Worldview of Jesus

Tag: New Testament

  • Objections to the Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

    Objections to the Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

    The minimal facts argument for the resurrection of Jesus was discussed in the previous article for last month. These facts that serve as the foundation for this argument are accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars, both Christians and skeptics alike. That is what makes this argument tremendously powerful when discussing the resurrection of Jesus. Obviously, the resurrection of Jesus as stated in the New Testament would not be enough to convince a skeptic who does not accept the word of the Bible to be authoritative on these matters. For a skeptic, they are looking for additional evidence to validate why the Bible should be authoritative and trustworthy. That is what this argument hopes to achieve. Without achieving this goal of validating the authority of the Bible along with presenting extra-Biblical facts, the argument would not carry any weight with the skeptic. Since these details were discussed in the last article, the goal of this article is to address the objections to this argument by skeptics.

    As a refresher, I will present the five basic facts that make up the minimal facts argument below:

    1. Jesus died by crucifixion
    2. The disciples of Jesus were sincerely convinced that he rose from the dead and appeared to them
    3. Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus), who was a persecutor of the Christians, suddenly changed his beliefs towards Christianity
    4. James (brother of Jesus), who was a skeptic of the Christian faith, suddenly changed his beliefs towards Christianity
    5. The Tomb of Jesus was found empty three days after the crucifixion of Jesus (Habermas and Licona 2004, 48-76)

    Anytime there are matters of the supernatural at hand, there will undoubtedly be objections despite how much evidence you have in favor of a supernatural cause. This argument is not an exception to that rule. Of course, skepticism is always encouraged to a large degree. Without skepticism, all of us would believe the first thing we heard without question. We implement skepticism in our daily lives without even knowing we were being skeptical. However, imagine if we were militantly skeptical about everything we heard. We would believe nothing. In this case, particularly with atheists or adamant skeptics, they have painted themselves into the corner of materialism. To this person, anything of supernatural origin cannot be accepted within their realm of acceptable causes despite how much evidence there exists in favor of the divine.

    These objections that will be discussed are largely being made because the skeptics believe there is a naturalistic hypothesis that can best account for all five facts. It is always recommended that one be initially skeptical of supernatural claims but to never rule out the possibility of the supernatural prematurely. In this case of the resurrection of Jesus, if someone has viewed all of the evidence and made a conscious decision to stick with a naturalistic explanation, they have more faith than the Christians due to the lack of evidence for a naturalistic cause.

    Legend

    If you happen to witness this topic being discussed online or in person, you will likely hear that Jesus or elements of Jesus are nothing more than a product of legend. Sometimes you might hear that Jesus was a product of legend and never existed or sometimes people may say that the resurrection of Jesus was a legend and he did historically exist. Either way, they are attaching the legendary objection to Jesus in some way. That is why it is important to discuss the objection of “legend” so that you may be prepared to discuss this objection in a conversation.

    Simply because the Gospels and the Pauline writings were not written on the day the events occurred, some skeptics claim that somehow they are false. This is patently invalid. People automatically revert to the elementary school experiment where the entire class would line up against the wall and the teacher would tell the child at the beginning of the line a phrase and each student would whisper it to the person next to them. By the time the message was received at the end of the line, it did not closely resemble the original message. Often, this example is what skeptics think of when they talk about the length of time between the actual events and the first writings that we have of the New Testament regarding the resurrection of Jesus. Many times, people easily dismiss these writings on the basis of an elementary school experiment.

    According the majority of New Testament scholars who have seriously studied the New Testament, the textual purity is accepted to be highly reliable. Meaning, the New Testament as we know it today is virtually the same as it was when the originals were written (Habermas and Licona 2004, 85). However, the question regarding the possibility of legend is still to contend with. The answer to this question is that it is very unlikely that the New Testament writings are the result of legendary embellishments.

    The first reason for why this objection does not stand up against scrutiny is because the writings of the New Testament can be traced back to actual experiences of the original apostles (Habermas and Licona 2004, 85). For this objection to be valid, the early manuscripts would likely not contain anything related to the resurrection of Jesus. However, the early manuscripts do contain testimony that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day.

    The second reason for why this objection does not stand up against scrutiny is because Paul and James came to Christ through personal experiences they had after Jesus had risen from the dead (Habermas and Licona 2004, 86). Paul was a persecutor of the early church and even murdered Christians to prevent the expansion of Christianity while James was a skeptic of the teachings of Jesus. These accounts are dated early and give us reasons for why such a dramatic conversion could occur among individuals that have no reason to convert. This type of conversion does not align with the idea of legendary embellishment because it is dated early and it is directly attested to by these affected individuals through their written works. The idea that these skeptical individuals would convert to Christianity without reason and then somehow claim they embellished their own story to make it sound miraculous is illogical.

    The last reason why this objection does not stand up against scrutiny is because there is no evidence in favor of it (Habermas and Licona 2004, 86). Clearly, there are evidences of certain ancient documents having been affected by legendary embellishments but there is nothing to suggest that the New Testament literature has fallen victim to such embellishments. These types of conclusions must be taken on an individual basis and those looking to critically evaluate the New Testament for historical reliability cannot do so with the presupposition that this writing has been contaminated with legendary embellishments. These embellishments must be objectively identified through evidence rather than presupposition.

    Mythologized Jesus

    This is another popular internet objection that is often used among the untutored. For those that may not know much about the subject, it may sound like a plausible explanation. In a skeptic’s mind that maintains this position, they think, “2,000 plus years have gone by and there is supposedly other types of myths that parallel the story of Jesus, it could be possible that Jesus can fall into the same category of “myth” like other types of gods”. While an entire book can be written with the premise of refuting these types of mythological objections against Jesus, it is important to briefly skim the basic type of objection regarding mythology.

    The main point that should be driven home is that skeptics are claiming that the resurrection of Jesus is parallel to the other stories of dying and rising gods which disqualifies the historical validity of the resurrection of Jesus. In reality, regardless of whether or not there were stories of dying and rising gods in mythology, the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus should be treated on its own individual merits. Simply because there were stories of dying and rising gods does not prohibit the existence of a valid historical claim for Jesus’ resurrection. Hypothetically, if an individual was executed today and he miraculously resurrected, would we discard the possibility of a resurrection simply because of numerous dying and rising god stories in the past? Clearly not, but somehow many skeptics have enthusiastically accepted this line of reasoning when evaluating the merits of Jesus’ resurrection.

    While this article is not dedicated to going through each mythological god and discussing why minor similarities does not influence the New Testament account of Jesus, it is more important to highlight the significant principle that needs to be taken into consideration when dealing with these types of objections. All of these fallacious claims of similarity are also filled with massive amounts of differences. To provide a couple examples, Justin Martyr who was writing in A.D. 150, wrote about the similarities some of the dying and rising gods had with the resurrection of Jesus. He discussed how Aesculapius was struck by lightning and ascended to heaven and how Hercules rose to heaven on a Pegasus. Other than their ascension into heaven, how are they similar? These types of similarities that are made with the hopes of discrediting the historical credibility of the resurrection almost appear like an act of desperation.

    The Disciples Stole the Body

    This objection is not so far removed from reality that is does not seem plausible like the two previously discussed. However, this objection still does not make sense of the facts upon further evaluation. This objection makes sense of only one of the five facts as stated in the minimal facts argument. This objection only accounts for the empty tomb.

    If the disciples had stolen the body, they would then be expanding the ministry of Jesus in an area of the world that was ambitiously persecuting them during this time. Imagine you were one of the disciples and you knew that Jesus had not resurrected because you had a hand in the hoax, would you put yourself in a life threatening position in order to propagate your own lie? What incentive would there be to maintain the lie when you are standing face to face with a lion in the Coliseum in Rome? Naturally, liars make poor martyrs. There is no documented evidence of any disciple or apostle confessing that they had stolen the body from the tomb. Out of all the disciples, not a single one indicated that they stole the body based upon the evidence that is currently available.

