#8: The Strongest Historical Evidences for Jesus and the Resurrection, Pt. 1

(For much-more information about this blog, see the home page at https://reasonbasedfaith.com/.)

This is relevant in December: as I’ve previously mentioned, I’ve added an anti-suicide and anti-discouragement page to my site, which features logical reasons that SHOULD deter any objectively-minded, logically-thinking person from committing suicide—some very cogent reasons are among them. Of course, these reasons apply to discouragement as well and are why, for years now, I’ve almost always been positive and optimistic, and very-rarely discouraged.

This page is relevant in the Christmas season when (sadly) some individuals without a close and supportive family tend to become depressed and sometimes suicidal. But this is unnecessary for those who are willing to think logically and objectively, based on evidence, as I explain on the anti-suicide and anti-discouragement page.

1. The present topic: the strongest historical evidences

As to the present topic: this post was, and the next two posts will be, well worth waiting for! They all pertain to the strongest historical evidences for Jesus and the Resurrection. My only problem has been that there are SO many strong historical evidences that I’ve had to split up (what I originally planned on being) one post into three, in order to comfortably accommodate them all. I find that they (these evidences) make the cases for the historical Jesus AND the Resurrection incredibly cogent — so much so that, on the basis of just three of these evidences, I believed and became a Christian!

More specifically, we have 84 evidences and logical inferences supporting Luke’s scrupulous accuracy as a historian. Therefore, by clear implication, it’s highly probable that we have historical bedrock that supports not only Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person (in addition to the evidences in my third post), but also that supports His supernatural-yet-physical Resurrection — as we shall see in Part 2. (Luke 24:30, 36-43; Acts 2:22-31; 13:34-37)

One proof — Paul’s conversion as recounted in Acts 26 (and as supported by Luke’s accuracy) — is so logically airtight and compelling that it directly contributed to my decision to believe in the biblical God (and thus to become a Christian). From what I’ve heard, it has contributed to that same decision on the part of others as well.

Therefore, when evidences cumulatively and powerfully point to the reality of Christ’s Resurrection—as they do—it then becomes appropriate to logically consider taking a step of faith; i.e. to consider accepting these evidences as valid proof for the reality of His Resurrection and for the truth of the resulting ramifications—that God the Father raised Jesus in order to vindicate Him; i.e. to validate His claims about being the Son of God (Matthew 16:13-17; John 10:30-38), and of course, to counteract the effects of His totally-unjustified crucifixion.

2. The difference between history and faith

But let’s back up a bit and consider concepts and clarifications that will focus and fortify our evaluation of the evidences I mentioned and will mention. (There are a great many evidences we have yet to consider.)

Here’s one aspect of a clarification, to be followed by other aspects: history is the discipline or field of study that considers, evaluates, and explains past human events, based on historical data (documents, archeological discoveries, and more-recently, newspapers, films, audio recordings, and videos) and based on logical inferences drawn from that data.

In academia, history is normally considered a discipline that functions independently or apart from faith or theism (i.e. belief in the Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made). Nevertheless, statements about rationally-accepted historical evidences can be used as premises in logical arguments, which then reasonably conclude that (1) Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person AND that (2) He was, most-probably, supernaturally-yet-physically raised from the dead—that is, a supernatural-yet-physical resurrection is, far and away, the best explanation of the evidences that we will cumulatively consider.

Though these arguments (that I referred to in the last paragraph) are probabilistic in nature, I believe that their conclusions are very cogent or logically-compelling, based on the cumulative evidence. All other conclusions (alternative explanations) conflict with one or more of these evidences. (I’ve seen this repeatedly and consistently with the alternative explanations that atheists have offered.)

3. Logical inferences contribute to (reason-based) faith

This brings us to another point that I‘ve mentioned on the home page: faith or belief, with many Christians, is supported by numerous evidences and logical inferences. In harmony with this perspective, Dr. William Lane Craig, a well-known philosopher and theologian, provided this definition: “Faith is trusting in what we have good reason to think is true. And so, the question is: Do we have good evidence for God? If we do, then we face the question: Am I going to put my trust in Him?” (This quote is from the video, “Why Should I Believe that God Exists? Ratio Christi Clemson welcomes Dr. William Lane Craig” at the 1 hour, 2-minute mark; accessed 9/21/2020.)

