AN APOLOGETIC RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS CONCERNING THE HISTORICAL

TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY

DR. KEVIN MAXWELL

One of the common objections to the Christian faith comes in

the form of doubts concerning the historical truth of

Christianity. Defending the historicity of the Christian faith

should not be seen in a negative light. The ability to prove

historically the claims of Christianity is actually one of the

strengths of Christianity. We should never recoil from the

opportunity to defend our faith when there is so much supportive

evidence to share.

There have been ample scholarly books published that bring

into question the historical truths of Christianity. They provide

a number of opportunities for the Christian apologist to dispense

with those objections. This apologetic response paper will look

at some of the objections brought up in Michael Martin’s book,

1

The Case Against Christianity, and will offer an apologetic defense for

each objection. This will enable the reader to better evaluate

the evidence for himself and make an educated decision based on

the evidential support.

This response paper will address two main issues. The first

is the historicity of Jesus Himself. What is being questioned by

Martin is the existence of a historical figure which we know of

as Jesus Christ. It is true that most scholars do not deny the

historical existence of Jesus Christ but choose to attack some

aspect of His teaching or the writings which speak of Him.

Martin, however, questions the very existence of Jesus Christ. If

Martin were to be able to prove that Jesus Christ was not a true

historical figure then that would call into question every

teaching associated with and dependent on the historical figure

Jesus. The historical truth of Christianity would lose its

foundation because everything in Christianity is centered on the

message of Jesus Christ. Debunk the messenger and destroy the

message. The approach taken is to attack the internal integrity

of the gospels and their writers. If it can be shown that the

writers were not honest in their pursuit and transmission of the

2

truth then that calls into questions the message they were

presenting.

The second issue that will be addressed will flow from the

conclusion of the first. If Jesus can be shown to have been a

true historical figure, then we must assess His claims concerning

His identity. The most direct way is to investigate the claims of

His resurrection. Jesus’ teachings center on His message

concerning salvation and the process by which this salvation

would come to fruition. His miracles were used as validation of

His claims to deity. His message presented a hope or redemption

that would take place as He fulfilled His role as Messiah. That

role was not one of political salvation but one of spiritual

redemption and reconciliation of God to man. This would take

place by an atoning for sin which could only take place by one

who fulfilled the requirements that the Law demanded. This one as

Jesus taught would be God Himself paying the price and redeeming

man from his sin. Jesus was claiming to be God. It is this claim

that must be evaluated. Did Jesus through his death and

resurrection show evidence that he was the Son of God? Debunk the

3

resurrection and the whole of Jesus’ claims and message

collapses.

Martin appeals to a scholar by the name of G.A. Wells. Wells

bases his objections on the views of a number of Christian

theologians who state that the gospels were written by unknown

authors who did not personally know Jesus and who wrote some

forty to eighty years after Jesus’ supposed lifetime. He also

states that a lot of the material is legend and that the writers

of these gospels were influenced in what they wrote by their own

theological motives.1 Since the writers were influenced,

according to Wells, by their own motives, the only way to

validate the information is by an appeal to other independent

sources. What Wells is implying is that the gospels are called

into question because they cannot be verified by any sources

outside of Christian sources and the writers of these gospels are

suspect.

In the case of the dating of the gospels, a later dating

implies that the writings are too far removed from the event time

frames as given in the writings. Other writers such as Paul do

1 Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 38.

