Pliny and Trajan (c. 112 A. D.).  Letters.  Pliny was governor of Bithynia (in Asia Minor) during a rather turbulent period.  A fascinating set of letters has survived to the modern day between Pliny and his mentor, Emperor Trajan.  Among the many problems Pliny faced were how to rebuild after a catastrophic fire, how to provide water to an outlying city, dealing with out-of-control spending by local governments, and dealing with a rather troublesome religious movement.  (Halsell, 1998.  Habermas, 1996,  Page 197 ff.)

Cornelius Tacitus (c. 116 A.D.)  Annals, Book 15.  Tacitus was a Roman historian.  He obviously had no sympathy toward Christians, as his few direct references to them are certainly not complimentary.  Indeed, he seems to think Nero’s excessive cruelty toward Christianity was a shame, not because of the suffering caused, but because the people’s sympathies were aroused toward a criminal sect that did not deserve any mercy (Tacitus, c. 116 A.D., Page 381).

Some writers assume that Tacitus (as well as Lucian, Pliny, and even the Talmud) used Christian writings as a source.  Considering the lack of evidence for this link and the obvious scorn these writers demonstrate toward Christians, this seems highly unlikely.

Lucian of Samasota (2nd Century, A.D.)  The Passing of Peregrinus.   Lucian was a satirist and historian who, for all his keen sense of the ridiculous, claimed to be very concerned with historical accuracy in his writings (Holding, N.D.).  Peregrinus drips with sarcasm and is fairly entertaining reading.  In it, he makes fun of a would-be public religious figure named Peregrinus, especially the manner and circumstances of his death.  In doing so, he confirms several important facts about Jesus and his followers. (Holding, N.D.  Harman, 2001)

The Babylonian Talmud (prior to 200 A.D.)  The Talmud is a compilation of writings by Jewish scholars.  According to Habermas (1996), it consists of the Mishnah, a collection of oral teachings passed down for generations and put in written form between 135 and 200 A.D., and the Geremas, an ancient commentary on the Mishnah.  

There are several alleged references to Jesus Christ in the Talmud, but most of these cause considerable difficulty.  First of all, Jesus (Yeshu) was a common name in ancient Israel.  We cannot assume that a reference to Yeshu in the writings of the ancients refers to the alleged founder of Christianity, any more than we would assume that a reference to Thomas in a modern newspaper refers to this author.  

Second, many of the alleged references to Jesus Christ in the Talmud do not even mention him by name.  In many cases, the reasoning connecting these passages to Jesus is very shaky.

Third, the Talmud is foremost a theological and legal collection, not a historical one.

The author has avoided using these questionable passages from the Talmud, focusing only on Sanhedrin 43a (Habermas, 1996, page 203; Valentine, N.D.).    This passage almost certainly refers to Jesus Christ, and is included here as a source due to its early date of writing and the unique circumstances described therein.

There is also a great deal of literature available regarding the evidence for and against the authenticity and early dating of the New Testament gospel accounts.  This topic, too, is very worthy of research, but beyond the scope of this paper.

III.  Facts Confirmed from History

A man named “Jesus Called Christ” lived, was believed to have performed miracles and/or practiced sorcery, taught, gathered a considerable and diverse following.

Josephus, Antiquities, 18:3.  (quoting from the Arabic text, rather than the widely disputed Latin text.  See explanation in “Sources,” also see bibliography)  At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus.  His conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous.  And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.

The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a:  It was taught:  On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged.  For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth, crying, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”

This passage contains several interesting things about Yeshu (the Aramaic form of Jesus) which will be explored later.  Pertinent to the current point are the stated reasons for Jesus’ condemnation:  He practiced sorcery, and led the people into apostasy.  This confirms that Jesus did--or at least was believed to have done--miracles (considered here to be deceptive and/or Satanic) and taught against the prevailing Jewish orthodoxy.

Jesus was tried by the Jewish court and found guilty of heresy and sorcery.  When given the opportunity, no one came to his defense.

The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a:  It was taught:  On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged.  For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth, crying, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.  Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.”  But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.  The passage then goes on to mention Yeshu’s connections to the rulers--possibly a reference to Pilate’s efforts to free him and/or to members of the Sanhedrin who took his side--and gives an account of the trial of several of Yeshu’s followers.