I further explained on the home page that evidence and reason are not opposed to faith; they can serve as a basis for faith! The following Scripture verses show that, from a biblical perspective, faith can be based on evidence and logic or reason: Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31; 1Kings 18:36-39; Psalm 19:1-2; Mark 2:5-12; John 2:1-11, 23; 10:37-38; 14:11; 20:24-31; Acts 1:3; 2:22-41; 3:11—4:4; 8:4-13, 26-38; 9:1-22, 32-42; 14:15-17; 17:1-4, 10-12, 22-34; 22:1-16; 26:9-20; Romans 1:19-20; 1Peter 3:15.

Of course, there are those who have faith instinctively, without apparently basing it on evidence or logic. The Bible does not say that this is wrong—it may be the faith mentioned in 1Corinthians 12:8-9. But I’ll speak for myself here: since, as an atheist, I wanted to base everything I believed on evidence and logic, I felt a need to be sure that my newfound faith in the biblical God was similarly evidence and logic-based, and so it is.

4. A list of evidences and inferences

Many of my previous statements (in this post) are supported by the following evidences, groups of evidences, and resulting inferences:

(1) Evidences and reasons for God

• By evidences and reasons for God’s existence, some of which we have considered in the fourth, sixth, and seventh posts; cf. Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, chapters 3 thru 7; Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999, Evidence for God, pp. 740-741; The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Latest Scientific Discoveries Reveal God by Dr. Hugh Ross, RTB Press, 2018; Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology Make a Case for the Creator by Dr. Fazale Rana, Baker Books, 2011; The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Dr. Rana, Baker Books, 2008; Animated & other short Reasonable Faith videos; The Kalam Cosmological Argument by Dr. Craig at Georgia Tech; Article by Dr. Craig on the Kalam Cosmological Argument; A Beginner’s and Expert’s Guide to the Big Bang by Dr. Hugh Ross; Escaping the Beginning? Confronting Challenges to the Universe’s Origin by Dr. Jeff Zweerink, RTB Press, 2019; Reasons To Believe, with Dr. Hugh Ross and his team of scholars.

(2) The minimal facts approach supports the historicity of events pertaining to the Resurrection and neutralizes bias

The minimal facts approach (developed by Dr. Gary Habermas) neutralizes scholarly bias and establishes support (by the vast majority of scholars) for the historicity of key events pertaining to Christ’s resurrection—events which logically lead to the conclusion that, to a high degree of probability, Christ had died on the cross and was actually raised from the dead. Christ’s resurrection in actual history is the conclusion that these key events—accepted as historical by the vast majority of scholars—logically lead to! How is this possible?

This historicity is based on the opinions of the vast majority of New Testament scholars of EVERY theological stripe or belief or inclination. (Cf. Drs. Gary Habermas & Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel Publications, 2004, chapters 3 and 4.)

Dr. Licona explained: “Under this approach, we only consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be very strong historical evidence supporting them. And secondly, the evidence must be so strong that the vast majority of today’s scholars on the subject—including skeptical ones—accept these as historical facts … we’re saying that this evidence is so good that even skeptical scholars are convinced by it. … Habermas has compiled a list of more than 2,200 sources in French, German, and English in which experts have written on the resurrection from 1975 to the present. He has identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and which are regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics.” (Dr. Michael Licona, quoted by journalist Lee Strobel in his book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Zondervan, 2007, Challenge #3, p. 112, Kindle Locations 1983-1995)

In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Drs. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona primarily focus on and deal with five of these facts:

1. Jesus died by Roman Crucifixion.
2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
3. Saul of Tarsus, better known by history as the apostle Paul, changed from being a skeptic who believed that it was God’s will to persecute the church to becoming one of its most influential messengers.
4. James, the brother of Jesus, became a convert to Christianity because he believed the risen Jesus appeared to him.
5. Jesus’ tomb was found empty … It would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body had still been in the tomb. (Habermas & Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Kregel Publications, 2004, chapters 3 and 4.)

In recent years, Dr. Habermas has added the following two facts to those that receive the most focus or attention (because they’re an integral part of his main logical argument for the Resurrection):

6. Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief. [E.g. Acts 14:19-20; 21:13]    

7. The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history. This can be easily inferred from the early church creed in First Corinthians 15:3-7, dated to within three to eight years of Christ’s crucifixion by scholars of EVERY theological stripe or persuasion. See evidences #8 and 9 in this section. Also see the video “2 top historical scholars PROVE that Jesus rose (Gary Habermas and Mike Licona)” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=mc6XhMySxdY, around 29 to 32 minutes into the video.