4

not mention the life of Christ in a way that shows that he was

aware of events that supposedly occurred in the first century

time frame given for Jesus. Martin states that, “It seems likely

then that Paul simply did not know what Jesus was supposed to

have taught according to the Gospels.”2 What Wells and Martin

seem to be implying is that if Jesus was a first century

individual then why is there silence from those Christian writers

that wrote prior to the gospels? Wells states that this all makes

more sense “if we accept that his earthly life in the 1st-century

Palestine was invented late in the 1st century.”3

What this objection implies is that writers such as Paul who

wrote prior to the writing of the gospels gave no evidence that

they knew anything of the teachings of Jesus. The gospel stories,

which were the foundational stories of the life of Jesus, are

portrayed by Wells as a myth of later invention. The question

then becomes, what is the origin of the early writers’ belief in

the existence of Jesus? The answer offered by Wells is that

2 Martin, 39.

3 Ibid.

5

Jewish Wisdom literature would have provided the inspiration for

many of the aspects of the Christian faith.4

Wells uses the Jewish Wisdom literature as a way of casting

doubt on the existence of a historical Jesus. Wells says that

there are stories of holy men being crucified in Palestine during

the first and second century B.C. The Talmud itself speaks of

Jesus living in the second century B.C.5 What Wells alludes to is

that the idea of Jesus was interpolated from earlier literature

and transmitted as a legend borrowing source material from early

Jewish literature. The end result is a transmission within the

gospels that is not based on facts but on legends.

How could an entire Christian community form around such

confusion? Wells contributes this to the destruction of Jerusalem

and the dispersion of the Jews. He states that under these

circumstances it would have been difficult to obtain accurate

information about what took place in the early first century. The

writing in the gospels would have been a collection of legend,

4 Ibid., 40.

5 Ibid.

6

speculations, and assumptions.6 If Wells is correct then this

would cast great doubt on the entire Christian faith.

In order to answer these objections, we must investigate

whether there is support for an earlier writing of the gospels,

whether authors such as Paul seemed to have a clear understanding

of the teachings concerning Jesus, and whether there is support

for the objection that Jesus is simply a legend extrapolated from

previous Jewish literature.

Wells gives a dating of the gospels to some forty to eighty

years after the supposed life of Christ. As stated earlier, he

also said they were written by unknown authors who did not

personally know Jesus. If it could be shown that the gospels have

an earlier dating and that some were written by eyewitnesses,

then that would call into question Wells’ position. There are

many scholars who provide evidence for an early dating of the

gospels. It is clear from internal evidence that an event such as

the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is not mentioned in the

gospels. Norman Geisler states that “if you and your fellow-

followers write accounts of Jesus after the temple and city were

6 Ibid., 41.

7

destroyed in A.D. 70, aren’t you going to at least mention that…

tragedy.”7 The gospels are a recounting of the life and teachings

of Christ. Christ prophecies the destruction of Jerusalem prior

to his death. If this event had taken place already by the

writing of the gospels, they would have been recorded as

fulfilled. Such an event would certainly have been newsworthy.

Another key point to consider is the writing of the Book of

Acts. The book of Acts ends with Paul awaiting his fate in Rome.

According to Clement of Rome, Paul was executed under Nero.

Nero’s reign ended in A.D. 68. We also know from Josephus that

James was killed in A.D. 62. This places the dating of Acts

before 62.8 If we know the dating of Acts then we can use

internal evidence from Acts to show that the gospel of Luke would

have been written prior to this A.D. 62 dating. Acts 1:1 refers

to a previous letter written to a certain Theophilus. The gospel

of Luke begins with a reference to this same Theophilus. This

would place the gospel of Luke prior to Acts and gives a dating

before A.D. 62.

7 Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton:Crossway Books, 2004), 237.8 Ibid., 240.