  Yeshu was condemned to be stoned, which was proper punishment for sorcery and heresy, among other things, under Jewish law (see Leviticus 20:27, etc.).  However, Yeshu was not stoned, he was “hanged,” an execution mentioned in the O.T. (Deuteronomy 21:22), but not prescribed for any specific crime.  Paul, in Galatians 3:13, equates this “hanging” with crucifixion, a punishment carried out by the Romans, but never, as far as we know, by the Jews.  Thus, Jesus was tried by the Jews and condemned to be stoned, but execution was carried out by the Romans.  This second fact is confirmed by Josephus, Tacitus, and Lucian.

The “forty days” are interesting in that they are not mentioned specifically in the gospels.  The gospel accounts do record that in the days before Jesus’ death, it was widely known that there was animosity between Jesus and the Jewish leaders (Matthew 23, Mark 11:27-28, 12:12, John 7:25, 11:8, etc.) who on at least one occasion had sent officers to arrest him (John 7:32).  On several occasions it is mentioned that stoning was the determined fate for Jesus (John 8:59, 10:31).  So it is hardly surprising to read that the Sanhedrin is said to have issued such a proclamation, though according to the gospel accounts, Jesus would have been at large at the time, and his final arrest was not public.  It is also possible that this proclamation was fabricated as a reaction to anti-Semitics who used the gospels’ account of an unfair trial as justification to persecute the Jews.  It is interesting to note that, according to the gospel of John (John 12:42), the Jewish leaders had also determined that anyone professing Jesus as the messiah would be excommunicated.  If this is accurate, small wonder no one came to his defense!

Jesus was crucified (hanged) by the Romans, with Pontius Pilate presiding.

Tacitus, Annals 15:44.  Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus…

The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a:  It was taught:  On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged.

Josephus, Antiquities, 18:3.  Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die…

Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus.  …that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

At Jesus crucifixion, the Christian religion effectively died out, only to be reborn shortly thereafter in Judea, the same place where Jesus was crucified.

Tacitus, Annals 15:44.  Christus…suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome… 

Josephus, Antiquities, 18:3.  But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. 

Early Christians believed that Jesus was divine and had risen from the dead.  

Tacitus, Annals 15:44.  …and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea…

Josephus, Antiquities 18:3.  But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.  They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive…

Pliny, Letter to Trajan.  [Those found innocent of being Christians] called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are really Christians be compelled to do…they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god… 

Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus.  …that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world…Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sage himself and living under his laws. (emphasis added)

Their belief was the source of conflict in the Jewish community.  Some early Christians died for their faith, specifically James the brother of Jesus, an early leader, along with other disciples.

The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a.  Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed?

The passage goes on to describe the trials of these five men, with the resulting decision that they be executed.  While this passage strikes this author as non-historical (with its clever and humorous use of puns), it does serve to demonstrate the early conflict between Judaism and Christianity.

Suetonius, Claudius 25.  Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

It is possible that Suetonius refers here to some other Jew named Chrestus, rather than to Jesus Christ.  Considering the on-going, sometimes violent controversy recorded in the New Testament writings (see Acts 17:5-9 for a typical example; 18:2 refers to Claudius’ specific command), it is reasonable to assume that Chrestus does in fact refer to Jesus.

Josephus, Antiquities 20:9:1.  Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought forth before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned…

Also see Pliny and Tacitus (cited elsewhere) for evidence of first and early second century Christian persecution under the Romans.

Early Christians were given the opportunity to recant in Roman courts, and surely had every motive to do so.

Tacitus, Annals 15:44.  Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty…mockery of every sort was added to their deaths.

Presumably, those who “pleaded guilty” were those who refused to recant and deny belief in Christ, as recorded by Pliny.  The fire for which these Christians were blamed occurred in 64 A.D., thus establishing that, within only two or three decades of Jesus’ death, Christians were already choosing to die rather than deny him.

Pliny, Letter To Trajan. I asked them whether they were Christians or not. If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threats with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished…[others accused of being Christians] called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go.

Emperor Trajan, Letter to Pliny. ...he who denies himself to be a Christian, and makes it plain that he is not so by supplicating to our gods, although he had been so formerly, may be allowed pardon, upon his repentance.