Thus, since the vast majority of New Testament scholars agree on these seven minimal facts, this technique by Dr. Habermas (of compiling scholarly opinions on these matters since 1975) displays objective, core historical truths (about the New Testament narrative) while eliminating non-empirical bias. In other words, since the vast majority of scholars (of virtually-every theological persuasion) agree on these facts, we can logically regard them as historical bedrock; they are objective, core historical facts pertaining to Jesus and His resurrection.

(3) Different details in the NT Gospels support historicity

• By the evidence offered by homicide detective J. Warner Wallace and confirmed by Drs. Craig Blomberg and Hans Stier—that different (but harmonize-able) details in the parallel narratives of the New Testament Gospels actually strengthen the case that the Gospels include REAL eyewitness testimonies of events occurring in the first century, because multiple eyewitnesses typically report (at least) some different details about the same event! (Multiple eyewitnesses, from various backgrounds, careers, and perspectives, tend to focus on different aspects of what occurred. If they all came forward with the exact same story, a trained detective would suspect collusion.)

This diversity in details, that J. Warner Wallace observed in the many homicide cases he worked and in the Gospels as well, made him think that the Gospel accounts are likely true. This contributed to him believing in Christ and becoming a Christian. We’ll cover this shortly in this post. (Cf. Cold-Case Christianity: a Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace, David C. Cook, 2013, Chapter 4, pp. 80-83, Kindle locations 1217-1266; Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, edited by Michael J. Wilkins & J. P. Moreland, Zondervan Academic, 2010, Chapter 1, p. 51, Kindle Locations 762-767)

(4) Undesigned coincidences support historicity

• The convincing power of undesigned coincidences: occasionally, a statement in a Gospel or in Acts is left unexplained in that particular book, but is explained in another Bible book or sometimes in another historical source, such as those written by Josephus. This correspondence between the two sources is an undesigned coincidence (i.e. not designed or pre-planned by the writers), which thus points to a real event or person or circumstance, outside of both sources, that occurred or existed in the first century. There are a minimum of 48 undesigned coincidences among the New Testament Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles or letters. By the criterion of multiple, independent attestations, these coincidences tend to validate the historicity (historical authenticity) of these documents.

Dr. Lydia McGrew stated that, “The occurrence of multiple undesigned coincidences between and among these documents supports the conclusion that the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable and that they come from people close to the facts who were attempting to tell truthfully what they knew.” (Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts by Lydia McGrew, DeWard Publishing, 2017, from the General Introduction) Note: though 21 out of the 48 coincidences involve a passage from one of Paul’s epistles (connecting it to a passage in a Gospel or in Acts), Dr. McGrew, in her statement—and in her title of the book—focuses on supporting the historicity of the Gospels and Acts, because these are predominantly-historical accounts. Paul’s epistles are predominantly instructive.

(5) Paul quoting Luke supports an early date

• By Paul quoting from the Gospel of Luke in 1Timothy 5:18: “The laborer is worthy of his wages,” quoted from Luke 10:7. Since First Timothy was written about AD 63-66 (The Bible Knowledge Commentary by Dallas Theological Seminary faculty members, Victor Books, 1983), Luke was written earlier. (Cf. Christian Apologetics by Dr. Norman Geisler, Baker Books, 1976, Chapter 18, under “Christ Promised the Inspiration of the New Testament.”)

(6) The three synoptics dated before AD 70

• By the fact that three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) can be logically and reasonably dated to within 40 years of the Crucifixion because of the striking prophecy of Jesus (Matthew 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6) about the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, which occurred in AD 70. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke had been written AFTER the Temple’s destruction, these Gospels would have surely mentioned it as clear evidence supporting the validity of Jesus’ prophecy, which would have strengthened the Jewish perception of Jesus as the Messiah, which, of course, the synoptic writers wanted to do. Since they didn’t mention it, their gospels were most-likely written BEFORE the Temple’s destruction in AD 70. (Cf. Geisler & Turek, Chapter 9, under “Are the New Testament documents early?”)