8

The gospel of Mark is considered to be the earliest of the

gospels since Luke says he got some of his material from other

eyewitness sources. Mark is considered by many to one of these

sources. Luke 1:1-2 states, “Many have undertaken to draw up an

account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as

they were handed down to us by those who from the first were

eyewitnesses and servants of the word.” This implies that

eyewitness sources were investigated to provide the source

material for Luke. Since there are many similarities in the

gospels of Mark and Luke, Mark is considered to be one of those

sources. This would allow for an even earlier dating than A.D. 62

for Mark. Geisler refers us also to the Dead Sea Scroll fragments

of Mark that date from A.D. 50-70.9

Geisler presents a list of over fifteen pieces of evidence

that point to an early dating for Acts. As stated earlier, if

Acts has an early date then the gospel of Luke would have an even

earlier date since it is written by the same author and addressed

to the same individual, Theophilus. Among those evidences are no

mention of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, no evidence of

9 Geisler and Turek, 241.

9

weakening relationship between Christians and Rome under Nero in

the late 60’s, no mention of the death of James in 62 A.D., the

tone of Acts does not seem to imply that it is being written in

the persecution times of Nero and there is a presence of Gentile

converts to Judaism which was not present in the latter days of

the Neronian persecution.10 These few examples provide ample

support for an early dating of Acts and subsequently the gospels.

This all means that the gospels would have been written

well within the lifetime of actual eyewitnesses that could have

refuted any incorrect data concerning the events of Jesus’ life.

It is highly unlikely that a legend could have been formed in

such a short period of time and without serious objections from

contemporaries of Jesus. This severely threatens Wells’ argument.

Now concerning the lack of individuals such as Paul to

address specifics concerning the teachings of Jesus, the

following response is given. Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson

tackle this issue in their book Evidence for the Historical Jesus. They

offer the following response to Wells. Paul’s intent was not to

10 Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 528.

10

communicate historical information concerning Jesus because he

was aware that this was already underway by individuals much more

qualified than himself. He did visit Peter and others and his

ministry was confirmed by them. He was concentrating on the

resurrected Jesus and the response that the Christian life must

take towards Him.11 Scripture does say that Paul openly admits,

“I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I

received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:12).

Paul is referencing the gospel message. The fact that it was

affirmed by other apostles in Jerusalem shows that the message of

Paul was complete in its doctrinal message or the apostles would

not have confirmed it.

Another problem with Wells’ argument addresses his

statements concerning the lack of Pauline referencing of the

teachings of Jesus. Wells teaches that this implies that Paul

knew nothing about any such lessons or teachings. McDowell states

that when Paul addresses the Corinthians in the proper observance

of the Lord’s Supper, he uses the rabbinic practice of using

terms such as “receiving and delivering of a sacred trust.” Paul

11Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, Evidence for the Historical Jesus (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers,1993), 162-163.

11

was transmitting information that had been given to him by direct

revelation from Christ. He did so not as in the transmitting of

some legend or folklore, but in transmitting a sacred trust.”12

Just because Paul states that he received his message not from

man but from Jesus Himself, this does not imply that he refused

to consult other sources.

There are pre-Pauline creeds and hymns included in Paul’s

writings. Examples are Romans 1:3,4; 1 Corinthians 11:23ff;

Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-18; 1 Timothy 3:16. They

predate Paul’s writings and address issues concerning the deity

and resurrection of Jesus. These creeds date then from 33 to 48

A.D.13 Paul’s use of such creeds and hymns helps solidify the

historical basis of his referencing of Jesus. He does not present

himself as someone who knows little of Jesus as Wells suggest.

His letters reveal a teacher relating the truths of Jesus using

personally received revelations, eyewitness confirmations, and

creeds predating his own writing. McDowell closes his argument

by quoting Moreland “the idea of a fully divine, miracle- working12Ibid., 163.

13 J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 148-149, quoted in McDowell and Wilson, 164-165.

12

Jesus who rose from the dead was present during the first decade

of Christianity. Such a view was not a legend which arose several

decades after the crucifixion.”14

One last compelling thought from McDowell is in reference

to a creed 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. Paul adds to the end of that

creed the following statement, “…most of whom remain until now,

but some have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:6). He is referring to

witnesses of the events of Jesus’ life. No one apparently

oblivious to any events concerning a first century Jesus would

include such a statement. It is too easy to verify facts when

eyewitnesses are still able to be consulted. Paul’s inclusion of

this statement portrays an intentional desire that anyone

debating the authenticity of his historical records could simply

inquire of those still alive concerning these events.