    Apparent Death Theory

    Honestly, it is a wonder why this objection is still being considered as a naturalistic explanation. The movie, “The Passion of the Christ” by Mel Gibson accurately depicts the types of suffering Jesus endured during the crucifixion process. The claim that is being made with this objection is that Jesus survived the crucifixion process and that is how he appeared alive on the third day to his disciples. Prior to the actual crucifixion, there was a scourging process of the victim that was immensely brutal. The scourging of the victim was conducted with a short whip that had several braided leather tongs of varied lengths and had small iron balls or sharp pieces of sheep bone at the ends (Habermas and Licona 2004, 100). During the flogging process, the back, buttocks and legs were the areas of the body that were whipped. The purpose of the flogging was to significantly weaken the victim so that they did not put up much of a struggle throughout the remainder of the process (Habermas and Licona 2004, 100).

    Throughout the rest of the crucifixion process, the wounds would cause the victim unbearable pain. Once the nails were driven into the wrists and feet of the cross, they would then fall victim to asphyxiation, which means that they would have problems breathing (Habermas and Licona 2004, 101). While on the cross, the victim attempts to take the weight off his nailed feet which places more weight on his nailed hands. By placing more weight on the nailed hands, breathing becomes more difficult. Trying to inhale and exhale was a balancing act because the victim is always shifting his weight from his nailed hands to his nailed feet. All the while, his severely wounded back is rubbing up against the wooden cross which causes increased pain (Habermas and Licona 2004, 101).

    As we see in the Gospels in the New Testament, if the Romans wanted to speed the crucifixion process they would break the legs of the victim which would cause the victim to place all of the victim’s weight on his nailed hands. This significantly limits the breathing ability of the victim which will eventually cause them to suffocate. To be sentenced to death by crucifixion, there was no hope for survival. There is no recorded evidence of anyone going through the entire process of crucifixion and surviving.

    The next reason why this objection fails is the rather obvious notion that if Jesus did survive, he would certainly not appear as though he divinely resurrected from the dead. He would appear as though he just barely survived a crucifixion. The first conclusion the disciples would have after seeing someone in the wrecked condition Jesus would have been in would be “this man needs medical attention immediately!” not “I cannot wait to have a resurrection body like that!”

    Lastly, Paul and James are not accounted for in the apparent death theory. It does not explain how these two stark skeptics converted. Who appeared to them? What caused their conversion if Jesus barely lived through his execution? Not only is the hypothesis not physically plausible, but it fails to account for the accepted facts.

    Hallucinations

    The objection of hallucinations among the disciples who Jesus appeared to along with Paul and James attempts to explain away the appearances through a form of cognitive dysfunction known as a hallucination. A hallucination is considered to be a false perception of something that is not there. For example, if I had been deprived of sleep or had suffered a traumatic event in my life, my body may respond with a hallucination.

    In this case, given what we know about hallucinations, does the hallucination hypothesis explain all five facts? Hallucinations would not explain the empty tomb. Considering that the disciples, Paul, James, and groups of people had appearances of Jesus alive after his crucifixion, does the hallucination hypothesis explain these appearances best among these people?

    The answer is no. To use an example, if a group of five hundred people were locked in a room and were forcibly deprived sleep, some people would inevitably hallucinate due to sleep deprivation. Imagine that fifty people of the five hundred experienced hallucinations. Would these fifty people who experienced hallucinations have identical hallucinations? The answer is no. The reason why is because hallucinations are experienced on an individual basis rather than a collective basis (Habermas and Licona 2004, 106). Simply because these individuals are within close proximity to one another does not mean that they will have the same hallucinations.

    While the disciples may have been traumatized by the death of Jesus and could be potential candidates for grief hallucinations, what would explain the hallucinations of Paul and James who had no reason to be grieved? In fact, Paul would likely be happy because he was persecuting the Christians during this early time in Christianity. James was not close with Jesus and was a skeptic, which would not make him a good candidate for grief hallucinations.

    Overall, hallucinations are not a plausible naturalistic explanation for the appearances to the disciples, James, Paul, and the groups of people. A hallucination is based on the experiences of an individual rather than a collective group. Particularly when viewing the appearances of Paul and James, we see that these candidates had no reason to hallucinate an appearance of Jesus when neither one of them wanted to see Christianity succeed. They were not grieving. They did not suffer an emotional loss. They had no hallucinatory symptoms based upon the evidence. This objection simply does not make sense of the evidence we currently have.

    Delusional

    Delusional people believe something when it is known to be false. Skeptics accuse the disciples of wanting Jesus to be alive so bad that they became delusional and continued the ministry as though Jesus had resurrected. There are multiple reasons why a delusion does not account for the facts.

    The strongest reason why the accusation of a delusion does not work is because Paul and James do not specifically fit the candidates for a person who would suffer from a delusion in this circumstance. Paul wanted the Christians dead. With Paul being persecutory of the Christian church, a delusion would not make sense of the facts. James was a skeptic and would certainly not live his life like Jesus had resurrected without having evidence that a resurrection had actually occurred. Both of these individuals were ultimately martyred for Jesus after having dedicated their lives to his service after seeing the appearance of Jesus alive. If the appearance of Jesus never happened, it is safe to say that they would not have changed their lifestyles. If such adamant skeptics could be drastically changed after having seen the appearance of Jesus, it would be reasonable to believe that the disciples rededicated their lives to Jesus after having seen the same appearance of Jesus.

    Also, the hypothesis of the disciples, Paul, and James were delusional does not adequately explain the tomb being empty on the third day. While some may try to expand the hypothesis by saying that the disciples stole the body as a result of their delusion, the objection itself does not directly address the matter of the empty tomb so it is reasonable to conclude that the empty tomb is not a matter that is being addressed in this objection.

    Biased Testimony

    This is often a favored objection among the more sophisticated skeptics. These types of skeptics are placing faith in the idea that the New Testament writings were only trying to promote their own agenda and convince those to believe in their cause. Upon closer observation, this is certainly not the case. In fact, this is quite the opposite. When using this objection, there are a lot of fallacious presuppositions that are being implemented. While an entire book can be written on this topic alone, it is still important to understand the fundamentals of such an objection and where they fall short.

    Given the accusation of biasness, it is first important to view the testimony of Paul and James. As stated before, they had no reason to be bias. In fact, being honest and truthful is contrary to what their original worldview was. Meaning, they did not original favor Christianity and stood in stark opposition of it before the appearances of Jesus. After the appearances, they were telling a completely different story about the reality of Christianity. This makes their testimony credible because it can be established that their position on Christianity was not highly susceptible for bias testimony.

    Next, given that the New Testament documents are not being taken seriously on the basis on bias testimony, does that mean that all documents of ancient antiquity will be subject to the same type of historical evaluation? If assuming that every author is bias toward the matter he is writing about, should writings be completely discarded as having no historical truth value? For example, should Ann Frank’s diary be disregarded as having no historical value because she was writing as a Jew during WWII? This type of suggestion is completely counterintuitive when searching for the truth of the past. Ann Frank’s diary should be taken seriously because she experienced Nazi persecution personally and could explain what it was from a firsthand basis to be a Jew during this difficult time. Simply because someone is bias towards what they are writing about does not make their writing less historically valuable.

    If someone is writing from a bias point of view, it does not automatically mean that their testimony will be inaccurate. For example, if I saw my closest friend commit a crime in my presence and law enforcement asked me to provide a statement of what I saw my closest friend do, I will write a very detailed description of the truth regardless of whether or not he was my friend or not. While this may not always be the case in all circumstances, the assumption that all bias writers are incapable of providing truthful claims is an unwise approach to understanding the New Testament texts.