(7) 15 reasons for dating Acts in AD 60-62

• By the 15 reasons (compiled by Roman historian Colin Hemer) supporting a date between AD 60 and 62 for the writing of the Book of Acts. Resultantly, the Gospel of Luke was written earlier (perhaps in the late 50s) and the Gospel of Mark—acknowledged by virtually-all scholars as the earliest Gospel written—would be dated still earlier, perhaps in the late 40s or early 50s. (From Dr. Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, 1999, in the article “Arguments for Early Dates” under “New Testament, Dating of,” p. 528)

(8) The early church creed of 1Corinthians 15

• By the cogent evidence of the early-church creed recorded by Paul in First Corinthians 15:3-7. Six phrases in this creed are non-Pauline in origin; i.e. not used elsewhere by Paul. Dr. Gary Habermas stated, “That this confession is an early Christian, pre-Pauline creed is recognized by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum … numerous critical theologians date it from three to eight years after Jesus’ crucifixion.” (Cf. Dr. Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, College Press Publishing, 1996, Chapter 7; Kindle Locations 2842-2864.) Virtually all New Testament scholars agree that the creed should be dated to within three to eight years of Christ’s crucifixion.

Dr. William Lane Craig wrote that, “Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 quotes an old Christian tradition that he had received from the earliest disciples. Paul probably received this tradition no later than his visit to Jerusalem in AD 36 (Gal. 1:18), if not earlier in Damascus. It therefore goes back to within the first five years after Jesus’ death in AD 30.” (On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William Lane Craig, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3671-3673)

From another source, and in referring to Paul’s quotation of this creed, Dr. Craig added: “…these verses are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, just as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received and, in turn, passed on to his converts in Corinth. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem in AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Peter, Jesus’ chief disciple, and with James, Jesus’ younger brother, according to Paul’s letter to the Galatians.” (Evidence for the Resurrection, at about 7 to 8 minutes into the video. Cf. On Guard, Chapter 9, Kindle Location 3715)

Dr. Michael Licona asserted about the creed: “…it is much too early to be the result of legendary development over time, since it can practically be traced to the original disciples of Jesus. In fact, this creed has been one of the most formidable obstacles to critics who try to shoot down the resurrection. It’s simply gold for a historian.”(Licona quoted by journalist Lee Strobel in his book, The Case for the Real Jesus, Challenge #3, p. 116, Kindle Locations 2061-2063) The creed has profound implications for the historicity of the New Testament, as we’ll see in the next evidence (#8).

German historian Hans von Campenhausen stated that this creed “meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text.” (The Historical Jesus, Chapter 7; Kindle Locations 2887-2888) The creed explicitly states that Christ died, was buried, then was raised, then appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, then to “more than five hundred brethren.” (Evidence for the Resurrection, at about 7 to 8 minutes into the video. Cf. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William Lane Craig, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3715; 3671-3673; Geisler & Turek, Chapter 9, under “Are the New Testament documents early?” The Historical Jesus, chapters 2, 4, 5, 6, and especially 7, Kindle Locations 2830-2908; Drs. Gary Habermas & Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, chapters 3, 6, & 9)

(9) The legend hypothesis is not viable

• Dr. William Lane Craig stated, in referencing Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White: “According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts.” (On Guard, Chapter 8, Kindle Locations 3084-3094) The reason for this is that, at minimum, for a legend to develop, the eyewitnesses had to have died as well as those who heard the eyewitnesses. Otherwise, too many people would still be alive who would contradict a fabricated story.

It therefore becomes obvious (from the early creed in 1Corinthians 15) that Christians believed in Jesus as the resurrected Son of God from Christianity’s inception. There was virtually no time (a mere three to eight years) for a legend about the Resurrection to hypothetically develop, and three to eight years would be woefully insufficient for such development. And, if one illogically allowed for a full 26 years (30 to 56 AD) for the creed to arise (from the crucifixion of Jesus to the writing of First Corinthians), EVEN THIS would be a woefully inadequate time for such a legend to develop! More than two generations are required! Of course, the creed likely developed much closer to 30 AD than to 56 AD, in the opinion of virtually-all scholars.

(10) The historical criteria of authenticity

• By the historical criteria of authenticity, as supported in numerous New Testament passages. (Cf. Dr. William Lane Craig, On Guard, Chapter 8, Kindle Locations 3172-3205; Geisler & Turek, Chapter 9, under “Question 2: Is the New Testament Historically reliable?”) 

One of the most important of these is the criterion of embarrassment: when a writer makes an embarrassing admission, it’s very unlikely that it was contrived or made up. Hardly anyone would make up an embarrassing story about himself (or a friend) in order to include that story in a historical document! Therefore, embarrassing narratives in the New Testament are there simply because they really occurred.