The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a:  For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth, crying, “…Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.”  Of course, this passage refers to Jesus, not to the early Christians.  Since the incident is cited as an example of a legal precedent, it is highly probable that this was standard procedure, and early Christians would have been given the opportunity to defend themselves and/or recant.  

Early Christian converts were drawn from many facets of society:  All ages, both genders, city and country.

Pliny, Letter to Trajan.  This seems a matter worthy of your prompt consideration, especially as so many people are endangered. Many of all ages and both sexes are put in peril of their lives by their accusers; and the process will go on, for the contagion of this superstition has spread not merely through the free towns, but into the villages and farms.

Outside of the New Testament documents, there is no known record that those with the greatest motive to discourage belief in the resurrection (the Roman and Jewish authorities) had the ability or inclination to factually refute the story.  

The earliest attempt to contradict the resurrection story found by this author is the Toledoth Yeshu, a Jewish parody of the gospel resurrection accounts dating from the middle ages, which practically no one considers to be even remotely historical due to its late date of writing, unreliability and inconsistency of the existent texts, historical inaccuracies, and satirical nature.  

It is truly said that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.  In other words, just because we haven’t found evidence of something, that doesn’t mean it never happened.  It is possible that factual contradiction of the resurrection story did happen, but was not recorded or has been lost.  It is, however, most remarkable that there is no record of any such refutation, in light of the wealth of information about the story itself.  Since so many non-Christian and anti-Christian writers make reference to this widespread story (and the trouble caused by belief in it), surely at least one of them would have mentioned any widely known attempts to discredit it.  

IV.  A Few Conclusions Drawn from These Facts

1. Jesus himself claimed to be the Messiah.  

Jesus was seen as a threat to both the Jewish religious establishment and the Roman empire.  In the climate of the day, someone claiming to be the messiah would have threatened both institutions enough to be considered worthy of execution at the hands of both authorities, because the coming Messiah was both a religious and political figure.  The fact of Jesus crucifixion at Roman hands, after trial by the Jews, is especially significant.  According to Allan D. Callahan, Professor of New Testament at Harvard Divinity School:

…whatever he was doing, it was considered dangerous enough that he'd be crucified for it. And, that's exactly what they did.

John Dominic Crossan, Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at DePaul University, continues in the same vein:

What would happen to a peasant who caused trouble in the Temple and maybe endangered a riot at Passover? Standing orders, I would take it, crucifixion, as fast as possible. Hang him out as a warning. We're not going to have any riots at Passover. That's, I think, what happened to Jesus. 

Numerous other scholars point to the same conclusion (White, 2008).  

Of course, the strongest argument of all for Jesus’ claims comes from the writings and oral traditions of his followers.  From earliest times, Jesus’ followers claimed his messiah-ship.  Here we must break our self-imposed rule of neutral/hostile sources and look into the writings of the Christians themselves.  The earliest Christian creeds attest to belief in Jesus’ messiah-ship (Habermas, 1996), as do each of the gospel accounts and, presumably, whatever written, oral, and/or personal sources the gospel writers used.  It is highly unlikely that Jesus’ earliest followers would have made these claims for him, and been willing to die for those claims, if Jesus had not made them for himself.

The popular modern view of Jesus as merely a good teacher does not hold up to historic scrutiny. The Jews didn’t stone, nor did the Romans crucify those who simply wandered around telling people to be nice to each other.   Obviously Jesus was seen as a revolutionary and/or a troublemaker by both the civil and religious governments.  Yet we do not have specific records of Jesus committing violence or inciting people to rebellion.

So, what was Jesus crime?  The Roman charge, as recorded in all four gospel accounts, makes the most sense:  “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.”   Jesus was tortured to death, not for doing good deeds and telling others to do the same, but for who he claimed to be.  The mere threat of claiming the title messiah was sufficient.

2.  After Jesus’ death, his body was missing.  

This conclusion is hotly disputed by scholars, but it seems to be most reasonable in light of the facts.