Other New Testament writers also address the issue that the

message they preached and wrote about was not one that was made

up but was eye-witnessed or was orally received from

contemporaries of Jesus.

14 Ibid.

13

Luke 1:1-3; “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of

the things that have been fulfilled] among us, 2 just as they

were handed down to us by those who from the first were

eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since

I myself have carefully investigated everything from the

beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you,

most excellent Theophilus” (Lk 1:1-3 NIV). Luke here mentions the

fact that these accounts were handed down to him by eyewitnesses.

Luke acted as a reporter looking for primary sources as his

support for what he was writing.

2 Peter 1:16; “For we did not follow cleverly devised

stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus

Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pt.

1:16 NIV). Peter seems to be offering an apologetic defense

against any who would claim that the teachings concerning Jesus

were merely legends or made up stories.

1 John 1:3; “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard,

so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship

is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:3).

14

John claims here a direct eyewitness account of the events

surrounding Jesus Christ.

John 19:35; “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his

testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he

testifies so that you also may believe” (Jn. 19:35). John

understands the human need for evidence to support faith. He is

not asking us to believe without evidence. He testifies of that

truth so that others may believe.

In conclusion, it is obvious that Paul knew of a man named

Jesus who lived in the first century A.D. The gospel letters are

not to be dated after 70 A.D. and into the second century A.D.

There is ample internal evidence that speaks against such a

dating. This disallows the possibility that the facts concerning

Jesus were a later interpretation from earlier Jewish literature

and mere legend. They represent factual historical information

that was easily verifiable by eyewitnesses that were still alive

and could quickly identify and attempt to halt any doctrinal or

historical teachings contrary to the facts. Also internal

evidence speaks to other New Testament writers stressing that

15

their information was from reliable sources, either eyewitnessed

or received by contemporaries of the events.

In addition to the internal evidence, there is external

evidence that speaks of the historical truths concerning the

existence of a man named Jesus Christ. Martin attacks some of the

external references to Jesus from historical sources such as

Josephus, Tacitus, the Talmud, and others. Josephus references

the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and also a Jesus’ name

is referenced as the brother of James in his work Antiquities of the

Jews. Martin believes this to be a Christian interpolation

because it does not seem to fit with the context of the writing

or with the worldview perspective of the author. Martin also

questions why only two references by Josephus if he really was so

important to Jewish history.15 Most scholars do accept the James

passage because it is “too non-committal” to have been a later

Christian interpolation. Origen also refers to this statement as

well which dates it before A.D. 200. 16

15 Martin, 48.

16 McDowell and Wilson, 36.

16

McDowell states that “Most scholars agree on one other point

concerning Josephus’ reference to Jesus in conjunction with

James. Winter puts it: ‘If …Josephus referred to James as being

‘the brother of Jesus who is called Christ’, without more ado, we

have to assume that in an earlier passage he had already told his

readers about Jesus himself.’”17 This seems to make logical

sense. Had Josephus not have mentioned more specifics concerning

Jesus at a previous time in his writing, he certainly would have

provided more of an introduction to identify this Jesus. Jesus

was a common name so clarity would have been needed. It adds to

the likelihood that the passage concerning the Resurrection of

Jesus is also a valid passage from Josephus.

The statement concerning Christians written by Tacitus is

also cited as a Christian interpolation. Tacitus states that

Christians were targeted by Nero to explain the cause of the

fires in Rome. Tacitus writes, “Nero fastened the guilt and

inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their

abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from 17 Paul Winter, “Excursus II- Josephus on Jesus and James.” In Schurer, Emil, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, vol. I. Revised and edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar, (Edinburg: T&T. Clark, 1973), 432, quoted in McDowell and Wilson, 37.