    Sometimes people try to discredit people’s belief in the resurrection of Jesus by telling the Christian that they only believe in the resurrection of Jesus because they were raised Christian. This type of fallacy is known as a genetic fallacy, which is when someone attacks your beliefs on the basis of how you came to hold them rather than the reasons for why you believe in something (Habermas and Licona 2004, 125). Along the same lines, ad hominem attacks are implemented in lieu of substantive arguments. The ad hominem fallacy is an attack against the person’s character rather than against the argument (Habermas and Licona 2004, 125). For example, an atheist might say, “Christians are ignorant for believing in the resurrection”. This type of ad hominem attack is focusing on his belief that you are uninformed for believing in the resurrection. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the argument.

    Conclusion

    After reviewing seven of the most basic and most frequent objections to the resurrection, it is still reasonable to place faith in the reality of the resurrection. The reality is that there is not a naturalistic explanation that can make sense out of all the facts better than the resurrection hypothesis. Despite of this fact, the conspiracy theories are never in short supply. For the dedicated skeptic, nothing is off limits when considering an alternative theory for the resurrection.

    As stated in the introduction, this is an ideological commitment for those that disregard the facts that are acknowledged as truth by the majority of New Testament scholars. There are some people who still cannot commit to the idea that Jesus was a living person in first century Palestine. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, there are still people who cannot concede the fact that Jesus actually lived. The point that Christians have to appreciate is that sometimes evidence is meaningless when speaking with a dedicated skeptic. Sometimes developing a relationship with a skeptical person is the best way for them to let their guard down and speak openly about these sensitive matters.

    Love our skeptical friends as much as possible and be open to speak with them about these topics. It is vital that we know the facts of the resurrection intimately because it is the foundation of our faith. Along with knowing the details of the resurrection story, we must also know why people object to it and how we can best answer their objections. This is what we are called to do as Christians. Let us honor our God by being prepared to help those that have trouble letting their guard down because they are not yet confident in the resurrection story. This is a personal endeavor that requires commitment and study however it is well worth the time spent getting to know our Lord.

    Bibliography
    Habermas, Gary R, and Michael R Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004.

  • Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

    Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

    The proposal that someone can resurrect after being dead for three days is often a very tough product to sell in todays’ westernized self-proclaimed intellectual culture, which is primarily dominated by naturalists who claim that nothing can occur outside of the laws of nature. Of course, we Christians firmly hold to the idea that our Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, rose from the dead three days after being crucified. Some of us place faith in this fact solely based upon the reading of the Bible and others have read the Bible and have gone the extra mile to confirm the historical credibility of such a claim. Regardless of how you came to your faith in Christ and his resurrection, it is important that we assess our own beliefs by objectively viewing the facts to see how they reinforce or contradict our worldview.

    In the defense of the skeptic, Christians are making a gigantic claim. You would be somewhat skeptical if you heard your friend say, “You are not going to believe this but Bob (who died three days ago) is now alive and talking to everyone in front of the mortuary. You should stop by and see him!” You would likely think your friend was crazy and would not seriously consider the notion that Bob could resurrect from the dead because it is believed that once a living organism dies, it remains dead.

    However, imagine if you started getting text messages from multiple friends saying something like, “Did you hear? Bob is back from the dead and he is in front of the mortuary! You should come down!” If you are anything like me, you would probably come to the conclusion that your friends are playing a distasteful joke on you and would dismiss the text messages as foolish. After receiving the texts, pretend you turned on your computer and logged into Facebook only to find that there are pictures of Bob in front of the mortuary on some of your friend’s profiles with posts stating, “Bob is back from the dead! He says Jesus brought him back!” Now, you are starting to become a little less skeptical of your friends’ wild and seemingly impossible claims. Even though you went to Bob’s “showing” earlier that same day and intended to go to his funeral the following day, the evidence is compiling high enough to compel you to investigate the evidence to its conclusion.

    With this newfound evidence, you jump into the car and drive hurriedly to the mortuary to see if these claims are genuine rather than some morbid prank. You get to the mortuary only to see Bob surrounded by a group of ecstatic people who are as shocked to see Bob as you. The seemingly impossible claims were truthful. Bob’s claim that Jesus raised him from the dead validated the existence of the Christian God because you recognize that a corpse does not naturally rise from the dead without divine intervention. This divine intervention can now be attested to by Bob, you, and all of those who also witnessed Bob back from the dead. Those that do not believe in this event can view the evidence for themselves however their non-belief would be contrary to the evidence provided by the eyewitnesses.

    Using this illustration, we can identify the natural absurdities of what Christians are asking skeptics to believe. However, using the same example, we can recognize that if we follow the evidence to where it leads, we will discover our Savior as long as the investigation is approached with the commitment to accept the logical conclusion of the available evidence. However, imagine that the evidence was never followed. Bob being raised from the dead by God would have been dismissed due a failure of being ideologically accepting of supernatural occurrences. If presuppositions are devastatingly devout to a naturalistic worldview, even the strong evidence as the one presented in this example could potentially be disregarded or easily dismissed as a hoax. The truth is plain to see in the case of Bob and Jesus but the lack of openness to the supernatural hinders people from discovering the truth in both stories.

    This illustration does not serve the purpose of portraying an exact parallel to Jesus’s resurrection. The point behind this example expresses how dogmatic naturalistic ideologies keep some people from accepting the logical conclusions that are founded on objective evidence. The facts contained within the minimal facts argument are accepted by a large majority of New Testament scholars, which include believers and skeptics. While everyone may not find the Bible to be a reliable authority, these facts that are being presented are historically reliable and can be attested to by scholarly skeptics and believers alike. As you read, allow yourself to objectively weigh the resurrection hypothesis versus all naturalistic hypotheses and let the evidence dictate your conclusion, not your ideology.

    The Minimal Facts

    To preface the remainder of this article, it is important to lay out the facts that serve as the foundation for the minimal facts argument. They are as follows…

    1. Jesus died by crucifixion
    2. The disciples of Jesus were sincerely convinced that he rose from the dead and appeared to them
    3. Paul (aka Saul of Tarsus), who was a persecutor of the Christians, suddenly changed his beliefs towards Christianity
    4. James (brother of Jesus), who was a skeptic of the Christian faith, suddenly changed his beliefs towards Christianity
    5. The Tomb of Jesus was found empty three days after the crucifixion of Jesus (Habermas and Licona 2004, 48-76)

    These are the facts that a majority of New Testament scholars consider to be historically accurate. As stated before, these scholars are not solely believers of Christianity but also include skeptics who aggressively question the notion that the resurrection actually happened. However, their skepticism of Jesus’ resurrection does not prevent them from acknowledging that there are certain facts that can be known regarding the life, ministry, crucifixion, and post-death happenings of Jesus.

    Fact One – Jesus Died by Crucifixion

    We can acknowledge that all four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, testify that Jesus was crucified (Habermas and Licona 2004, 48). These New Testament gospels were written roughly 30 – 50 years following the crucifixion of Jesus, which is considered a tremendously early source in the study of ancient antiquity. However, the Biblical sources are not the only sources for the historical fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion.

