The
Resurrection of Christ as a Time-Space Dimension Event in History
The
author starts by quoting Wilbur Smith. His quote is essentially a qualitative
opinion and provides no evidence.
Then he quotes
Ignatius (A.D. c.50-115), bishop of Antioch, who says “He”(Jesus) was crucified
and died under Pontius Pilate and rose again in three days and was laid in the
Tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, wore a crown of thorns and purple robe.
Ignatius
was Syrian by birth and was attracted to the first generation of Christians. He
was fed to the lions at a Roman festival between A.D 107-110. As his title
implies, Ignatius was a bishop and
spoke as a Christian: NOT as a historian. This bereaves his quotes of any authoritative
quality they could otherwise have held in the absence of bias and parochial
inclination.
As
someone who never witnessed the resurrection, his pious letters do not
constitute evidence. At best, they are hearsay.
Then he
quotes “the brilliant” historian, Alfred Edersheim, who describes “the brief
spring day” towards the evening of the Sabbath. He describes the mood on the
day Jesus was crucified. No material evidence.
He
further quotes Wilbur Smith who makes claims about knowing details about the
hours before and after the death of Jesus. This is not evidence.
The
author then provides a narration of the conversion of Justin Martyr (c 100-165)
to Christianity after trying Stoicism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism and
Platonism. This is simply not evidence. In any case The Catholic
Encyclopedia explicitly states why Justin converted to Christianity, which
had nothing to do with the truth of the resurrection. To quote:
“…Impressed
by the devotion of Christian martyrs, he was eventually converted to
Christianity by an old Christian who taught him about the Hebrew prophets.
According to Justin, Christianity filled the highest aspirations of Platonic
philosophy and was, therefore, the "true philosophy."”
This is
not evidence of the resurrection.
Then the
author quotes Tertullian (c.160 – c.220 CE) who said about the ascension: “It
is a fact more certain than the assertions of your Proculus concerning Romulus”
(Proculus was a Roman senator, who affirmed that Romulus had appeared to him
after his death). The Catholic Online Encyclopedia says this about
Tertulian: “…his conversion
(to Christianity) was not later than the year 197, and may have been earlier.
He embraced the Faith with all the ardour of his impetuous nature. He became a
priest, no doubt of the Church of Carthage”
Tertullian
was not an eyewitness, was a Christian apologist (thus was biased) and has not
provided us with any useful information concerning the resurrection. The
information provided by McDowell concerning him just demonstrates that
Tertullian was a Christian; therefore not evidence of the resurrection.
Then the
author quotes Josephus (a Jewish historian) from his book Antiquities of the
Jews:
“Now
there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him man;
for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the
truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews, and also many of the
Greeks. This man was the Christ…”
The author
(being aware of the controversy surrounding Josephus’ quote) quotes Michael
Green, in Man Alive who says that this quote was in the text of Josephus
used by Eusebius in the fourth century. He (Michael Green) goes further to
assert that the inclusion of that passage in the most recent Loeb edition of
Josephus’ works is evidence of its acceptance (“Loeb Classical Library, of
Havard University is the only series of books which, through original text and
English translation, gives access to all that is important in Greek and Latin
literature”, quoted from http://www.hup/havard.edu/loeb). He then argues
that Josephus could not have been sympathetic to Christians because he was a
Jew writing to please the Romans.
It looks
like we finally have some serious evidence to examine.
The
passage in question is popularly known as Testimonium Flavianum because
it’s attributed to Flavius Josephus; it is found in his work Antiquities of the Jews (18.63-64).
First of
all, on casual inspection, it is very unlikely that Josephus could have
recognized Jesus as the messiah because Josephus was a devout messianic Jew who
never converted to Christianity furthermore, he was writing at the end of the
first century, at a time when the schism between Judaism and Christianity was becoming
very deep and very emotional on both sides. He could never have called the
Christian religion “the truth” or referred to Jesus as “the messiah”. This
casts a shadow of doubt over whether or not Josephus actually wrote the
passage.
Secondly,
Robert Eisler (a Christian Scholar), in The Messiah Jesus and John
the Baptist writes that Origen (Origenes
Adamantius), one of the most distinguished of the Fathers of the early Church,
born at Alexandria in about 182 A.D.; and died at Caesarea not later than 254
A.D., made it quite clear, in two different passages, that in his text
of the Antiquities of the Jews Josephus did not represent Jesus
as the Christ (Origen - Matthew X, XVII).
