St. Stephen Church at 6044 SW 19th Street, Miramar, FL 33023 US - The Case For Christ’s Existence
| The Case For Christ’s Existence |
The Case For Christ’s Existence CRISIS Magazine Special e-Report March 31, 2006 ********************************************** Dear Friend, In my last e-Letter, I told you about Luigi Cascioli, an Italian atheist who brought a stunning lawsuit against a local priest. According to Cascioli, in claiming that Jesus was born of Mary and lived in ancient Palestine, the priest was perpetuating a falsehood. You see, Cascioli insists that Jesus never actually existed. As crazy as that sounds (and if you’re like me, it sounds plenty crazy), the Italian isn’t alone in taking that position. In fact, the same claim is being argued in "The God Who Wasn’t There," a feature-length documentary appearing now in theaters across the country. While the vast majority of historians -- both Christian and non-Christian -- roundly reject the notion, it nevertheless appears to be making a move into the mainstream. Sure, few people take Cascioli’s claims seriously right now. But that could change. If I told you 5 years ago that a good percentage of Americans in 2006 would believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had kids, you’d have laughed me out of the room. But now, with the Da Vinci Code craze, it’s no longer a laughing matter. You get the picture. So with that in mind, I want to give you a brief summary of the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed and walked the earth. But before I get to it, I need to make one important point... When we look at the historical documents, we don’t have to believe them inspired to consider them reliable. An atheist can hold that the Gospel of Mark is evidence of Jesus’ existence without believing that the gospel is inspired. (We believe Abraham Lincoln existed, even though we don’t consider the Gettysburg Address inspired by God.) So, in demonstrating Jesus’ earthly existence, we do not need to prove that the Bible is inspired. Enough. Let’s begin. THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE The first and clearest evidence of Jesus’ existence is found in the collected writings of the New Testament. Several of the documents were penned by eyewitnesses (Peter, Matthew, and John). Others, like the Gospels of Luke and Mark, were written by those who were themselves in the company of eyewitnesses. [Note: The Gospels of Matthew and Mark were actually anonymous. We attribute authorship to those individuals because of early Christian writings that agree they were the authors. But this point doesn’t actually affect our case, insofar as the gospels claim first- or secondhand knowledge of Jesus, regardless of their authors.] This fact allows only two alternatives: Either the writers were lying about Jesus’ existence, or they were not. Given the length of time they claim they knew Him (three years or so), they could not have been merely mistaken or hallucinating. What possible reason could they have had for lying about Jesus? Well, maybe they wanted the fame and fortune that comes from an association with a great figure. That would surely be a motivation. Unfortunately for the critics who hold to that position, the facts show otherwise. Certainly, Matthew, Peter, Paul, and John had some measure of celebrity... but it was the wrong kind. They were hunted by both Roman and Jewish authorities... both groups eager to capture the leaders of the new Christian movement. And of course, those who were caught and refused to renounce their faith in Christ were executed. If in fact this had all been an enormous swindle, why didn’t Peter, Paul, or the other martyred apostles recant? Why would they have died willingly for what they knew to be a lie? It’s all fun and games until the torture begins. The most reasonable explanation is that they knew their claims were true and could not renounce them, even to save their own lives. But there’s another bit of evidence in the Biblical record... If Jesus was simply a hoax foisted on the ancient world by the wily apostles, you’d expect to find the New Testament authors describing His activities in vague terms. After all, when you’re trying to formulate a lie, you don’t give yourself too many opportunities to slip up. In point of fact, the writers did quite the opposite. Not only did they describe Jesus’ travels and activities, but they frequently gave specific details... like the time and place of his visits to various towns, and the names of those who were there. One of the greatest examples of this was his entrance into Jerusalem shortly before his public crucifixion. The gospel writers described the vast crowds present at the event. Surely, if what they say was true, very few of Jerusalem’s citizens would have been unaware of the self-proclaimed Messiah executed in their midst. Now, obviously, after Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, the citizens were scattered. Nevertheless, many remained in the area and would have been readily available to contradict the Christian claims. So, why did no-one -- including the Roman and Jewish officials -- criticize the gospels on this point? It wouldn’t have been difficult... simply one or two of Jerusalem’s residents stepping forward and saying, "I was there that Passover week, and none of that happened. There was no Jesus of Nazareth." And what about Cana... or Capernaum... or Nazareth... or Bethlehem? These were not bustling cities where a prophet might get lost among the crowds. And yet the gospels describe Jesus’ (often miraculous) presence in each. Why didn’t any of the citizens of those small communities come forward to refute the Christians’ claims? And another thing... If Jesus’ life and ministry was an elaborate hoax created by the apostles, then why didn’t they do a better job of it? Consider the story: The Son of God was an uneducated carpenter born in a backwater town. His followers never missed an opportunity to bungle whatever they were doing... from misunderstanding what Jesus was saying to running in fear when their master was arrested. Finally, the Messiah is crucified -- suffering a form of execution that the Jewish people considered particularly humiliating. And to top it all off, when Jesus rises from the dead, His first witnesses are women (who were not deemed reliable sources in the Jewish courts of the day). So, if the apostles created the Jesus story, why didn’t they smooth out the rough edges (and make themselves look better in the process)? The only reasonable answer is a simple one: They reported what happened. