“Resurrection” Myths vs. Resurrection of Jesus – Osiris

“Resurrection” Myths vs. Resurrection of Jesus – Osiris

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

This is the second in a series of posts on resurrection myths by Mary Jo

Main Question: Was the story of Jesus’ resurrection unique in the first century or did other written accounts of resurrections like Jesus’ exist before or during the time period of the New Testament writings?

The Cult of Osiris

Egyptian
Greek – Usiris: many of the names of gods differ for the Greek version of Osiris’ story
The story:Osiris was the Egyptian god of the underworld. Isis and Osiris were two of the children of the earth-god Seb (Geb) and the sky-goddess Nut; though Nut was also the wife of the sun-god, Ra. Osiris married his sister, Isis, and reigned as a king on the earth. He is allegedly the ruler of Egypt that brought the Egyptians out of cannibalism and introduced them to a corn diet along with help from Isis who discovered wheat and barley growing wild in the fields and introduced the cultivation of these grains to the people. Osiris also brought the Egyptians out of savagery by teaching them to worship the gods and giving them laws. He decided to share his blessings of civilization and agriculture with the rest of the world and traveled all over training mankind in these ways, leaving Isis to rule Egypt.

Upon Osiris’ return, he is duped by his brother, Set (Greek: Typhon), into laying down in a coffer made just for him. His brother and co-conspirators nail the lid on the coffer, solder it with lead, and throw the coffer into the Nile River. Isis sets out to find her beloved and wanders up and down the Nile searching for him. Osiris’ coffer floats out to sea and lands on the shores of Byblus, where it is engulfed by an erica-tree that springs up around it. Isis, with a tip from the god of wisdom, eventually finds Osiris’ coffer in a column of a palace that had used the tree in construction and takes the coffer back with her. However, when she leaves the coffer to visit her son, Horus, her brother, Typhon finds the coffer, and recognizing the body inside, tears Osiris into 14 pieces and spreads him out all over. Isis recovers all the pieces save one and buries each piece where she finds it. This spreading out of Osiris’ bodily burial is to explain the worship of him in numerous Egyptian cities and also to keep Typhon from finding Osiris’ burial spot.

The “resurrection”[1]:According to Egyptian tradition, Isis and her sister, Nephthys, lament over Osiris’ scattered, dead body and their lament catches the attention of the sun-god, Ra. Ra sends Anubis down from heaven and along with Isis, Nephthys, Thoth, and Horus, he pieces together the scattered Osiris. With help from Isis, Osiris is revived to the position of Lord of the Underworld, Lord of Eternity, Ruler of the Dead.

Similarities to the resurrection story of Jesus:
Both died, both were brought back to some kind of existence after life

Dissimilarities to the resurrection story of Jesus:Life: Osiris allegedly ruled on earth as a god-king over all of Egypt, Jesus did not rule as an earthly king, but proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven as having arrived on earth

Death: Osiris was duped into his demise, Jesus sacrificially and willingly died for all mankind

Resurrection: Osiris was pieced back to together by other gods out of Isis’ desire for her dead husband, Jesus was raised to a new life having conquered physical death giving hope to all mankind

Afterlife: Osiris was raised to the position of Ruler of the Underworld, Jesus was raised to a new body, the firstborn of the resurrected, and rules with God over all creation

What about the dating of these stories? Who is influencing who? A couple of quotes from two articles:

– The key here is dating. Most of the alleged parallels between Christianity and mystery religions, upon close scrutiny will show that Christian elements predate mythological elements. In cases where they do not, it is often Jewish elements which predate both Christianity and the myth, and which lent themselves to both religions.[2]

– In the case of all three, there is no evidence earlier than the second century A.D. for the supposed “resurrection” of these mystery gods.[3]

– For a discussion of certain parallels between the Osiris cult and Christianity, where “any theory of borrowing on the part of Christianity from the older faith is not to be entertained, for not only can it not be substantiated on the extant evidence, but it is also intrinsically most improbable.” see S. G. F. Brandon. “The Ritual Perpetuation of the Past,” “Numen”, vi (1959), 122-129 (quotation is from p. 128).[4]

Also, the Osiris myth directly relates to the corn crop cycle. As taken from The Golden Bough,

The foregoing survey of the myth and ritual of Osiris may suffice to prove that in one of his aspects the god was a personification of the corn, which may be said to die and come to life again every year.

and

But Osiris was more than a spirit of the corn; he was also a tree-spirit, and this may perhaps have been his primitive character, since the worship of trees is naturally older in the history of religion than the worship of the cereals. The character of Osiris as a tree-spirit was represented very graphically in a ceremony described by Firmicus Maternus.