Of course, the Gospel writers included quite a number of VERY embarrassing admissions about the earliest disciples, essentially implying that they were dimwitted, doubting cowards! For example: the men who followed Jesus were in hiding after the Crucifixion (afraid that they too would be crucified), while the women who followed Jesus went boldly and courageously to the tomb on Sunday morning (after resting on the Sabbath Day)! (John 20:19; Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 23:55-24:3) It would have been very embarrassing to admit this in the first-century culture of Judea (or anywhere in the Roman Empire, for that matter) because men were SUPPOSED to be the courageous leaders of society!

Since these Gospel writers were willing to make such embarrassing admissions, it’s very unlikely, then, that they would also have exaggerated or fabricated details in their narratives! Thus, it’s very likely that the Gospel narratives were written with truthful motives. 

Other criteria are that of multiple, independent attestations (multiple individuals independently writing similar descriptions of the same event), eyewitness testimony, early attestation (close to the event described), hostile or enemy attestation (if an enemy compliments an adversary, the compliment is very-likely true), and archeological corroboration of something written in a historical document. All of these criteria provide support for the historical reliability of the New Testament documents, sometimes from within the New Testament, sometimes from historical sources outside the New Testament, and sometimes from archeology. Cf. Dr. Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the New Testament, B&H Academic, 2016.

(11) 10 logical reasons the early Christians told the truth

• By the ten logical reasons (correlated with the above criteria) that demonstrate that the New Testament writers told the truth about Jesus and the Resurrection. (Cf. Geisler & Turek, Chapter 11) These reasons are:

1. The New Testament writers included embarrassing details about themselves.
2. They included embarrassing details and difficult sayings of Jesus [which they would not have included if they were making up a story].
3. They left in demanding sayings of Jesus.
4. They carefully distinguished Jesus’ words from their own.
5. They included events related to the Resurrection that they would not have invented.
6. They included more than thirty historically-confirmed people in their writings.
7. They included divergent details [see the major sections 7 to 9 in this post].
8. They challenged their readers to check out verifiable facts, even facts about miracles.
9. They described miracles like other historical events: with simple, unembellished accounts.
10. They abandoned [some of] their long-held sacred beliefs and practices, adopted new ones, and did not deny their testimony under persecution or threat of death. (Drs. Norman Geisler & Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 11)

Note: I inserted three bracketed expressions above, that were not in the book by Drs. Geisler & Turek. The third expression clarifies that the early Christians abandoned only some of their former beliefs and practices. For example, they still believed in the God of Israel as the one true God and in the Hebrew Scriptures—which Christians call the Old Testament—as fully inspired by God. (Old Testament references to the compound unity of the Godhead are numerous; e.g. the many instances of the plural noun elohim, typically translated “God”; Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:6-7; Psalm 2:7-8; Isaiah 48:16; Daniel 7:13-14) All biblically-minded Christians believe the same today. Gentile Christians typically believe in Acts 15:1-29 as it pertains to the Mosaic Law.

(12) 84 facts in Acts attest to Luke’s accuracy

• The 84 facts (supported by history and archeology) in the second half of Acts (documented by classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer) clearly attest to Luke’s scrupulous accuracy. (Cf. Geisler & Turek, Chapter 10, under “Eyewitness Evidence: Luke”; Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Eisenbrauns, 1990)

These facts include correct details of geography, such as the names of ports, boundaries, and landmarks; details of navigation, such as typical shipping routes or lanes, favorable and adverse winds at various locations, the best maneuvers for a first-century ship in stormy conditions; local languages, local deities, and slang terms; political customs, such as legal rights and titles of officials, and even the personal names of some of the local officials in the first century! Luke’s details are truly impressive!       

After extensive research, world-famous archeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay acknowledged that, “…the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. … Luke is a historian of the first rank. … This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” (Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915, pages 85 & 222)

Oxford Professor and Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White similarly concluded that, “The confirmation of historicity [historical authenticity] in Acts is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, page 189)

(13) 59 details support John’s historicity

• By the 59 historically-confirmed or historically-probable details supporting the historicity of John’s Gospel, documented by New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg. (Cf. Geisler & Turek, Chapter 10, under “Eyewitness Evidence: John”; Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, IVP Academic, 2011, pp. 69-281; Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pp. 388-395)

(14) Evidences for Jesus as a historical person

• By the evidences supporting Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person, many of which we considered in the third post, and more of which we will examine in Part 2. These include ten extrabiblical attestations supporting the New Testament Gospel accounts from first and second-century non-Christian historical sources. Drs. Geisler and Turek list 12 historical facts about Jesus that can be derived just from these sources, as follows:

1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah.
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God. (Cited from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Chapter 9, from the section, “The Gospel according to non-Christians,” p. 223.)