    There are multiple extra biblical sources for the crucifixion of Jesus. The first of them being Josephus, who was a Jewish historian, wrote concerning Jesus, “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified” (Josephus 1981, Volume 9). The second source we have is Tacitus (56 AD – 117 AD), a senator and historian for the Roman Empire, who writes, “Nero fastened the guilt [of the burning of Rome] and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate” (Tacitus 115). The third source we have is Lucian of Samosata (125 AD – 180 AD), a Greek satirist and a skeptic of the Christian faith, who writes, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account” (Lucian of Samosata Mid-second century, 11-13). The fourth source we have is Mara Bar-Serapion, who wrote to his son in 73 AD from prison with the following comments, “Or [what advantage came to] the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from the very time their kingdom was driven away from them?” (Donaldson, Roberts and Coxe 1935-1952). As you may notice, the quote from Mara does not specifically reference the crucifixion; however it makes a specific reference to the “murder” of their “Wise King”.

    Upon viewing the multiple sources of the crucifixion of Jesus, we can say with confidence that it is a historically reliable claim that Jesus was crucified during this time period of the first century. Outside of the few people in academia who venture to believe that Jesus never existed at all, most objective New Testament scholars acknowledge the solid foundation of reliable evidence for this fact, which leads them to the undeniable conclusion that Jesus was crucified in the first century.

    Fact Two – The Disciples Sincerely Believed Jesus Rose from the Dead and Appeared to them

    There are two major sub-facts that need to be viewed closely in order to truly appreciate the full impact of this second fact. The two sub-facts include the disciples making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and had appeared to them and the second is that the disciples were radically transformed from being individuals who abandoned Jesus after his execution to intensely loyal advocates of Jesus’ gospel who courageously faced intense persecution, imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom (Habermas and Licona 2004, 50). These two facts that make up second fact of this argument, allow us to put ourselves in the disciples’ shoes and hopefully allow us to imagine how we would react in the same situation.

    The disciples made the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and that he had appeared to them. The sources of this claim fall into three separate categories. The first is the testimony of Paul and the disciples. The second source is the oral tradition of the early church. The third and last source is the written works of the early church. These three sources are able to historically establish these claims as reliable historical fact (Habermas and Licona 2004, 51).

    First, the testimony of Paul and the disciples serve as a valuable indication for what they actually believed. While that may be a rather obvious statement, it is essential that we are able to identify why it is monumentally important when discussing the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, who maintained that his authority was equal to that of other apostles, noted a specific verse containing his position on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 8 (NASB),

    “3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.”

    Paul made this personal claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead because he claimed that Jesus appeared to him along with Cephas, the twelve Disciples, five hundred brethren, James, the apostles, and then to Paul himself. Paul personally knew Peter, James, and John (Galatians 1:18 – 19; 2:2 – 20) and the Bible also states that Paul fellowshipped with the disciples (Acts 9:26 – 30; 15:1 – 35). This is also attested to by other early church writers that lived within one hundred years of Jesus (Habermas and Licona 2004, 51). Historically, Paul can confidently be classified as an early independent source.

    Along with Paul, the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) serve as an excellent source that is well-accepted to have been written within the first century (Habermas and Licona 2004, 53). Like Paul, each Gospel attests to the resurrection of Jesus. In addition to Paul and the four Gospels, we have the book of Acts, which was written as a sequel to Luke, falling in line with the claim of the resurrection of Jesus. The Gospels and the Pauline writings were all considered to be written within the first century which makes them exceptionally early accounts. Given that these books were written by individuals that had been present at the recorded events or interviewed people who were eyewitnesses to the actual events, it would be reasonable to conclude that these writings reflected what they genuinely believed to be true.

    Oral tradition was used to preserve the message being passed along. Clearly, they would not be able to record events in the same manner that we do today for obvious reasons. They could not whip out their smart phone in first-century Palestine and start recording things Jesus said or did. While this would be ideal for us moderns, those that existed in the first century had to work with the resources they had available to them. In the first century Jewish culture, an efficient way to preserve information was through the means of oral tradition. Oral tradition was a method of teaching others and it was frequently used in the form of creeds, hymns, story summaries, and poetry in order to more easily memorize the information being preserved (Habermas and Licona 2004, 52).

    A good example that we can view in support of this oral tradition is viewing 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 5 (cited earlier). This scripture is identified as a creed that was used in the earliest traditions of Christianity and actually predates the writings of Paul. It is believed by many scholars that Paul received this creed from Peter and James while fellowshipping with them in Jerusalem (Habermas and Licona 2004, 52), which would mean that Paul would have learned this creed from the disciples directly within five years of the crucifixion of Jesus.

    Lastly, the writings of the early church were written by the apostolic fathers, which were the individuals who succeeded the original apostles (Habermas and Licona 2004, 53). Some of these apostolic fathers could have spent a good deal of time with the apostles and could have possibly been appointed by them. However, the main takeaway from their writings should be that they are reflective of what the apostles thought and believed about the resurrection. It is important to study the apostolic writings in order to further evaluate the “bigger picture” of what the apostles believed about Jesus’ resurrection.

    Apostolic Father Clement (referred to in Philippians 4:3) spent a good amount of time with the apostles, particularly Peter, according to early church fathers by the name of Irenaeus and Tertullian. They both wrote about Clement in the time period of the late second century – early third century and wrote about how Clement had direct interaction with the apostles and how Clement received first hand instructions and observed their early traditions (Habermas and Licona 2004, 54).
    Now that we have multiple church leaders commenting on how Clement received specific guidance from the apostles directly, what does Clement actually say about the resurrection? Clement wrote,

    “Therefore, having received the orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come” (First Clement 42:3)

    What implications does this have in our investigation of what the apostles truly believed? This assures us that the apostles remained true to their belief that Jesus rose from the dead and that they had seen him after the resurrection. This further confirms the claims being made in the New Testament were not claims conjured at a later date by someone else completely disconnected from the original events.

    Polycarp (69 AD – 155 AD), along with Clement, is another Apostolic Father who mentioned the resurrection of Jesus five times in his letters to the church in Philippi (Habermas and Licona 2004, 55). According to writers of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the content of the messages that Polycarp was sending derived directly from the original apostles because it was said that he was appointed to his position by the apostles, which wanted to preserve the Christian messages by providing their successors with all of the correct information and doctrines. Polycarp ultimately was martyred in Smyrna at the age of 86 in 160 AD (Habermas and Licona 2004, 55).

    After the claims of the resurrection of Jesus were made and the ultimate determination is made that this is what they sincerely believed, how did this belief actually affect their lives? There are several resources that we can look to in order to gather an insight into how their lives were transformed. All the resources that are currently available reinforce the fact that these apostles were willing to suffer for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus.

    A good place to start for this insight would be the book of Acts. However, there are other sources that can be found in the early apostolic writings. Clement wrote about the sufferings and the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul,

    “Because of envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set the good apostles before our eyes. Peter, who because of unrighteous envy endured, not one or two, but many afflictions, and having borne witness went to the due glorious place. Because of envy and rivalries, steadfast Paul pointed to the prize. Seven times chained, exiled, stoned, having become a preacher both in the East and in the West, he received honor fitting of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, unto the boundary on which the sun sets; having testified in the presence of the leaders. Thus he was freed from the world and went to the holy place. He became a great example of steadfastness” – First Clement 5:2 – 7

    Polycarp, in the same spirit as Clement, wrote the following to the Philippians that reinforced Clement’s message regarding the suffering of Paul and the rest of the apostles, “They are in the place due them with the Lord, in association with them also the suffered. For they did not love the present age…” (Polycarp n.d.) Polycarp’s testimony granted us an insight into the sufferings the apostles went through.

    During the lifetime of Polycarp, he had forwarded on his apostolic teachings to many people, including Ignatius. Ignatius wrote seven letters recording the information he was given by Polycarp regarding the teachings he received directly from the original apostles. He wrote about how the disciples were strengthened by Jesus, which led them not to fear death, but rather they believed that through death “they are found” (Habermas and Licona 2004, 57).