A name for Osiris was the “crop” or “harvest”; and the ancients sometimes explained him as a personification of the corn.

I do not believe an alternative representation for Jesus’ life – specifically the crop cycle or the seasons – can be well evidenced. I also do not see any kind of story revolving around Jesus where the characters are gods and demi-gods, which is true to the plot of most mystery religion stories.

MJ

Note: Please check referenced documents for further documentation. Articles quoted have many more sources than provided here.

For Further Reading:Metzger, Bruce. Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. Available from: http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/mystery_religions_early_christianity.htm.%3C/a Accessed January 22, 2007.

McDowell, Josh. “Is The New Testament Filled With Myths”. Chapter 14 of A Reasoned Defense. Available from: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch14/default.htm. Accessed January 22, 2007.

Frazer, Sir James George. The Golden Bough. Available from: http://www.bartleby.com/196/79.html Accessed May 22, 2007.

Endnotes:

[1] The term “resurrection” is used here only for comparative purposes. I am currently looking into whether or not this term was a Judeo-Christian term borrowed by the mystery religions or if the mystery religions ever used this term at all.

[2] McDowell, Josh. “Is The New Testament Filled With Myths”. Chapter 14 of A Reasoned Defense. Available from: http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch14/default.htm. Accessed January 22, 2007.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Metzger, Bruce. “Methodology in the Study of Mystery Religions and Early Christianity.” from Historical and Literary Studies: Jewish, Pagan, and Christian. Available from http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/mystery_religions_early_christianity.htm. accessed January 22, 2007. This quote is a footnote from page 12.
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

Minimal Facts Approach – Testing Hypotheses

Minimal Facts Approach – Testing Hypotheses

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Various Hypotheses Concerning the Resurrection

After establishing the four minimal facts surrounding the event of resurrection, I will now put to the test a few of the numerous hypotheses given as an explanation for these facts. The answer at the end of each fact demonstrates whether or not the theory in question can account for that particular fact.*

Swoon Theory – Jesus did not die on the cross; he fainted or swooned, and was eventually revived

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Hallucination Theory – The disciples had grief-induced or other type hallucinations, which explain the appearances of Jesus.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – YES
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – YES/STRAIN

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Legend Theory – Jesus was most likely a man who led a small religious cult in first century Palestine, but legend about him developed over the years after his death in an effort to convert people to Christianity.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO/STRAIN
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Myth Theory – The story of Jesus Christ is a myth that developed much like the myths of other ancient near east religions.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – NO
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – NO
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – NO
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – NO

X This hypothesis does not account for all of the facts.

Jesus was resurrected – Jesus died by Roman crucifixion, was buried, and subsequently appeared to his disciples and others in bodily form.

Fact 1: Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion – YES
Fact 2: Jesus appeared to the disciples – YES
Fact 3: Jesus appeared to foes – YES
Fact 4: Jesus’ tomb was empty – YES

This hypothesis accounts for all of the facts.

The inference suggested by historically exploring the evidence around the events of Jesus’ life is that a resurrected Jesus is the best explanation for the historical facts. What are the implications of a resurrected Jesus?

Mary Jo

Main Sources:

Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel: 2004.

*Licona, Mike. Resurrection of Jesus. Lecture. McLean Bible Church Apologetics Conference, “Loving God With All Your Mind.” November, 2006. Format for checking hypotheses from Licona’s lecture.