It’s EXTREMELY improbable that ALL 12 facts would be present in these non-Christian historical sources if Jesus of Nazareth had never existed historically!

In their book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Drs. Geisler and Turek wrote: “In light of these non-Christian references, the theory that Jesus never existed is clearly unreasonable. How could non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline congruent with the New Testament if Jesus never existed?” (Chapter 9, from the section, “The Gospel according to non-Christians,” p. 223; see also chapters 10 & 11; Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, The Sources, pp. 381-384)

In addition, Dr. Gary Habermas has documented seven archeological evidences congruent with and at least indirectly supporting the life of Jesus, PLUS a total of SIXTEEN non-Christian sources, writing about Jesus in the first and second centuries! (Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, College Press Publishing, 1996, especially chapters 8 & 9)

(15) Paul’s conversion supports Jesus

• By the circumstances and the inner convictions of Saul (Paul) at the time of his conversion: he was so furiously enraged at Christians (Acts 26:9-11) that he would not have been impressed with a Jesus-look-alike jumping out from behind the bushes with a torch in his hand! Only a supernatural event could have changed him, and this is exactly what he reported! (Acts 26:12-20) This cogently demonstrates that Jesus was a supernatural reality after His death by crucifixion. (In my second post and with the help of journalist Lee Strobel and medical doctor Alexander Metherell, we explored why Jesus exhibited on the cross the clear signs of death by crucifixion AND why, if he had somehow survived the cross, no one would have ever believed that he was the Son of God.) Cf. Geisler & Turek, Chapter 12; Drs. Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Part 2, Chapter 4, pp. 64-65, Kindle Locations 861-889; Dr. Michael Licona as quoted by Lee Strobel in The Case for the Real Jesus, Zondervan, 2007, Challenge 3, Part 1, p. 120, Kindle Locations 2136-2152.

(16) The early church fathers supported the NT documents

• By the extrabiblical attestations supporting the New Testament documents from the early church fathers, notably Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who together quoted (as authoritative) 25 of the 27 New Testament documents in AD 95, 107, and 110, respectively (the only NT documents left unquoted by these three were the epistles of Second John and Jude). Cf. Geisler & Turek, Chapter 9, “Are the New Testament Documents Early?” Habermas, The Historical Jesus, Chapter 10, Kindle Locations 4457–4685.

(17) The Christian Faith adds convictions to history

• This is not, strictly speaking, a historical proof; instead, it’s an inference derived FROM the preceding list of 16 evidences and inferences: namely, we can see that the Christian Faith (reflected in the scholarly disciplines of theology and apologetics) adds to the discipline of history the convictions that (1) the Bible accurately sets forth God’s existence and nature or character, and that (2) the Bible’s narratives and discourses are accurate. Both of these convictions are based on the underlying conviction that the biblical God, according to His nature as revealed in Scripture, would want to provide for us accurate information showing us how to live in His will on this Earth and how to live with Him in eternity. (Skeptics will cite seeming discrepancies in the biblical text, but these can be easily harmonized into a unified core story in both the Old and New Testaments. I discuss this core story on the home page, under the section “Evidence for the Bible.”)

(18) Jesus correctly affirmed the OT as divinely inspired

• This also is not a historical proof; instead, it’s another inference derived FROM the preceding list of evidences and inferences; specifically, since Jesus affirmed and accepted the Old Testament text as divinely inspired (Cf. Geisler & Turek, Chapter 14; e.g. Matthew 5:17-18; 22:31-32; Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-38; John 10:33-36), and since there are numerous historical evidences supporting Jesus as the resurrected Son of God (as I’ve indicated and as we’ll see further in this post and in the next two), He therefore told the truth.

Also consider the following reasoning: if God exists, isn’t He powerful enough to have revealed His truth to different persons in the past? And isn’t He wise enough to have arranged for this truth to be written down and to be collected into a book, so that each of could potentially read it—and have access to His truth? Christians believe that He has done this with the Bible, because of these and other numerous evidences (hopefully, we’ll get to all of them as time progresses).

4.5. A video mentioning some of the evidences

Here’s a video by Dr. William Lane Craig: Evidence for the Resurrection, in which he mentions a number of evidences, including the creed in First Corinthians 15:3-7. I’ve embedded this video into this blogpost page so that readers can play it right here, without going to the YouTube page.