    Along with Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, we can also look at the writing of Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius as resources for the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul and we can use Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement as sources for the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus (Habermas and Licona 2004, 59). These sources that are being evaluated are not found in the Bible and are considered legitimate historical references to people who actually lived and died. They corroborate the message of the Bible.

    Given the testimony of Paul, oral tradition, and the written tradition, we can feel confident in proclaiming that we know that the disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead and that Jesus appeared to them. It is a reasonable assumption that these apostles believed in the resurrection with so much certainty and sincerity that they were willing to die a martyr’s death.

    Fact Three – Paul dramatically changed his stance on Christianity in a very short period of time

    Paul the apostle was once known as Saul of Tarsus. Prior to Paul seeing the appearance of the resurrected Jesus, he was a devastatingly loyal persecutor and murderer of Christians. The actions of the pre-Christian Paul are described in the book of Acts. Given all of the good things that were done by Paul after his conversion, it is hard to imagine that he could have done all of those horrible things to Christians. Prior to becoming a Christian, Paul’s reputation was specifically known for being a persecutor of Christians. It almost seems as though he is a transformed person after the appearance of Jesus.
    Paul wrote a narrative about his conversion to Christianity, so the notion that we should question his own testimony regarding his experience seems to be unnecessary. In addition, we have multiple attestations regarding his strong belief that he did see the appearance of the Lord along with independent attestation for the suffering of Paul by the apostolic fathers who mentored under Paul. The significant amount of attestations to the fact that Paul was a transformed person after the appearance of Jesus is notable in a historically investigation like this one.

    In this case, we are not solely relying upon secondary evidence. We have primary evidence directly from the source. Paul’s own writings exemplify his persecutory pre-Christian lifestyle along with how his life was completely transformed because of Jesus appearing to him. After Paul gives his testimony through his writings, we have further corroboration through the apostolic fathers of his beliefs along with the experiences of suffering and ultimate martyrdom he was put through for his unfailing belief in the resurrected Jesus. Ultimately, this builds a strong case for Paul’s life being completely transformed because of his claim that Jesus appeared to him after the crucifixion.

    Fact Four – James dramatically changed his stance on Christianity in a very short period of time

    The story about the conversion of James and subsequent transformation is not as well documented as what we have for Paul, but there is certainly enough evidence to establish that James was a skeptic prior to the crucifixion and a believer in resurrection of Jesus after he had an appearance of Jesus alive after the crucifixion. There are multiple sources that confirm the fact that James was once a skeptic before his belief in the resurrected Jesus and multiple sources for the fact that the appearance he had of the risen Jesus transformed his life to the point to where he was willing to be martyred in order to remain loyal to the belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

    The Gospels record that Jesus’ brothers, who included James, did not believe Jesus and the message of his ministry. Below are three scriptures that depict the nonbelief of friends and family,

    “21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, “He has lost His senses.”” – Mark 3:21 (NASB)

    “3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.”” – Mark 6:3 – 4 (NASB)

    “5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him” – John 7:5 (NASB)

    Given these particular scriptures, we are confident that James was not a supporter of Jesus. However, the transformation in James’ life began when James saw the appearance of Jesus. As was noted earlier in the article, one of the earliest creedal materials that are currently known is 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 7, which indicates that Jesus had appeared to James.
    “3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles” – 1 Corinthians 15:3 – 7 (NASB)

    After viewing the scriptures that present the facts that James was indeed a skeptic as well as the scripture that stated that Jesus appeared to James, how can we be certain that James actually martyred himself for the belief in the resurrection of Jesus? As discussed in the “Fact Two” section of this article, Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement are sources for the martyrdom of James (Habermas and Licona 2004, 59). The idea that James can transform from a skeptic to a full-blown martyr for the belief system that he was originally skeptical of is nonsensical without something radical occurring in his life. In this case, given the circumstances behind what was going on in James’ life at that period of time, are we to believe that James abandoned his skepticism of Jesus without having believed in the resurrection? What else could possibly explain James’ devout loyalty to Jesus after having been skeptical his whole life of him?

    Fact Five – The Empty Tomb

    This is a fact that is not supported by the overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars as the other four facts are, however it is still considered to be historically reliable by 75% of New Testament scholars (Habermas and Licona 2004, 70). While this is not an overwhelming percentage, it is still a rather high percentage. There are good reasons for why three out of four scholars advocate for this fact. The evidence for why the tomb was empty on the third day is certainly compelling enough to still be considered a fact for this minimal facts argument.

    There are three arguments in favor of Jesus’ tomb being empty on the third day. These three arguments are the Jerusalem factor, enemy attestation, and the testimony of the women. These three arguments in support of the empty tomb give us confidence that we can validly claim the tomb was empty as fact. After viewing all of them, it will be clear that there is substantive reasoning behind the idea of the empty tomb.

    The Jerusalem factor is the theory that Christianity would have not expanded in the manner that it did if the body would have been present in the tomb in Jerusalem, which is where Jesus was crucified, buried, and where he first appeared after the crucifixion. The reason why Christianity would have become a complete flop if Jesus had remained in the tomb is because everyone in Jerusalem would have heard about it. In fact, if the body of Jesus was still present in the tomb when the claims of his resurrection were being made, the Romans and Jewish leadership would have publicly displayed Jesus’ corpse to show everyone to prove that Jesus was undeniably dead. If this would have happened, the power of the resurrection claim would have completely lost all power and the movement would have likely failed (Habermas and Licona 2004, 70).

    According to the book of Acts, the public Christian ministry began fifty days after the crucifixion of Jesus. There is no record of any exhumation of Jesus’ body at this time by anyone. You would think that the local leadership would want to stomp out this claim in any way they could. Despite the decomposition of the corpse after fifty days, the arid climate would allow for the corpse to keep certain distinctive physical qualities such as hair, stature, and wounds, which would have identified the identity of the highly decomposed corpse (Habermas and Licona 2004, 70).

    Not only would the leadership of Jerusalem been happy to provide a possibly identifiable corpse, they would have gladly produced any corpse! The enemies of Jesus would have been happy to see any corpse as long as it was from the tomb of Jesus. In addition to that, the believers of Jesus would have been dissuaded from believing in the resurrection of Jesus if they had seen a slightly recognizable corpse being publicly displayed in Jerusalem. The confidence of the resurrection of Jesus would have been extinguished dramatically because of the public display of the corpse, which would have had disastrous repercussions on the expansion of the early Christian church (Habermas and Licona 2004, 71). Given these observations, along with the fact that there is no record of any exhumation occurring in Jerusalem, it is a reasonable assumption that the tomb was empty on the third day after the crucifixion using the Jerusalem factor.

    The second argument for the empty tomb is that there was enemy attestation. This argument illustrates that the individuals who opposed early Christianity admitted to the tomb being empty. The most popular citation of this argument would be found in Matthew 28:12 – 13 (NASB),

    “12 And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, 13 and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’”

    While this may be the most cited, there are other sources to look to for a similar message. These messages can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, and De Spectaculis 30 (Habermas and Licona 2004, 71). At that time, the Jews would have no incentive to admit that the tomb was empty unless it actually was. In fact, it would have been more convenient for them to have found the corpse of Jesus in his tomb because they could have easily stomped out the early Christian movement, which they considered blasphemous. As stated in Matthew 28:12 – 13, they concocted the theory that Jesus’ disciples had taken the body, which would inevitably mean that the tomb would be empty.

    The last argument for the empty tomb would be the testimony of women. It is a much different time in the 21st century western society than it was in first century Palestine. The woman’s testimony in today’s culture is accredited with just as much credibility as a man’s. However, this was not always so. In fact, it was the exact opposite. The quotes from that time period below illustrate how much credit was given to a woman’s testimony.