Thirdly,
the Testimonium Flavianum is a controversial and questionable; it is the nearly unanimous verdict of
modern scholarship that the Testimonium is at least partially a
Christian interpolation.
Some scholars like Ken Oslon in Eusebian Fabrication of the
Testimonium Flavianum have attributed the Josephus passage to Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of
Cæsarea the "Father of Church History" (circa 240-361 C.E.).
Oslon says:
“Eusebius quoted the Testimonium
in three of his works: the Demonstratio Evangelica, the Historia
Ecclesiastica, and the Theophany. His purpose in quoting it in each
case is to use Josephus as a witness to Jesus' good character in order to
refute Jewish and pagan accusations against Jesus. In particular, Eusebius is
concerned to refute the charge that Jesus was a GOHS, a term that can be
translated as "charlatan" or "wizard" or
"deceiver."
Using Rengstorf's concordance of
Josephus, Meier did a comparison between the vocabulary of the _Testimonium_
and that of Josephus on the one hand and the NT on the other. He found that,
with the single exception of the word CRISTIANWN, every word found in the
_Testimonium_ is also found in Josephus, while the same cannot be said with
regard to the NT. Meier himself gives several caveats about his method: the
works of Josephus are a much larger corpus than the NT and what he shows is
that if a Christian author wrote the _Testimonium_, then that author is not
taking his vocabulary solely from the NT (Meier, 80-83, n. 41).
A comparison of groups of words
used together, such as a noun or verb with its modifiers, showed that there are
three such groups found in the Testimonium that are not paralleled elsewhere in
Josephus but are found in Eusebius, and two such groups found elsewhere in
Josephus but not (so far as I can tell) in Eusebius. The Eusebian phrases are: PARADOXWN
ERGWN POIHTHS, EIS ETI TE NUN, and TWN CRISTIANWN... TO FULON. The Josephan
phrases are: hHDONHi DECOMENWN and PRWTWN ANDRWN (when used in
the sense of "leaders"). Clearly, the hapax legomena alone will not
decide who is/are the author(s) of this passage, but any theory on the origin
of the _Testimonium_ must be able to explain them all coherently.
The agreements between the version
of the Testimonium Flavianum found in Antiquities of the Jews 18
and that found in the Historia Ecclesiastica against the version found
in the Demonstratio Evangelica show that it was the Historia's
version that Christian scribes interpolated into our texts of Josephus.
The scribes, on Eusebius'
authority that the Antiquities of the Jews ought to contain such a text,
“corrected” their texts according to the reading found in the Historia
Ecclesiastica. The version of the Testimonium found in our texts of
the Antiquities of the Jews is the Eusebian version, and, if there ever
was a Josephan version, that fact remains to be demonstrated.
There is nothing in the language
or content of the Testimonium, as it appears in the Demonstratio
Evangelica, that suggests it is anything other than a completely Eusebian
composition.”
The fact is that (a) Eusebius had
an agenda, (b) his rectitude was questionable (he wrote
that he unscrupulously suppressed all that would be a disgrace to early
Christianity. [Ecclesiastical History, vol. 8, c.21]. He also relates as
truth a ridiculous story of writing a letter to Jesus the Christ and then
receiving an answer. [Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, c. 13.]), (c) the Testimonium
suited Eusebius’ agenda perfectly, (d) he had the authority to get the changes
made in Jospehus’ works, and (e) the literary constructions (style,
composition, word choice, word arrangement, phraseology etc.) and
other forms of philological comparisons between his works and those of Josephus
indicate that the Testimonium was a Eusebian passage.
Josh
McDowell has to provide very compelling reasons why we should believe the text
was actually written by Josephus.
Although
the church fathers were quite fond of quoting passages that supported
Christianity, and though these early Church Fathers were quite familiar with
the works of Josephus, not one of them quotes this passage in defense of
Christianity until Eusebius does in the fourth century. This means it was a
later insertion.
Cliff
Walker, editor of Positive Atheism magazine says in: http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/em19214.htm:
Peter Kirby, on
the Testimonium Flavianum, says: “No form of the Testimonium
Flavianum is cited in the extant works of Justin Martyr (circa C.E.
100-165), Theophilus Antiochenus (circa C.E. 181), Melito of Sardis (c. C.E.