Click (or tap) on the center of the following YouTube block to begin playing the embedded video:

If this video does not appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&reload=9&v=Z8lkuuhVkOI&t=172s.

5. Apologetics at universities and seminaries

By the way, Christian apologetics (or the examination and presentation of evidences and logical reasons supporting Christian theism) is now formally studied at a number of universities and seminaries.

Graduate schools now offering degree programs in Christian apologetics include:

• Biola University (La Mirada, California)
• Southern Evangelical Seminary (Matthews, North Carolina)
• Houston Baptist University (Houston, Texas)
• Liberty University (Lynchburg, Virginia)
• Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Kentucky)
• Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Kentucky & Wake Forest, North Carolina)
• Veritas Evangelical Seminary (Santa Ana, California)
• Denver Seminary (Littleton, Colorado)
• Luther Rice College & Seminary (Lithonia, Georgia)
• Westminster Theological Seminary (Glenside, Pennsylvania)
• Columbia Evangelical Seminary (Enumclaw, Washington)
• Oxford University (Oxford, England)

The source of this information is this website: https://thebestschools.org/rankings/top-10-graduate-programs-christian-apologetics/, which also has a list of the following schools which offer one or more apologetics courses, but have no graduate apologetics program:

• Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois)
• Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, Texas)
• Wheaton College Graduate School (Wheaton, Illinois)
• Moody Bible Institute (Chicago, Illinois)
• Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (Hamilton & Boston, Massachusetts; Charlotte, North Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida)
• Princeton Theological Seminary (Princeton, New Jersey)
• Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena, California)
• Azusa Pacific University–University College (Azusa, California)
• Reformed Theological Seminary (Jackson, Mississippi)
• Union University (Jackson, Tennessee)

6. Historical criteria or tests

Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, in their excellent lay-friendly book that I keep mentioning (I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist), described a number of criteria or tests that historians use to determine if a document probably records the truth of an event that actually occurred. These tests can be applied to many passages in the New Testament; as a result, these passages are seen as having enhanced historicity (historical authenticity).

Drs. Geisler and Turek list seven historical criteria as follows (in Chapter 9, in the section, “Question 2: Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?”):

1. Do we have early testimony? Generally, the earlier the sources (to the events described), the more accurate is the testimony.

2. Do we have eyewitness testimony? Eyewitness testimony is usually the best means of establishing what really happened.

3. Do we have testimony from multiple, independent, eyewitness sources? Multiple, independent eyewitnesses confirm that the events really occurred (they are not fiction), and provide additional details that a single source might miss. (True independent sources normally tell the same basic story but with differing details. Historians sometimes call this “coherence with dissimilarity.”)

4. Are the eyewitnesses trustworthy? Should you believe them? Character matters.

5. Do we have corroborating evidence from archaeology? This tends to confirm the veracity of an account.

6. Do we have enemy attestation? If opponents of the eyewitnesses admit certain facts the eyewitnesses affirm, then those facts are probably true (for example, if your mother says that you’re brave, that might be true; but it’s probably more credible if your archenemy says the same thing).

7. Does the testimony contain events or details that are embarrassing to the authors? Since most people do not like to record negative information about themselves, any testimony that makes the author look bad is probably true.

7. The positive importance of different details

To criterion #3 (above), I add the following, from the perspective of J. Warner Wallace, the well-known cold-case detective (appearing on TV shows like “Dateline”), who became a Christian because of evidences and reasons, one of which was the presence of different (but harmonize-able) details in the eyewitness accounts (about the same event), recorded by the various New Testament Gospel writers. He knew that real eyewitness testimonies always displayed (at least some) different details from one eyewitness to the next. (Multiple eyewitnesses, from various backgrounds, careers, and perspectives, tend to focus on different aspects of what occurred.)

If all of the testimonies (about the same event) had exactly the same details, one would suspect collusion—that the eyewitnesses had gotten together and agreed to tell the exact same story. But since multiple eyewitnesses tend to focus on different things, when several testimonies display different details, this actually points to the probable truthfulness of those eyewitnesses!

Different details, rather than detracting from the credibility of multiple eyewitnesses, should be seen as a POSITIVE indication that the event (that these eyewitnesses describe) likely occurred in reality—and this is exactly what J. Warner Wallace saw in the New Testament Gospels! This diversity of details (that can be harmonized to form a unified picture) inclined him to believe that the Gospel accounts were very-likely true, and this contributed to him becoming a Christian. (Cf. Cold-Case Christianity: a Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace, David C. Cook, 2013, Chapter 4, pp. 80-83, Kindle locations 1217-1266)

8. A video that conveys exactly this

Here’s an example of what J. Warner Wallace describes: The unintentional eyewitness support of the gospels. I’ve embedded this video into this blogpost page so that readers can play it right here, without going to the YouTube page.