    “Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women” – Talmud, Sotah 19a

    “The world cannot exist without males and without females – happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children are females” – Talmud, Kiddushin 82b

    “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or ear of punishment” (Josephus 1981)

    “Any evidence with a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a women” – Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8

    After reading these quotes, you may be taken aback. This is completely contradictory to what we currently believe of women. While this may be the case, this gives us a grander insight into how the testimony of women would have been perceived in the first century.

    Do you think women would have been taken seriously in first century Palestine? Absolutely not! In fact, they would have been immediately disregarded as being a person you could not trust. For the New Testament writers to testify that the women were the ones to discover the empty tomb on the third day would have been viewed as an embarrassment. If the writers wanted to add credibility to their story, they would have manufactured a story about how the male disciples discovered the empty tomb because it would have been perceived as more trustworthy. Remaining loyal to the historical happenings despite cultural stigmas would be the most reasonable explanation for why the New Testament has the women discovering the empty tomb included, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that their story is truthful rather than a fictional fabrication.

    Conclusion

    In the introduction of this article, a challenge was posed to the reader. It was to allow oneself to read through the facts and objectively analyze whether or not a naturalistic theory can be formulated that can explain all of the facts better than the resurrection hypothesis. Regardless of one’s ultimate conclusion, there should have undoubtedly been deep thought put into the potential possibilities of what best explains the facts.

    The introduction also laid out a silly story about a friend coming back from the dead. In the story, there was a natural hesitancy of this outrageous claim until the evidence was presented and considered. Once the evidence was followed, it was discovered that Bob was raised from the dead at the hand of Jesus. In our case with viewing the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, every person is in this same circumstance on a much higher scale. However, the consequences are eternal in the case of investigating the resurrection of Jesus.

    Investigation of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus should be done objectively. We should allow ourselves to become historians and dig for the truth! This article can serve as your launching pad! You may want to pick up the book, “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. After reading this book, you might find yourself knowing more than you ever thought possible about the resurrection of Jesus.

    Those that reject the resurrection hypothesis do so on an ideological basis, not an evidential one. The basis for which we evaluate this evidence is not always empirical, but oftentimes circumstantial. Skeptics often reject circumstantial evidence, but they fail to realize that circumstantial evidence is the primary type of evidence that convicts murders and other types of criminals in a court of law. It seems as though circumstantial evidence is our greatest asset in most every other investigation, but somehow it is denied as untenable by the skeptic in this case. Or is it a mere failure to overcome ideologies that will not allow for supernatural possibilities? For skeptics who remain skeptical after thoroughly researching the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, there is a massive amount of reconciling the historical evidence to formulate a merely naturalistic conclusion. Naturalism simply does not simultaneously explain all of the known facts. The resurrection hypothesis best explains all five established facts better than any other naturalistic hypothesis anyone has ever came up with.

    Writing from a personal perspective, the resurrection of Jesus is undoubtedly a historical event. When a historical event is true, the facts will always align with the truth. As Christians, Christ has laid out our historical case for us and we must be open to accept the conclusions of His evidence. No conspiracy theorist can mask the truth of the resurrection of Jesus without having manipulated truth along the way. Jesus grants us truth. Jesus said, “Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice” in John 18:37 (NASB). We must continue to follow His voice and align our worldviews with His. Only then will we be able to fully see the truth that He provides.

    Bibliography
    Donaldson, J., A. Roberts, and A.C. Coxe. The Babylonian Talmud. London, 1935-1952.
    Haberman, Gary R, and Michael R Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004.
    Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.
    Josephus. Antiquities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.
    Lucian of Samosata. The Death of Peregrine. Mid-second century.
    Tacitus. Annals. 115.

  • Form Criticism

    Form Criticism

    In our effort to objectively challenge historical criticism, I am going to put forth my strongest effort to critically assess the validity of form criticism. The topic of historical criticism has challenged many Evangelical Christians around the world, many of which have been overwhelmed by the alleged findings of the historical criticisms that they cannot reconcile their faith in Christ. With that information being outlined, the thesis for this article is to objectively examine the credibility of form criticism and its advocates in their attempts to retrieve historical information from the Biblical historical documents.