It has already been demonstrated that the Jewish and Roman authorities had an interest in preventing the spread of Christianity.  Remember that Christianity first rose in Judea, where conclusive proof of Jesus’ demise should have been readily available.  It seems safe to assume that, if the authorities could have simply pointed people toward the still-occupied tomb of Jesus, they would have done so, as this would most likely have put an end to this “mischievous superstition” then and there.  Of course, it can be dangerous to draw hard conclusions from a lack of evidence; however, the apparent failure of the early leaders to directly refute the early Christians’ resurrection story does force one to ask why.  

There have been various attempts to explain the missing body:  The idea that the disciples or someone else stole the body; the “swoon theory,” which claims that Jesus was not really quite dead, and he revived in the tomb; several rather bizarre conspiracy theories.  Habermas (1996) gives thorough refutation of most of these, so I will defer to him.

It might seem strange to dismiss these theories as unlikely or “bizarre,” considering that we are discussing the likelihood of someone actually rising from the dead.  The irony is not lost on this author, but a good argument can be made that such theories are no more likely and no less miraculous than the resurrection story.

Take the swoon theory, for example, which has once again become popular in recent years.  In all of written antiquity, this writer is aware of only one instance recorded of someone surviving crucifixion.  Josephus (c. 99 AD), in his Life (IV: 75) describes finding three friends who had recently been crucified.  He appealed to General Titus, who had the three immediately taken down and given the best available medical care.  Even with this, only one of them survived.  The other two died from their wounds.

The Romans were very proficient at executing people.  Crucifixion, being both extremely painful and publicly humiliating, was a strong deterrent against rebellion and other crimes, and the Romans took it very seriously.  But the swoon theory postulates that Jesus survived Roman crucifixion, then revived in a cold tomb with minimal, covertly-administered medical care if any at all.  Escaping the tomb, he then appeared to his former disciples, surely a bleeding, sickly wraith of his former self, and somehow inspired them with the boldness to change the world, confidently going to their deaths if necessary.  Is such a scenario any more likely, or any less miraculous, than full resurrection?

Whatever explanation one chooses, the fact is that apart from Christian sources, there is a rather deafening silence surrounding the tomb of Jesus:  The ancients neither confirm nor deny that the tomb was empty.  Considering the amount of trouble caused by the Christians, and the desire of the rulers to stop them, this silence could reasonably be interpreted as a concession on their part, that the body of Jesus was, in fact, missing:  Lost, stolen, dumped in a mass grave and forgotten, or resurrected.

3. The early Christians were convinced, from the beginning, that Jesus was the divine, risen Messiah.

Neutral and hostile history records that Jesus’ disciples believed in his divinity and resurrection from the very earliest times, and that they held to this belief in spite of persecution, humiliation, and painful death, when recanting would have saved them from such.   The stoning of James, Jesus’ brother (along with some of his associates), is especially significant to this conclusion.  These facts, along with textual/outside evidence for early writing of the gospel accounts, effectively eliminates the argument that these messianic ideas of divinity were put into Jesus’ mouth by overzealous followers.  Even if the apostles and other early Christian leaders had had any motivation to do so, they would have not been able to spread such a lie in Judea, where it would have been so easy to refute.

Again, the popular modern view of Jesus as a simple teacher whose words were twisted by overzealous or dishonest followers after his death does not hold up to historic scrutiny for the simple reason that said followers had no reason to tell such a lie.  Any time such a theory is posed, there has to be a motive.  The early followers of Muhammad, for example, had every worldly motive for claiming he had ascended into heaven:  Their position as religious leaders was one of great power, wealth, and prestige, so it is easy to imagine them agreeing to make up the story (or, to assume the best about them, allowing themselves to believe what they wanted to believe) in order to secure their position.  (Interestingly, Mohammed is said to have ascended during his life, then returned; he is not claimed to have resurrected)

Did the early Christian leaders have such a motive?  Early on, we see James, whom Paul describes as a pillar of the Church (Letter to the Galatians 2:9), stoned to death along with some of his associates.   Later Roman writings are in agreement with the Biblical accounts that persecution, while not always intense, was ongoing, painful, and humiliating.  Christians faced ostracism, humiliation, poverty, and death for holding to their beliefs.   The policy of releasing them if they recanted gave them every motive to give up, and at very least they had every motive to examine the factual basis for said belief.  Those in Judea, where both Christianity and the persecution thereof started, would have had every opportunity to do so.

