Jn 18: 33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?”
35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”
36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?”
Jesus answered,
“You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”
38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”
Indeed, what is truth?
First, it is not power or popularity, as we can see from what happened next:
Jn 18:After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. 39 But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” 40 They [= the assembled crowd] cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber . . .
Second, we have yet to beat Aristotle in Metaphysics, 1011b: "truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not." (And yes, this extends to truthfulness as core to one's character; there is a reason why Jesus is THE teacher of our civilisation.)
Jesus is on further record (along with his apostles) on the substance of THE truth:
Indeed, as he was about to be judicially murdered by Nero (c. 65 AD, on a false charge of treasonous arson against Rome), the leading apostle, Peter, went on final record:
2 Pet 1:13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Now, since it is too often suggested that by referring to the NT we are using biased and unreliable, Christian sources [that name often being pronounced as an epithet], it is worth the while to now pause a moment and cite Paul Barnett's summary of the record of early non-Christian sources on the basic facts of the early Christian movement and particularly the existence of Jesus as an historical figure:
On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions:
[Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31. Cf. McDowell & Wilson, He Walked Among Us (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993) for more details; free for download here.]
- Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 - 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 - 36). [Tacitus]
- The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus]
- Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer]
- His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny]
- He was called "the Christ." [Josephus]
- His followers were called "Christians." [Tacitus, Pliny]
- They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny]
- It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer]
- His brother was James. [Josephus]
Next, here -- as I pointed out recently -- is Paul, on trial for his life c 59 AD, addressing dubious a prioris and actually calling his judge as expert witness . . . who ducks the bouncer:
Ac 26: 2 “I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am going to make my defense today against all the accusations of the Jews, 3 especially because you are familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews. Therefore I beg you to listen to me patiently.
4 “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. 5 They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.
6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers [--> prophecies, esp. Isa 53], 7 to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king!
8 Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God [= creator & sustainer of life: "in him we live, and move and have our being"] raises the dead? . . . .
24 And as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are out of your mind; your great learning is driving you out of your mind.”
25 But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner.
27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.”
28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” [--> ducks] 29 And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”
This is masterfully picked up, c. 1930, by eagle-eyed English Barrister Frank Morison in his well-known book:
[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . .
Why did it win? . . . .
We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]
Similarly, N T Scholar Craig Evans, answering the seeping miasma of suspicion spread by the Jesus Seminar and ilk, speaks to the subtle verisimilitude of especially the Gospels (where, too, Luke-Acts has long since been respected for its habitually careful, accurate historicity):
The story told in the New Testament Gospels—in contrast to the greatly embellished versions found in the [C2, Gnostic] Gospel of Peter and other writings— smacks of verisimilitude. The women went to the tomb to mourn privately and to perform duties fully in step with Jewish burial customs. They expected to find the body of Jesus; ideas of resurrection were the last thing on their minds. The careful attention given the temporary tomb is exactly what we should expect. Pious fiction—like that seen in the Gospel of Peter— would emphasize other things. Archaeology can neither prove nor disprove the resurrection, but it can and has shed important light on the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ death, burial, and missing corpse
[--> where, for example, in 1968, an ossuary with the bones of Yehohanan son of Hagakol -- a crucified man -- definitively settled the fact that a victim of such horrific torture-execution could indeed be honourably buried according to Hebraic custom, prior skeptical sneers otherwise notwithstanding]
. . . . Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors.
Notwithstanding the eccentricities and skepticism of the Jesus Seminar, the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding, i.e., as proclaimer of God’s rule, as understanding himself as the Lord’s anointed, and, indeed, as God’s own son, destined to rule Israel. But this does not mean that the historical Jesus that has begun to emerge in recent years is simply a throwback to the traditional portrait. The picture of Jesus that has emerged is more finely nuanced, more obviously Jewish, and in some ways more unpredictable than ever. The last word on the subject has not been written and probably never will be. Ongoing discovery and further investigation will likely force us to make further revisions as we read and read again the old Gospel stories and try to come to grips with the life of this remarkable Galilean Jew.
Is it, then, any surprise to see the impact of the up to a dozen minimal facts granted by the majority of academic scholarship on the subject, as Habermas reports:
As I have summarised elsewhere:
The point of this, is to look at well attested, well-grounded, widely accepted facts that are "a game-changer."