    A Summary of Form Criticism
                The beginning of form criticism started between the years of 1914-1918 shortly after the War.[1] The three main scholars in the field of form criticism were Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann. While these individuals were the ones whose work dominated the early field of form criticism, they based their methodology on the work of previous Bible critics that dates back to the Enlightenment.[2] Form criticism is the translation of the German word Formgeschichte. The literal translation of this word is “history of form”.[3] A traditionally accepted definition of form criticism is, “a method of study and investigation which deals with the pre-literary stage of the Gospel tradition, when the material was handed down orally”.1 As we can clearly see, the goal is to critically assess the form in which the information was preserved prior to being written down with the goal of identifying whether it was recorded reliably in order to test the historicity of the Biblical material that we have today. Form critics have used this practice to come up with a conclusion that is often unlike what Christians revere as history. A prominent form-critic by the name of G.E. Ladd explains,
    “A close study of these forms led to the critical conclusion that in its earliest stages, the material in the Gospels was passed on orally as a series of disconnected units, anecdotes, stories, sayings, teachings, parables, and so on…This means that the indications in the Gospels of sequence, time, place, and the like are quite unhistorical and untrustworthy and must therefore be ignored by serious Gospel criticism”[4]
                After reading that quote, you may be wondering, “What do they believe?” That is an excellent question that is worth addressing. E.V. McKnight laid out a summary of the positions that were arrived at through the implementation of form criticism:
    1.     The “two document” hypothesis was accepted. Meaning, Mark and Q served as sources for Matthew and Luke.
    2.     Mark and Q, as well as Matthew and Luke, were influenced by the theological views of the early church.
    3.     Mark and Q contained not only early authentic materials but also materials of a later date[5]
    You may question why this was ever accepted as a valid theory. Donald Guthrie provides four reasons why there was a significant rise in the acceptance of form criticism:
    1.     The form critics were able to account for the amount of time from the Synoptic Gospel events to the writing of the events
    2.     The questioning of the historicity of the Gospel of Mark
    3.     The desire to update the gospels from the first century view to the world of the twentieth century.
    4.     To position the literary materials in their original setting2
    To gather further insight in addition to Donald Guthrie, it would be beneficial to see what two of the most prominent form critics concluded after their implementation of the practices of form criticism. Given that form criticism sets out to account for the time between the events themselves and the time the document was actually written, their opinion on whether they think there is evidence that is capable of supporting or invalidating the stories of the Synoptic Gospels would be useful. The two form critics that will be looked at more closely are Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann.
    Starting with Martin Dibelius, the author of Form Tradition to Gospel, A Fresh Approach to New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Gospel Criticism and Christology, Jesus, and numerous others, is known to be one of the first prominent form critics. Dibelius never believed that there was a “purely” historical witness to Jesus. Dibelius claimed that the first century expansion of the early Christian church wasn’t due to the historical reliability of the resurrection but because the people who accepted Christ were content with the story of salvation.[6]
    Rudolf Bultmann is a prominent New Testament scholar that is known for his work in form criticism and has written many books on form criticism that include The History of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus and the World, Theology of the New Testament, and Jesus Christ and Mythology. He is known for being very skeptical of his assessment of the Synoptic Gospels and he concludes  that “one can only emphasize the uncertainty of our knowledge of the person and work of the historical Jesus and likewise of the origin of Christianity”[7] Bultmann is known to be more responsible for the field’s thoroughness and maturation than Dibelius or Schmidt because Bultmann developed form criticism to a more advanced level.2 Bulmann practiced form criticism with the presupposition that the canonical gospels were “pre-scientific” and he greatly desired to modernize them.[8] Evolutionary dogma heavily influenced him in the formulation of his methods.2
    It is clear that neither of these advocates of form criticism placed too much stock in the historical validity of the synoptic gospels during the practice of their form criticism. While so many Evangelical Christians place their entire faith in the reliability in the Synoptic Gospels, what information or mindset has led scholars of form criticism to completely reject the reliability of the Synoptic Gospels? It is important to highlight the unnecessary presuppositions that inspired their understanding of the form critical data in order to comprehend if they are in the objective mindset that is ideal for historical studies of this magnitude. If philosophic presuppositions were held at the time of assessing data from form critical research, what affect did this philosophic presupposition have on the interpretation of the data? What was the philosophic presupposition that the data was filtered through? Most importantly, was this presupposition ideal for conducting objective historical analysis or would it drastically skew the findings?  Below, I’ll be closely assessing the most common and destructive critiques against form criticism.
    Common Objections to Form Criticism
                The most common objections relate to philosophically and scientifically related presuppositional foundations implemented in the interpretation of their findings, subjective theorizing about their data, and the categorization of highly subjective material reveals preconceived agendas. While these are few of the primary objections to form criticism, they will be enough to provide you with a foundational understanding of the negative consequences of form criticism and allow you the opportunity to see numerous reasons why these methods of form criticism have failed us in the past at uncovering the truth of the Biblical texts.
    Philosophic and Scientific Presuppositions
                The claim that form critics have used philosophic or scientific presuppositions when assessing data is not uncommon. In fact, it is likely the strongest argument against form criticism. I’ll begin with a quote from Donald Guthrie concerning how Rudolf Bultmann’s presuppositions negatively impacted his historical work:
    “Bultmann’s disillusionment led him to seek an approach to the Gospels which would emancipate him from the need for historical demonstration. Only so could the simplest, in his opinion, ever come to faith. He was further prompted to his non-historical approach by his commitment to existential philosophy”8
                It is believed that form criticism is the product of historical skepticism derived from source criticism, which was ultimately laid out by the philosophical foundation of the Enlightenment.2 It has been deemed that much of the findings of form criticism are found while maintaining philosophical presuppositions. Eta Linnemann remarks on the difficulty of having “prejudgments” made prior to performing form criticism:
    “A more intensive investigation would show that underlying the historical-critical approach is a series of prejudgments which are not themselves the result of scientific investigation. They are rather dogmatic premises, statements of faith, whose foundation is the absolutizing of human reason as a controlling apparatus”[9]
    From a historian’s point of view, it would be unwise to enter into an investigation of history with presuppositions that would alter the findings in a search for truth. For example, if I was a historian on a search for truth about the lives of the founding fathers of America and I went into this search with the presupposition that all of these individuals were the products of fiction, I would have to compromise the truth value of my historical findings in order to manipulate the evidence to make it appear as though the evidence we have isn’t reliable enough to place our trust in. Clearly, this is an extreme example but one that illustrates the point that what these form critics have done over the last century with the New Testament Synoptic Gospels is comparably absurd.
    Form criticism is also rooted with the assumption that evolution is the process of progression from the simple to the complex.2Kebler describes Bultmann’s form-critical analysis in the following:
    “It [Bultmann’s concept of the development of the synoptic tradition] was a process as natural as that of biological evolution: simplicity grew into complexity…, an effortless evolutionary transition from the pre-gospel stream of tradition to the written gospel”[10]
    The form critics, similar to evolutionary biologists, posit the concept of gradual change over time. In this case, they felt that the synoptic text were compiled by the early church and were not the testimony of eyewitness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. The form critics assume that the early church did this to suit their own purposes and not for historically accounting for the life of Jesus Christ.2
                During the period of time that oral tradition preserved the information contained in the Synoptic Gospels, which is roughly 30-40 years, the form critics would be merely speculating as to how this information was somehow transformed into a legendary or mythological tale. It is noted by Guthrie that, “The very fact that our historical data for the first thirty years of Christian history are so limited means that form critics inevitably had to draw a good deal of imagination, although none of them were conscious of doing so”.8 Essentially, these conclusions drawn by the form critics aren’t historical at all. When you take into account that the presuppositions traditionally accepted by the form critics do not allow for the possibility of an objective historical conclusion, it would be unreasonable to say that the findings of these form criticisms were the result of honest historical research.
    Subjective Theorizing
                I.J. Peritz discusses the subjectivity of conducting form criticism:
    Form criticism thus brings face to face with the obligation either to acquiesce in its faculty method and conclusions or to combat them. What is involved, however, is not the alternative between an uncritical attitude and criticism, but between criticism and hyper-criticalism. A critical view of the Gospels does not claim strict objectivity. It is hard to tell sometimes where poetry ends and history begins. It is highly probable that there is no underlying strictly chronological or topographical scheme; and that they are not biography in “our sense.” But this is far from admitting that we have no reliable testimony from eyewitnesses: that the Church from its Christ of faith created the Jesus of history, instead of from the Jesus of history its Christ of faith”[11]
    When we view this observation, we can see that the form critics aren’t being entirely forthcoming in their presentation of their subjective interpretation. Form critics attempt to turn the story on its head by saying that the Christ of faith came after the Jesus of history. It seems as though that the form critics are a little too “hypercritical” of the historical evidence we do have and hence make the whole process of withdrawing information from the Synoptic Gospels impotent. Robert Mounce makes a valid assessment on the subjectivity on form criticism by analyzing the inconsistencies found across the board in the field of form criticism:
    “Form Criticism sounds like a scientific method. If it were, you would find consistency of interpretation. But the interpretations of a single saying vary widely. Not only are interpretations widespread but form critics often can’t agree whether a pericopae is a miracle story or a pronouncement story – the two can be woven together. One would expect consistency in historical reconstruction if Form Criticism were a true science”[12] 
    While many form critics parade form criticism around like a sophisticated method of retrieving historical knowledge, by pealing back the layers of subjective analysis and speculative guesses we can confidently conclude that form criticism is largely unscientific. While they all undeniable agree that Jesus’s disciples were too ignorant and uneducated to effectively document the life of Jesus, we can all identify their method of criticism is founded on their imaginative analysis filtered through numerous presuppositions of historically subjective information.2
    Preconceived Agenda when Interpreting
                Based on the above philosophical and scientific presuppositions of the form critics when entering into their historical analysis of the Synoptic Gospels, we can say with confidence that they are likely interpreting the collected data with a preconceived agenda.2 Form criticism is distinct from many other methods of historical analysis in that it can be largely considered to promote subjectivity in its findings. By comparison, grammatico-historical methods of interpretation are much more objective in its findings as they accept the findings of the Bible without prejudice. The reason for this distinction is that form criticism is largely based on the presuppositions of the form critic.  In addition, the large amount of information that is still unknown about the oral period gives the form critic the freedom to wildly speculate.2
                This is evidently clear when it comes to the acceptance of miracles. We see that Dibelius and Baltmann weren’t open to the possibility of miracles within the Synoptic Gospels. From the beginning, we see that they are entering into the analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with the presupposition that the literature is false. Gutrie notes that, “Both Dibelius and Bultmann reject the miraculous and therefore the historicity of the gospel accounts of miracles. This is not so much the basis of ‘form’ as on philosophical and theological grounds”.8 Their philosophical and theological presuppositions weren’t allowing their mind to be open to where the evidence took them so they had to find another way to make sense of the evidence.
                Bultmann wanted to “demythogize” the New Testament in order to make it relatable to modern people.[13] However, there appears to be a strong antisupernatural bias by taking this position. It limits what you are allowed to accept as historically true. Given that Bultmann used this presupposition when practicing form criticism, he immediately chalked up Jesus’ baptism, temptation, transfiguration, miracles, and resurrection as legendary.2Bultmann described these narratives as “instead of being historical in character are religious and edifying”.[14]
                Both Dibelius and Bultmann held that these miracles accounts are unhistorical and can be classified as myths. However, are there grounds for making that type of claim solely by using form criticism? Given the nature of form criticism, it would be impossible to make an objectively historical case for mythological Hellenistic concepts to have influenced the Synoptic Gospels without relying upon presuppositions already predetermined to those findings. Unless they were already convinced that the Synoptic Gospels were influenced by Hellenistic concepts, form criticism wouldn’t have been the vehicle to lead them to that conclusion.
                Ironically, Bultmann himself doesn’t find the miracles in the Synoptic Gospels to be comparable to the ones found in Hellenistic traditions, “In general, however, the New Testament miracle stories are extremely reserved in this respect [in describing cures], since they hesitate to attribute to the person of Jesus the magical traits which were often characteristic of the Hellenistic miracle worker”.[15] Given that Bultmann concedes that the Hellenistic mythological miracle workers were largely different from the miracle working found by Jesus, what would inspire such a loyalty to the theory that Jesus had been plagiarized by Hellenistic sources? It appears that their loyalty to theories that easily explain away large amounts of genuine information with little evidence requires the person doing the dismissing to have a strong bias in the opposite direction if he is going to knowingly dismiss information without good objective reason.
    Conclusion
    On the surface, form criticism may appear to be a genuine practice of Biblical evaluation with the intention of gathering deeper insight into the Biblical text. I would caution you from placing stock into the findings of form criticism. Form criticism is not oriented towards objectively seeking truth from the Biblical text. Form critics enter the practice of performing their form criticism with philosophical and scientific presuppositions. Their conclusions cannot be genuinely historical because they will inevitably reflect their bias presuppositions of the Biblical text.2
    It is perfectly reasonable to assume that objectivity is possible when analyzing the Synoptic Gospels. The grammatico-historical method has done so by safeguarding hermeneutics by highlighting the need for objectivity.2 It is done in other methods of historical study but it doesn’t seem to be relied upon in form criticism. Positing conspiracy theories of the early church formulation of these stories and/or how the Jesus story evolved from Hellenistic sources fall tremendously short when evidence is weighed and viewed objectively without negative presuppositions.