What possible motive did they have for holding to such a strange belief other than a sincere, well-founded conviction that the whole thing was true?  Were they self-deceived fanatics?  Leaders of a suicidal cult?  Insane?  Or were they telling the truth?

How does it add up?

Here is a man who claimed to be, or at very least allowed people to believe that he was the messiah, God’s deliverer of Israel.  He convinced enough people of his claims that he was considered a threat to the governing authorities, though he never committed violence.

After his execution, Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem almost immediately began spreading the word that he had risen from the dead and appeared to many people.  Jesus’ opponents persecuted those who held to this belief, but did little or nothing to refute it, indicating that his body probably was missing.

These same followers willingly went to painful and humiliating deaths rather than deny Jesus’ divinity and resurrection.  This included at least some of the early leaders, Jesus’ immediate, eyewitness followers.  They had absolutely no sane motive for lying about it.  Would they have remained loyal to this belief if they had known it to be a lie?

Jesus’ tomb truly remains empty, in the sense that there is simply nothing written about it, either for or against the resurrection, in the sources considered here.  While the resurrection itself cannot be conclusively, historically proven or disproved, it seems one is forced to conclude that either the early Christians were telling the truth, or they were a suicidal cult of the David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heaven’s Gate variety, with leaders who were either deluded by a mass hallucination or intentionally lying.  

On the cult possibility, I will defer to the experts on the shared characteristics of such cults (Brauns, N. D.  Langone, 2008) and note that, from all we know, the early Christians did not meet these characteristics.  Citing both historical documents and New Testament writings, we can say that early Christian leaders did not financially or otherwise benefit from their teachings (quite the contrary!); their claims were based on a falsifiable, historical event; members of the church were encouraged to search and study for themselves; salvation was taught as an individual issue; members were drawn from all facets of society; they do not appear to have been isolated in any way from the world in which they lived; they were commanded to submit to rightful laws; their rituals appear to have been relatively transparent, simple, and largely comprehensible to outsiders.  All of these characteristics run counter to mind-controlling cults.

It seems that, in the end, we are faced with “Lewis’ Trilema,” first posed by C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity (1960).  Lewis proposes that either Jesus was the messiah, or he was honest but deluded and/or insane, or he was “the Devil of Hell” for perpetrating such a lie on humanity.  Modern scholarship has added to the trilema the possibility that Jesus’ miracles, resurrection, and messianic claims are simply myths, thus making a nicely alliterative quatrilema:  Lord, Liar, Lunatic, or Legend.  The Legend possibility, however, does not seem to stand up to history.  So again, either Jesus was telling the truth about who he was, or he was evil and/or mentally ill.  It seems the same could be said of Jesus’ early followers who spread the story.  If the claim of Jesus’ resurrection was untrue, it was not an innocent embellishment that happened naturally over time; it was an intentional, horrifying lie with devastating personal consequences for those who believed it.

Which is it?  As one familiar with Jesus’ teachings, this writer must side with those questioning followers who engaged in a similar debate 2,000 years ago:  “These are not the words of a demon possessed man.” (John 10:21)  That leaves only one option.

The resurrection of Jesus is not a historical certainty.  There are other possible explanations for what happened.  But this writer is convinced that, if one allows for the possibility of miracles, it seems the most probable explanation for the facts.  All other possibilities are weakened by various aspects of the story, by consideration of human nature, or by history itself.  The resurrection possibility is weakened only by the presupposition that resurrection is impossible.  Without this presupposition, the resurrection becomes by far the most likely explanation.

Nevertheless, this historical likelihood of Jesus’ resurrection only goes so far.  Historical study, along with other valid lines of Christian scholarship which are beyond the scope of this paper, can only constitute one leg on the stool.  After this study and other ongoing studies of a similar nature, this leg of the stool seems in no danger of collapse.  But there has to be more.  To paraphrase an atheist friend’s reaction to the above research:  “Yes, perhaps he rose again.  So what?”

It is difficult to enumerate, in a scholarly manner, all of the reasons behind the choice to trust God, in the same way that it would be difficult to write, in a scholarly manner, about why one loves one’s spouse.  Some subjects call for scholarship, others for poetry and music.  Speaking personally, I must consider experience.  I must consider that trusting God not only brings the most devastating circumstances out to my good, but also brings out the very best in who I am, in direct proportion to the depth of trust.  Again and again.  Without fail.