For further reading:Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories – Gary HabermasThe Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection – Gary HabermasContemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ – William Lane CraigDid Jesus Really Exist? – Paul L. Maier
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #4

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #4

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #4 – Jesus’ tomb was empty

1) The Jerusalem Factor
2) Enemy attestation
3) The testimony of women

The Jerusalem Factor

Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. His empty tomb and his resurrection were proclaimed there first. If Jesus’ body had still been in the tomb, why did no one go get the body and drag it through the streets of the city to shut down the Christian movement that so angered the Jewish officials? This would not be an easy task but it would be worth getting rid of a blasphemous group of rebels. Furthermore, an occupied tomb would at least have dissuaded enough of the believers to merit some apologetic attention on this matter. However, no apologetic work can be found on an occupied tomb by any of the apostles or even second or third century Christian writers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Origen (to name a few). There is a strong possibility they would have reasoned a defense for an empty tomb, as demonstrated in their reasoning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, if they had needed to do so. In addition, no work on the tomb from early Christian opposition can be found, such as Celsus, the second century Christian critic.[i]

Enemy Attestation

If testimony about an event or person is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message or cause that benefits from the affirmation, then there is reason to believe the testimony’s authenticity. The empty tomb can be found either implicitly or explicitly stated in the works of Josephus, Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” Tertullian’s “On Spectacles,” and in the Jewish Toledoth (a derogatory version of Jesus’ life in Jewish tradition).

In the Jewish Toledoth:
“On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.[ii]

In Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:

“You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.” [iii]

Even to imply that Jesus was raised or that his tomb was empty is certainly damaging to the case against the resurrection if reasoning from the offensive.

Testimony of Women

If I had an intention of creating a story to make myself (or my story) look good, I would most likely not include information that would be damaging or embarrassing to the credibility of my story. By that standard, it would be an odd invention to have the women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb. In the accounts of the empty tomb, the women are exactly that, the first witnesses, in all four gospel accounts. This report would most likely be damaging to the case for the empty tomb when taken in context of the first century socio-cultural norms. The testimony of a woman was not regarded as highly as the testimony of a man. Habermas and Licona quote a few Jewish writings on this matter:

Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women. (Talmud, Sotah 19a)
But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex…..; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Joshephus, Antiquities 4.8.15)

Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman. (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)[iv]
Why would the gospel writers include women as the number one witnesses to the empty tomb when it would behoove their cause to use men instead? The reason would be because they were reporting the truth; embarrassing as that may be.

These three factors contribute to the case for an empty tomb. Though the empty tomb is conceded by 75%[v] of scholars who write on the Resurrection (versus 95% or better on the other 3 facts), this is still an impressive number for the empty tomb case. Again, the empty tomb is a historically probable event that needs to be explained when discussing the evidences surrounding the Resurrection.

MJ

[i] Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg. 71.

[ii] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html. Accessed December 1, 2006.

[iii] The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians: Addressed to the Roman Senate. The Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/justin-apology2.html. Accessed December 2, 2006.

[iv] Habermas. Licona. pg. 72. All three quotes were taken from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.

[v] Ibid. pg. 70.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #3

Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #3

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #3 – Jesus appeared to foes

Evidences:
1) Paul – Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee
2) James – Jesus’ brother

– Both were unbelievers before the resurrection of Jesus
– Both became believers after an experience of the risen Jesus, following Jesus’ crucifixion
– Neither had motive to convert
– James: principle of embarrassment
– Paul: earliest N.T. writings, very reliable material

Paul was an unlikely convert to Christianity. He had been a known persecutor of Christianity and yet his conversion was based on what he perceived to be an experience of the risen Jesus. His conversion was based on primary evidence (what he experienced for himself), not secondary evidence (such as believing what others told him about Jesus). This testimony carries no little weight. Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians 15 are considered some of the earliest writings from the New Testament and are therefore closest to the events themselves. Due to the early nature of these writings, scholars grant much of what Paul reports to be historically probable events. What can be shown from this material is 1) an ardent enemy of Christianity converted to Christianity based on an experience he believed to be the risen Jesus 2) the convert’s name was Paul and he recorded these experiences himself (a primary source) and 3) He testified to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Paul also wrote about another foe Jesus appeared[i] to, which was James, Jesus’ brother.