    [1] E. Basil Redlich. Form Criticism (Edinburgh: Nelson & Sons)
    [2] Thomas L. Thomas & F. David Farnell, The Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications) Chapter 5
    [3] Josh McDowell. Evidence for Christianity (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc) Chapter 15
    [4] George E. Ladd. The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)
    [5] Edgar McKnight. What is Form Criticism?(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress)
    [6] Martin Dibelius, Form Tradition to Gospel(New York: Scribner’s Sons)
    [7] Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism(
    [8] Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press)
    [9] Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible, Methodology or Ideology?(Grand Rapids: Baker)
    [10] Werner Kelber, “The Oral and the Written Gospel”(Philadelphia: Fortress)
    [11] Ismar J. Peritz, “Form Criticism as an Experiment.” Religion in Life 10 (spring 1941)
    [12] Robert Mounce. Personal interview conducted by Josh McDowell, July 2, 1974
    [13] David Atkinson and David Field, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology (England: Inter-Varsity Press)
    [14] Rudolf Bultmann, History of Synoptic Tradition(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson)
    [15] Rudolf Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels” in Form Critcism (Cleveland, OH:World)
  • Facts of the Resurrection

    Facts of the Resurrection

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrckXOER09Y&feature=player_embedded]

    I would venture to say that most Christians have experienced some form of pushback regarding the issue of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.  Whether this pushback originates from the disbelief that such a miraculous thing could have possibly occurred or whether they claim that there simply isn’t evidence for such a grand claim to be true, we’ve likely heard many of these forms of opposition. In a world that is progressively becoming obsessed with scientism, how are Christians going to support a claim that Jesus rose from the dead after three days?   Are these claims that skeptics pose valid?  Is there evidence that supports our stance in believing that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead? 
     
    The video above is of Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig as he discusses the facts of the resurrection.  Dr. Craig does highlight that a majority of New Testament scholars (even skeptics) accept the following four facts:

    Fact 1: After the crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea. 

     Fact 2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by his women followers.

     Fact 3: On multiple occasions, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death. 

     Fact 4: The original disciples believed that Jesus resurrected from the dead despite all predispositions to the contrary. 

     If these facts are believed by a majority of New Testament scholars, and even skeptics, what is stopping more people from believing in the resurrection?  In my personal opinion, it is a worldview issue.  A skeptic may find all of the historical facts compelling, however they’d prefer to place their faith in an alternative option because they are so convinced that miracles cannot happen in a natural world.  As Christians, we can only present the facts and let God take over and pray that the message touches their heart in a way that would relieve them of feeling that the only plausible possibilities are the ones explained by natural causes. 

     Many skeptics would accuse my approach as wishful thinking or even claim that I believe in the resurrection purely on blind faith.  I don’t believe so.  Given that the four facts listed above are widely agreed upon by New Testament scholars, I’d say all people should be comfortable in their historical stance on Jesus regardless of whether they believe Jesus actually rose from the dead or not.  However, this is where the fork in the road splits the believers from the non-believers.  Christians accept the resurrection hypothesis as being the possibility that has the greatest explanatory scope and power.  Many skeptics have come up with numerous conspiracy theories such as Jesus wasn’t actually dead but just appeared to have died, Jesus had a twin-brother that appeared to individuals and groups of people after his death, the disciples of Jesus stole the body of Jesus, the theory of cognitive dissonance, Joseph of Arimathea placed Jesus’ body in a graveyard for common criminals shortly after being placed in his tomb without telling anybody about it, everyone that saw Jesus was hallucinating, and many others (1). 

     Upon observation of these conspiracy theories, we find that none of them are greater in explanatory scope and power than the resurrection hypothesis.  They do not account for all four facts as effectively as the resurrection hypothesis does.  This isn’t a matter of blind faith for Christians.  In fact, if skeptics highly value evidence, these are issues that you may want to respectfully discuss in a conversation with a skeptical friend if given the opportunity.

     Dr. Craig stated towards the end of the video, “You need a launching pad to launch this missile”.  This is very true!  I didn’t mention anything about how the expansion of the Christian movement drastically increased in the face of major opposition!  If you’re interested in this topic, I’d recommend N.T. Wright’s book, “The Resurrection of the Son of God”.  It discusses in much greater detail on this pivotal issue of the Christian faith!

    Notes

     1 William Lane Craig, On Guard (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 9

  • Religulous – Was Jesus Copied?

    Religulous – Was Jesus Copied?

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6AZqOO2FJA&feature=player_embedded]

    For those of you who have seen the “documentary” by Bill Maher called “Religulous”, you’ll recall that Maher feels he has a knockdown argument against Christianity by claiming that Jesus was merely a carbon copy of pagan gods prior to his birth.  Obviously, this would be a huge implication for the Christians if that had been true.  However, it’s not.  I’ve included a video of Christian philosopher and New Testament historian Dr. William Lane Craig that discusses this specific topic.

    I’m not going to take the time to list out the many inaccuracies of Maher’s “Religulous” because I think that would honestly be giving it more credit than it deserves.  For those that are interested in looking more into the credibility of the accusation that Jesus was a mere copy of early pagan gods, I’ll include a link to a book (referenced in the video) that delves into great detail concerning how it is impossible for Jesus to have been the product of pagan gods…
    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/come-let-us-reason-paul-copan/1103868803?ean=9781433672200

    I believe that if you currently have doubts because of this objection, they’ll quickly fade away once you do some research using reliable sources…and not comedian Bill Maher.