165-175.), Minucius Felix (circa C.E. 180-300), Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, Julius Africanus, Pseudo-Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen,
Methodius, or Lactantius. According to Michael Hardwick in Josephus as an
Historical Source in Patristic Literature through Eusebius, “each of these
ancient authors shows familiarity with the works of Josephus.”
Cliff Walker, adds:
“The
first mention of the Testimonium is in the fourth century by Eusebius
(who died about C.E. 361), and a full century passes (including, most notably,
the era of Augustine [C.E. 354-430]) before it is again mentioned by a Church
Father.”
Gordon
Stein, Ph.D. in The
Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell says:
“The
passage comes in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities - which
have befallen the Jews. This would not be a calamity thus it is out of context
in the book. This is another indication that it is an interpolation.”
Another
indication of falsity is the phrase “…He drew over to him many Jews, and also
many of the Greeks…” Some reconstructions (obviously by Christian scholars)
have it as “…He drew over to him many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles…” The
reference to "Gentiles" or “Greeks” so far as Jesus himself goes is
clearly false. There were no "Gentiles" among the inner circle of
Jesus, and if the New Testament itself is to be believed, Jesus avoided staying
in the company of Gentiles. It was St. Paul who attempted to expand the sect of
Christianity beyond the Jewish community within which it was founded, and that
desire by St. Paul led to his great disagreement with "James, the brother
of Jesus." (see, for instance, Galatians 2.)
So, the Testimonium
clearly relates a second-hand perspective of Christianity, even if you take it
at its word. Josephus is writing after the death of St. Paul, and is relating a
perspective on Christianity that is peculiarly Pauline. So, even if the passage
is entirely authentic (i.e., even if Josephus actually wrote that passage when
he wrote Antiquities
of the Jews), the passage still merely repeats Pauline
Christian theology and doesn't provide any actual evidence for the historicity
of Jesus (who was, after all, dead at the time St. Paul converted to
Christianity).
To
conclude, the Josephus passage is, at best, suspect. At worst, it’s a fabricated
passage.
Whoever
ventures into using it as evidence must provide cogent reasons for its veracity
and authenticity.
Josh
McDowell clearly does not do that hence it can be considered he is being
disingenuous when he only mentions a single argument that skeptics level at the
passage, because as a renown Christian apologetic, he must be aware of all the
good reasons scholars have for rejecting the Testimonium Flavianum as an
authentic Josephus passage.
Even
after explaining away all the objections raised, one would merely have
established the historicity of Jesus. Establishing the historicity of an
individual is not the same as the veracity of the stories/tales about that
person's life.
McDowell
then quotes Ernest Kevan who says:
"The
book of the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke sometime between A.D. 63
and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He explains in his preface to his Gospel
that he had gathered his information from eyewitnesses, and this, it may be
concluded, was also the way he prepared the book of the Acts. Further, as
certain sections in the history show, by the use of the pronoun "we”, Luke
was himself a participator in some of the events he narrates. He was in the
midst of the early preaching, and took a share in the great happenings of the
early days. Luke is, therefore a contemporary and first-hand witness...It
is impossible to suppose that the early church did not know its own history;
and the very fact of the acceptance by the Church of this book is evidence of
its accuracy"
First of
all, there are 94 occurrences of the word "we" in The Acts of the
Apostles and none of them can be inferred to mean Luke includes himself in time
and space as part of the past events being described. Secondly, Luke was
writing the words in the same form and tense the original authors who
supposedly wrote them from eyewitnesses did. So the “we” would refer to what
the supposed eyewitnesses said, not Luke. In any case, eyewitnesses do not
investigate events they have witnessed, so Luke saying he “investigated” in
itself means he was not an eyewitness.
Thirdly,
it is false to say that Luke explains in his preface to his Gospel that he had
gathered his information from eyewitnesses. Rather, he explains that he wrote
after investigating the accounts from the many, who had written accounts from
eyewitnesses.
And
fourthly, Luke has been identified with St. Paul's "Luke, the beloved
physician" (Colossians 4:14). Thus, like Paul, was not an eyewitness.
From Catholic
Online Saints, Luke first joined Paul's company at Troas at about the year
51 and accompanied him into Macedonia where they traveled first to Samothrace,
Neapolis, and finally Philippi (Acts 16:8-12).
Send
your comments to jaliet_2000@yahoo.com