“Then he appeared[ii] to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared[iii] to me also, as to one abnormally born.”
1 Corinthians 15:7-8The information regarding James’ status as an “enemy” of Christ comes from the reports in the Gospels (Mark and John). This material would not be seen as favorable to the cause of Christ by including it in these books. In fact, Jesus’ own brother’s disbelief in him is rather embarrassing testimony to the faith. Later on, however, James was identified as the leader of the church in Jerusalem after the alleged resurrection of Jesus. He eventually was martyred for his commitment to the Christianity as reported by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria.[iv] Paul gives an account (above) of the appearance of Jesus to James as part of an early creedal statement in making a defense of the resurrection.

These two men, with nothing to gain materially or politically, with seemingly no logical reason to understand Jesus as a part of their monotheistic God, began to follow Jesus due to experiences they had of Him after His death and subsequent resurrection. This fact needs to be explained and accounted for, not with mere speculation, but with hypotheses supported by first century evidence.

“Skeptics must provide more than alternative theories to the Resurrection; they must provide first-century evidence for those theories.”[v]
– Dr. Gary Habermas
Mary Jo


[i] optanomai – “to look at, behold” from the KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon available from http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?search=3700&version=kjv&type=str&submit=Find

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] The material of Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria is preserved in the writings of Eusebius, which is where this material is found.

[v] Geisler, Norman. Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Quote by Gary Habermas. Wheaton, Crossway Books: 2004. pg. 299.

Main Source:
Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

Evidence or Speculation?

Evidence or Speculation?

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Recently, the book entitled “The Jesus Family Tomb” was released in bookstores, in addition the Discovery Channel aired a documentary on the same information called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” on March 4, 2007. It was directed by Simcha Jacovici and produced by James Cameron, in order to argue that they may have found the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. The documentary pertained to ossuaries, which are burial boxes that were found in Jerusalem in 1980. Out of the ten ossuaries that were discovered, three they claim to be Jesus of Nazareth, Mary Magdalene and Judah son of Jesus. Although, they have produced a well developed film, is there really any evidence to their claim or is it pure speculation?

The suggested theory rests on the foundation that “Mariamene e Mara” is claimed to be Mary Magdalene and DNA testing supposedly proves that the ossuaries of Jesus, son of Joseph and Mariamene are not mother and son, but instead they imply that they are husband and wife. It is true that Jacovici, did do DNA testing on the small samples from the boxes of Mariamene and Jesus, Son of Joseph, HOWEVER, it was Mitochondrial DNA. This can only prove evidence regarding a mother and son relationship, not a father and daughter relationship. Therefore, this does not give any evidence to “Jesus, son of Joseph” and “Mariamene” being husband and wife. Read what Dr. James R. White wrote in his findings, “Will the book honestly discuss the limitations of mitochondrial DNA? Will they admit that such analysis can only speak to maternal relations, not to paternal relations? Will they tell us what Dr. Carney Matheson has confirmed that such a test cannot rule out that Jesus, son of Joseph was the father of Mariamne? Or will they spin the results? The answer was: spin, spin, spin. Look at this direct quote from the conclusion, page 207: “However, they were able to extract mitochondrial DNA from both the Jesus and Mariamne ossuaries. This allowed them to confirm that these were indeed Middle Eastern people of antiquity and that they were not related.” This is simply false. In an e-mail dated 2/26/07 Dr. Matheson frankly stated, “This can only identify maternal relationship of which the two remains do not share.”[1]

In addition, Mariamene is stated to be Mary Magdelen. She “has been associated with the woman in the city who was a sinner (Luke 7:37), who washed Jesus feet, but there is no scriptural basis for this. She is also associated with the woman whom Jesus saved from stoning after she had been taken in adultery (John 8:1-11) – again an association with no evidence.”[2] Jacovici makes the bold statement that she is the same Mariamene in a Gnostic gospel called the “Acts of Philip” (read it here ) however, there is NO evidence in this piece either. Once again, it is all pure speculation in the eyes of a journalist.

This is not so in the eyes of the witnesses that interacted with Jesus Christ, after His resurrection. “A great variety of persons testified that they had seen Jesus alive. He was seen on several different occasions and in various locations.”[3] Jesus the Christ “appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time” (1 Cor. 15:5-6).

Speculation is the cornerstone for the movie The Lost Tomb of Jesus, but evidence reported from eyewitnesses is only one element at the foundation for the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Do you want to build on speculation or evidence?