Click (or tap) on the center of the following YouTube block to begin playing the embedded video:

If this video does not appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPoQIVi4T1k.

Another good video by J. Warner Wallace on the same subject is here: Is the Bible full of contradictions? (Answer: No!)

Inferences from the first video

Here’s an example of different details right from the first video: were there one or two angels present at the tomb (where Jesus was laid) on Sunday morning after His crucifixion? Matthew and Mark mention one (Matthew 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-7), while Luke and John mention two. (Luke 24:1-8; John 20:11-13)

Lee Strobel on the video said about the angels, “Where there’s two, there’s always one.” — And this is how such seeming discrepancies are harmonized: there were apparently two angels there, though Matthew and Mark mention only one. But the important point is that these different details are a typical characteristic of REAL multiple eyewitness testimonies—which therefore implies that the four New Testament Gospel accounts contain REAL eyewitness information—in this case, about Jesus’ Resurrection! These different details are a POSITIVE indicator of the truthfulness of the Gospel Resurrection accounts! (Other narratives in multiple New Testament Gospels have this characteristic as well.)

9. The input of Craig Blomberg and Hans Stier

Renowned New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg explained further and quoted classical historian Hans Stier in the process. Dr. Blomberg wrote of the New Testament Gospel accounts: “Certainly there is substantial overlap and agreement on main points, with the type of diversity in details one would expect when different writers reflect on the same events from their unique perspectives. The German classical historian Hans Stier makes this observation even about the resurrection narratives: agreements over basic data, coupled with divergence of detail ‘present for the historian for this very reason a criterion of extraordinary credibility. For if that were the fabrication of a congregation or of a similar group of people, then the tale would be consistently and obviously complete.’”

The above quote is from the anthology Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus, edited by Michael J. Wilkins & J. P. Moreland, Zondervan Academic, 2010, Chapter 1, p. 51, Kindle Locations 762-767. I (Roger) changed the text of the most pertinent clauses into bold. The quote by Hans Stier is from Moderne Exegese und historische Wissenschaft, p. 152, cited by Hugo Staudinger, in The Trustworthiness of the Gospels, Edinburgh: Handsel, 1981, p. 77.

Thus, diversity in details is something we should “expect when different writers reflect on the same events from their unique perspectives.” Also, “agreements over basic data, coupled with divergence of detail” are characteristics that give the Gospel accounts “extraordinary credibility.” If these accounts were fabrications, we should instead expect that they “would be consistently and obviously complete”—i.e. that all four accounts would have exactly the same words and details in the narratives and discourses that they share in common, which they do NOT! The fact that they don’t—that they instead have “divergence of detail”—coupled with their “agreements over basic data” gives these accounts “extraordinary credibility.”

10. Orientation statement

We have begun going over the evidences mentioned in section #4, particularly focusing on evidence #2, the different details mentioned in multiple eyewitness accounts which support their truthfulness and reliability. In Part 2, we’ll cover other evidences supporting the New Testament’s historical reliability—notably, Luke’s scrupulous accuracy and the circumstances of Paul’s conversion, which logically and cogently support the historicity of Christ’s supernatural-yet-physical Resurrection.

11. Following my blog and the featured image

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, within minutes after a new post is online.

---

The featured image

The featured image of this post (the photo at the top of the page, that’s behind the title) is of a Christian with his hands folded over an open Bible on a table. He is presumably praying. The open Bible implies that his prayer is to God, who is, of course, the main subject of the Bible.

12. Good and relevant videos

• Why should I believe God exists? At Clemson University, by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Remembering the hope of heaven – John Burke on Focus on the Family
• Image Heaven / John Burke on 100 Huntley Street
• Animated video from Reasonable Faith: Who did Jesus think He was?
• Animated video from Reasonable Faith: Did Jesus rise from the dead? — Part one: the facts
• Animated video from Reasonable Faith: Did Jesus rise from the dead? — Part two: the explanation
• Did the Resurrection really happen? by Dr. William Lane Craig
• 4 historical facts that prove that Jesus really did rise from the dead by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Yale 2014 by Dr. William Lane Craig