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE The New Testament isn’t the only collection of writings by the early Christians. In fact, the first- and second-century believers appear to have been a fairly prolific bunch... though only a fraction of their writings have survived the centuries. Nevertheless, we do have the Didache -- a collection of Christian teachings and practices (written, quite possibly, around the year 70); 1 Clement, an epistle from the Roman church to the church in Corinth (written around 90); the Shepherd of Hermas, an apocalyptic work written from Rome (around the end of the first century); and the Letters of Ignatius (penned around 107). While none of the authors (presumably) were firsthand witnesses of Christ, they knew those who were. But more to the point, their writings show no awareness of the claim that Jesus was a myth. You see, if this were all merely a hoax, we would reasonably expect some mention of that from the first-century critics. Obviously, if Jesus never existed, then that would be the most powerful (and popular) charge leveled against the early Church. Yet there is no sign of this at all. Rather, critics claimed that Christians were pagans... or cannibals... or that Jesus was some kind of magician. So... if Jesus never existed, why didn’t any of the energetic critics point that out? THE NON-CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE Interestingly enough, there’s also evidence for Christ’s existence in non-Christian sources. For example, the noted Roman historian Tacitus mentions Jesus in his "Annals" (written in the early second century). In reference to the contemporary rumors that the emperor Nero had started the great Roman fire and then blamed the Christians, the writer notes: "To suppress the rumor, [Nero] falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular." While Tacitus gets the name wrong -- referring to Jesus by His title instead of His actual name -- the historian has no question about His actual existence. But an even clearer and more relevant reference to Jesus can be found in the "Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian of the first century. In a much-disputed passage, he writes: "About this time lived Jesus, a man full of wisdom, if indeed one may call him a man. For he was the doer of incredible things, and the teacher of such as gladly received the truth. He thus attracted to himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved him still remained faithful to him. For on the third day he again appeared to them living, just as, in addition to a thousand other marvelous things, prophets sent by God had foretold. And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after him has not ceased." The vast majority of scholars agree that a later Christian editor added much of the devotional material concerning Jesus. Obviously, as a Jew, Josephus would never have referred to Jesus as "the Christ," or talked about His resurrection as fact. Nevertheless, while these sections are clearly later additions, most agree that the core reference to Jesus is sound. Most likely, the original text looked something like this: "About this time lived Jesus... He attracted to himself many Jews and many of the Gentiles... On the accusation of the leading men of our people, Pilate condemned him to death upon the cross; nevertheless those who had previously loved him still remained faithful to him... And to the present day the race of those who call themselves Christians after him has not ceased." This is much more in keeping with Josephus’ style and background, and is generally accepted in scholarship today. (Granted, the original likely had some critical commentary on Jesus’ claims.) Interestingly enough, there’s another, much shorter reference to Jesus in Josephus’ work. At one point, the historian mentions "James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ." Unlike the longer passage, this reference is generally accepted as it stands. CASE CLOSED Like so many debunked-yet-popular theories, the claim that Jesus never existed becomes popular every few generations. But repetition doesn’t make it true. The fact is, no truly objective inquirer can take this theory seriously. There’s no evidence at all for it, and a mountain of evidence against it. Obviously, there’s a certain school of critics who think the easiest way to destroy Christianity is to attack it at its historical foundation. Ironically enough, the only way they can do that is by dispensing with the standards and principles of sound historical research. I’ll talk to you soon, Brian P.S. If you want more information on this controversy, here are two excellent articles for you to check out. 1. This a detailed summary piece that ends with a brilliant challenge for the critics to prove -- using their own criteria -- that Hannibal the Great actually existed: http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm 2. Another first-rate piece that not only provides a detailed, big-picture look at the question, but also has several helpful side articles: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html *** To subscribe to the FREE CRISIS Magazine e-Letter, and get the latest news, views, and responses to current issues, send an e-mail to e-letter@crisismagazine.com and write "SUBSCRIBE" in the subject line. ************************************************************** To learn more about CRISIS Magazine, visit http://www.crisismagazine.com/subscribe.htm