“And Jesus said to them, why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts” See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. (Luke 24:38-40)”

Deanna

(1) White, James Dr., http://www.aomin.org/
(2) Lockyer, Herbert Sr., Nelson’s Illustrated Bible, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN,Thomas Nelson, 1986.
(3) Erickson, Millard, Christian Theology Second Edition, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic,1998.

The Minimal Facts Approach, Fact #2

The Minimal Facts Approach, Fact #2

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.

Fact #2 – Jesus’ appearance to the disciples

Evidences:

1) The disciples believed the risen Jesus appeared to them

2) The disciples’ transformation from frightened, hiding individuals to bold witnesses of the resurrection

The disciples’ belief that Jesus appeared to them post-crucifixion, is a fact that needs to be explained. The disciples wrote down their eyewitness testimonies to these appearances in the gospels. Plus, Paul discusses these appearances in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Critics claim Paul’s writing in the previous passages as some of the earliest New Testament writings.[i] Paul quotes a creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, “For what I received, I passed on to you as of first importance…” Though Paul penned these words around twenty years after the crucifixion, he had this knowledge prior to writing these words. This very same knowledge of the appearances of the risen Jesus to the disciples is also found in the writings of the early church fathers; for example, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Tertullian, and Eusebius.[ii]

The disciples had an unusual transformation from individuals who were afraid and hiding to bold witnesses of the resurrection. Why would I call this transformation unusual? Let’s look at the circumstances surrounding their transformation.

First of all, the transformation of the disciples is one of the reasons virtually all scholars who study this material concede this point.[iii] The skeptical scholars try to offer explanations for what caused this transformation; they do not discern the disciples’ accounts as mythology, but instead offer explanations for what these men believed they saw.[iv] In the course of explaining this transformation, we have to take into account that the disciples were willing to suffer persecution and, eventually, martyrdom for the man that they knew personally (including their knowledge of Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God and his prediction of his own death and resurrection.[v]) If they knew Jesus’ resurrection was a fraud, they would be insane, at best, to die for him, because there was nothing to gain from following him: no political power and no future hope of resurrection for themselves. The disciples looked forward to immense suffering, outcast status in their culture, and death for the cause of that which they knew personally to be an untruth (since Jesus claimed to be God and predicted his own death and resurrection, if he was not raised from the dead, the disciples would know he was not raised and they would know he was a false prophet.) Yet, they were willing to bear all this. The best explanation of their unusual behavior after Jesus’ crucifixion was that they believed they literally experienced the risen Jesus.

Now we must account for the experiences of the disciples due to the facts that they believed they saw the risen Jesus and these appearances did transform their lives.

Mary Jo

[i] “Reports from such an early date would actually predate the written Gospels. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Most critical scholars think that Paul’s reception of at least the material on which this early creedal statement is based is dated to the 30s AD.”
Gary Habermas. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels. Available from: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm. Accessed December 1, 2006.

[ii] Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pgs.53-59.

[iii] Ibid. pgs.56-60

[iv] An example is found in the work of Jack Kent in The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth. Kent attempts to explain the post-crucifixion appearances as grief-induced hallucinations on the part of the disciples.

[v] Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God, his prediction of his death and resurrection, and the evidence surrounding his subsequent death and resurrection set Jesus and His followers apart from other messianic claims and religions. If God raised a man from the dead, this would signify His approval of that man’s message. This is especially important considering that Jesus claimed to be God.
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

The Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #1

The Minimal Facts Approach – Fact #1

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

Over the course of the next few posts, I will be presenting evidences for the Resurrection based on the research of Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University and Mike Licona of the North American Mission Board. This material can be found in their book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.”

In the “Minimal Facts Approach,” I will only be using ‘facts’ from the New Testament that can satisfy the following two criteria: 1) they are strongly evidenced and 2) they must be acknowledged by a vast majority of scholars (atheist through conservative).1 By strongly evidenced, I mean that they satisfy some or all of the criteria used in textual criticism to establish historical probability.

Examples of these criteria are:

1) multiple, independent sources
2) enemy attestation
3) principle of embarrassment
4) eyewitness testimony
5) early testimony2

What I am not saying is that these facts prove the resurrection of Jesus historically. What I am saying is that the best explanation of these facts, when combined, is a resurrection of Jesus.