Above all, I must consider the man Jesus.  History tells us he existed, but scripture tells us why.  In the teachings and life of Jesus, I see the highest ideal of mankind, alive with dirt under his finger nails.  Completely masterful without a hint of arrogance.  Completely selfless without a hint of codependency.  Completely courageous without any need to prove it to anyone.  Completely focused on his goal, and completely lacking in selfish ambition.  Completely trusting in God, and showing that trust not by sitting around waiting for something to happen, but by going to work.  Subject to human weaknesses, but not constrained by them.  Possessing all the riches of the universe, all the power of God himself, but under absolutely no compulsion to use any of it.  Completely self-possessed, and completely sacrificed to God.

Not only is Jesus these things, but—here is the truly miraculous part—he offers me the means to become these things myself.  Everything I want to be but cannot be, packaged up and given to me freely, a gift which costs me nothing, and everything.

  My much-maligned biblical namesake did not say “My Lord and my God” merely because he saw nail prints and a spear scar.  (John 20:28)  He knew who Jesus was; he simply needed his mind to be convinced of what his heart already knew.  Here is a vision, a man, a God worth living for and dying for.

My Lord and my God.

References

Brauns, John (N.D.).  What Are the Characteristics of a Religious Cult?   Retrieved March 2008 from http://www.prem-rawat-talk.org/forum/uploads/CultCharacteristics.htm

Habermas, Gary (1996).  The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ.  Joplin, Missouri: College Press.

Halsall, Paul (1998).  Ancient History Sourcebook:  Pliny and Trajan: Correspondence, C. 112 CE.  Retrieved February 2008 from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/pliny-trajan1.html

Halsall, Paul (2000).  Ancient History Sourcebook:  De Vita Caesarum—Divus Claudius, c. 110 CE.  Retrieved February 2007 from http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ancient/suet-claudius-rolfe.html

Harman, A. M. (2001).  Lucian of Samosata:  The Passing of Peregrinus.  Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/lucian/peregrinus.htm

Holding, J.P. (N.D.).  Lucian:  The Ancient Monty Python.  Retrieved January 2007 from http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/lucian.html#lucrel

Internet Infidels, Inc. (2008).  The Secular Web.  Retrieved February 2008 from www.infidels.org

Josephus, Flavius (c. 94 AD) Antiquities of the Jews.  From Whiston, William, translator (1998).  Josephus:  The Complete Works.  Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Josephus, Flavius (c. 99 AD).  The Life of Flavius Josephus.   From Whiston, William, translator (1998).  Josephus:  The Complete Works.  Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Langone, Michael, PhD (2008).  Cults:  Questions and Answers.  International Cultic Studies Association.  Retrieved March, 2008, from http://icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/langone_michael_cultsqa.htm

Lewis, C. S. (1960). Mere Christianity.  New York:  MacMillan Publishing Company, Inc.

Lindsay, Don (2005).  A List of Fallacious Arguments.  Retrieved March 2008 from http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

McDowell, Josh, and Wilson, Bill (1990).  A Ready Defense:  The Best of Josh McDowell.  San Bernardino, CA:  Here’s Life Publishing, Inc.

Shanks, Hershel (1995).  Jerusalem:  An Archaeological Biography.  New York:  Random House, Inc.

Strobel, Lee (2007).  The Case for Christ:  The Film.  La Mirada, California:  La Mirada Films.

Tabor, Dr. James D (1998).  Ancient Judaism: Josephus on Jesus.  Retrieved March 2008 from http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html.

Tacitus, Cornelius (c. 116 AD).  Annals, Book 15.  From Church, Alfred and Brodribb, William, translators.  (1942). The Complete Works of Tacitus.  United States:  Random House, Inc.

Valentine, Carol, compiler (N. D.).  Babylonian Talmud:  Tractate Sanhedrin.  Retrieved November 2007 from http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html

White, L. Michael, for PBS Online (2008). From Jesus to Christ:  Jesus Many Faces.  Retrieved December 2007 from  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/arrest.html#crucifixion