For, if these facts are so, there is but one really good explanation for them, the well-warranted truth of the core gospel message. The good news:
i: of God who so loved us thatii: he gave his one and only Eternal Son as our Saviour,iii: who died on a cross for our sins,iv: was buried, rose, was seen of altogether 500 witnesses, andv: who commissioned the church to go forth to all nations and all generations with that good news, andvi: to thereby call us all to repentance, trust in Christ, and a new life of discipleship.vii: All of us, no exceptions.And, once that is grounded as well-warranted, bedrock foundation truth, the compelling force of truth and our patent duty to face the truth at the heart of the Christian Faith and message and live by it then changes everything.
Everything.
So, as Paul said, this is "of first importance."
Thus, the method is potentially decisive.
The method, in a nutshell -- and Greenleaf's remarks are also highly relevant, is:
The minimal facts method only uses sources which are multiply attested, and agreed to by a majority of scholars (ranging from atheist to conservative). This requires that they have one or more of the following criteria which are relevant to textual criticism:
- Multiple sources - If two or more sources attest to the same fact, it is more likely authentic
- Enemy attestation - If the writers enemies corroborate a given fact, it is more likely authentic
- Principle of embarrassment - If the text embarrasses the writer, it is more likely authentic Eyewitness testimony - First hand accounts are to be preferred
- Early testimony - an early account is more likely accurate than a later one
Having first established the well attested facts, the approach then argues that the best explanation of these agreed to facts is the resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . . [Source: "Minimal facts" From Apologetics Wiki. Full article: here. (Courtesy, Wayback Machine.)]Why is that so?
The easiest answer is to simply list the facts that meet the above criteria and are accepted by a majority to an overwhelming majority of recent and current scholarship after centuries of intense debate:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion [--> which implies his historicity!].2. He was buried.3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.7. The resurrection was the central message.8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.9. The Church was born and grew.10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).[Cf. Habermas' paper here and a broader more popular discussion here. NT Wright's papers here and here give a rich and deep background analysis. Here is a video of a pastoral presentation of a subset of the facts. Habermas presents the case as videos here and here, in two parts. Here is a video of a debate he had with Antony Flew.]The list of facts is in some respects fairly obvious.
That a Messiah candidate was captured, tried and crucified -- as Gamaliel hinted at -- was effectively the death-knell for most such movements in Israel in the era of Roman control; to have to report such a fate was normally embarrassing and discrediting to the extreme in a shame-honour culture. The Jews of C1 Judaea wanted a victorious Greater David to defeat the Romans and usher in the day of ultimate triumph for Israel, not a crucified suffering servant. In the cases where a movement continued, the near relatives took up the mantle. That is facts 1 - 3 right there. Facts 10 - 12 are notorious. While some (it looks like about 25% of the survey of scholarship, from what I have seen) reject no 4, in fact it is hard to see a message about a resurrection in C1 that did not imply that the body was living again, as Wright discusses here. Facts 5 - 9 are again, pretty clearly grounded.
So, the challenge is to explain this cluster or important subsets of it, without begging questions and without selective hyperskepticism. The old Deist objections (though sometimes renewed today) have deservedly fallen by the wayside. [Also, cf. ten video shorts on popular myths here.]
We may briefly compare:
Jerusalem
c 30 AD
objectors who then became church leaders: James & PaulBodily Resurrection Visions/
hallucinationsSwoon/recovery Wrong tomb Stolen body/fraud Quran 4:155 -6: "They did not slay him, neither crucified him." 1 1 1 1 4 "Jesus never existed" 1 1 1 1 4 "Christianity as we know it was cooked up by Constantine and others at Nicea, who censored/ distorted the original record" 1 1 1 1 4 "What we have today is 'Paulianity,' not the original teachings of Jesus and his disciples" 2 1 1 2 6 Christianity -- including the resurrection -- is a gradually emerging legend based on a real figure Complete legend/pagan copycat (Greek, Persian, Egyptian, etc) (I have given my scores above, based on reasoning that should be fairly obvious. As an exercise you may want to come up with your own scores on a 5 - 1 scale: 5 = v. good/ 4 = good/ 3 = fair/ 2 = poor/ 1 = v. poor, with explanations. Try out blends of the common skeptical theories to see how they would fare.)
In short, the choice is between an unprecedented mass, in-common hallucination and "why should it seem incredible that God raises the dead?"
Of course, for many, they are prepared to dismiss God, but (as we will see in coming days) that is not a well founded view.
This also answers to a puzzle.
For, to the millions who have this in hand (directly or from sound teachers and researchers including apologetics specialists), such warrant is good reason to hold high confidence of reliable, God given truth in Jesus and the Scriptures that prophesied him. Even if many others are dismissive or worse.
So, going forward, that will be taken as a given. END