Fact #1 – Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion

1) Jesus’ crucifixion was recorded in all four Gospel accounts
2) Jesus’ crucifixion was recorded in non-Christian sources

a. Josephus, Jewish Historian Antiquities 18, chapter 3

b. Tacitus, Roman Historian Annals 15.44

c. Lucian of Samsota, Greek Satirist
The Works of Lucian, Vol. IV “The Death of Peregrin” (scroll down to 11)

d. Mara Bar-Serapion, Syrian prisoner
A Letter of Mara, Son of Serapion (scroll down to just after footnote 19)

e. The Jewish Talmud

3) Jesus’ death on a cross is one of the most well-attested events of ancient history

“That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
– Skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan, “Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography” pg.145; to read, type in “that he was crucified” in search box

Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion is a historical event.

Mary Jo

1 Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg.47.
2 Ibid. pgs. 36-40.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007

History from the New Testament?

History from the New Testament?

Posted on by confidentchristianity@gmail.com

The New Testament is a collection of ancient literature. So much has been debated about the New Testament’s reliability that I think maybe this point has been missed. Namely, the New Testament does exist as a collection of ancient works, and can be looked at as such for historical facts. As I look at other works of ancient history, I am going to apply the same criteria to all of them, including the New Testament. I will look for facts from the work that are 1) strongly evidenced and 2) accepted by virtually all the scholars who studied the material.

As Gary Habermas and Mike Licona have reminded us in their book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus“, Historians recognize that most writings of antiquity contain factual errors and propaganda. They still can identify kernels of historical truth in those sources. If they eliminated a source completely because of bias or error, they would know next to nothing about the past.”1 Why, then, cannot a skeptic of the New Testament look into the evidence surrounding the strongly attested passages and glean truths (facts) from the material? They can and they do.

Gary Habermas has been researching the scholarly work on the New Testament from 1975 to the present. He has combined the research of over 2000 scholars who are atheists, skeptics, liberals, middles, and conservatives. In doing this research, Habermas has noted some trends in what these scholars grant as historically reliable material from the New Testament.2 What? There is historically reliable material in the New Testament? Shouldn’t we just accept Christianity on faith and leave the reasoning to other aspects of our lives? “You Christians would have it made if you would just admit that your faith is just that: faith.” No thank you. I did not become a Christian merely based on feelings and emotions. (please see endnote on explanation of “faith”)3 Plus, Paul, in the New Testament, says

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. I Corinthians 15: 14-15

I do not see a lot of room for debate here. The passage is clear. It goes on to talk more specifically about the general idea of resurrection, but it also makes a clear statement about “just believing.” It doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for a postmodern philosophy of each narrative (religion, community, place and time in history) containing the same amount of truth for those who participate; ie. “All religions have truths.” Our narrative denounces itself if it is not the truth!

As Christians, we should be committed to seeking truth and wisdom. Check these out:

Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Proverbs 4:6-7

If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer. Proverbs 9:12

Okay, so now I am little off the subject, which was originally about using the New Testament to glean truths, at least in the same manner as any other ancient document. Why should I accept a double standard regarding the history in the New Testament? In discussing the New Testament, Christian and skeptic alike should be able to use the same standards in scrutinizing the history of the text.4 Now I am interested in discovering if there is another ancient document (2nd century or earlier) with at least the same amount of sources (enemy attestation, multiple, independent sources, eyewitness testimony, etc.) and early manuscripts as the New Testament. At this point, I do not know of one.

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2 Peter 1:16

Mary Jo

_______________________________________

1 Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg.45

2 I have listed a couple more of Gary Habermas’ sources here for further investigation:

Habermas, Gary. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. 2003.

________. Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying?
Available from http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

________. Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels. Gary Habermas. Available from www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_recentperspectives/crj_recentperspectives.htm

________. Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection. Available from
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm

3 Faith is much more complex than the treatment given here. I am referring to the skeptic’s view of faith (un-reasoned belief), not the deep complexity of faith that develops in a Christian; faith including heart, soul, mind, and strength.

4 While I believe the Bible to be trustworthy and inspired, I cannot expect a skeptic or non-believer to do the same, which is why I have presented my case in this manner.

© Mary Jo Sharp 2007