17

whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during

the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators,

Pontius Pilatus…”18 This passage has been scrutinized by

individuals such as Martin who questions whether “Tacitus was not

simply repeating information that he obtained from Christian

sources…”19 Some of the problems Martin addresses is why Tacitus

uses the wrong title for Pilate and why he uses the term Christos

which would be a reference to the Messiah which he doubts would

have been found in Roman archives. Martin therefore concludes

that the reference by Tacitus does not represent an independent

source of information concerning the historical nature of

Jesus.20

In a defense of the Tacitus passage, McDowell says that if

Tacitus had referred to Jesus by his name, then he would have had

to explain how Jesus is related to Christians and if this had

been a Christian source material then they would have used Jesus

or Christ Jesus as a reference In reference to the supposedly

18 Tacitus, Annals 15.44.

19 Martin, 51.

20 Ibid.

18

incorrect title for Pilate, perhaps Tacitus was simply using the

modern day title for clarity for his readers.21 There is no

reason to accept that an historian such as Tacitus would simply

record information from a Christian source. This would not

benefit him in any way. Also, Tacitus records later in Annals

15.44 a negative view of Christians. Tacitus writes, “…and a most

mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again

broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but

even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every

part of the world find their centre and become popular.”22

This statement from Tacitus does not show any reason for

believing that he would have allowed Christians to dictate any

part of his historical account. Tacitus appears to have regarded

Christianity as an evil superstition. It is highly unlikely that

Tacitus is recording anything but the truth as he knew it. This

strongly reinforces that Tacitus does stand as an independent

witness of the historicity of Jesus Christ.

21 McDowell and Wilson, 47.

22 Tacitus, Annals 15.44.

19

Martin also addresses Suetonius who mentions an “agitator

names Chrestus.”23 Suetonius writes that “Since the Jews

constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus,

[Emperor Claudius in A.D. 49] expelled them from Rome.”24 Martin

asserts that it is unlikely that this refers to Jesus because

Chrestus was the Latin form of a common Greek name. If it

referred to Jesus Christ it should have been spelled Christus.25

Therefore, what we have in this incident would be an incorrect

referencing of Jesus Christ. The agitator would have been an

individual by the name of Chrestus. What is being proposed is

that we are not referencing the Christ of the New Testament but

an unrelated individual by the name of Chrestus.

McDowell points out a reference in Acts 18 to Aquila and

Priscilla who were Jews that had been expelled from Rome under

Claudius. The recorder of the incident would have been told that

the hostilities were at the instigation of Christus. Having never

heard this name, the reporter could have incorrectly recorded

23 Martin, 51.

24 Seutonius, Life of Claudius .25.4.

25 Martin, 52.

20

Chrestus which was a name he was familiar with. When Suetonius

reviewed this record years later, he would have recorded the name

Chrestus from the record incorrectly written years earlier.26

This would mean a simple continuation of a spelling error and not

an incorrect referencing of persons.

It must be noted that a recording of this event in Acts 18

that corresponds historically with the Roman historical records

of that time does provide sufficient evidence to conclude that

the two recordings are referencing the same event. This is an

instance where secular writings coincide with Christian

historical writings which strengthen their historicity. If we go

with the most likely interpretation, the historical reference in

Acts 18 coinciding with Roman historical records strengthens the

case that this is referencing the Christ of the New Testament.

Martin also questions why there is no earlier rabbinical

literature that mentions Jesus. He states that the earliest

mentions in the Talmud of Jesus are from the second century

A.D.27 Moreover; the historical account from these writings

26 McDowell and Wilson, 50.27 Martin, 50.

21

contradicts the gospels. They present a Jesus that is over one

hundred years before the Jesus of the gospels and does not match

up with the description of Jesus found in the gospels. The Jesus

mentioned in the Talmud is identified as a magician and heretic.

The same can be said of the Tol’doth Jesu which is a later

Talmudic writing and speaks of a Jesus who was not virgin born or

resurrected.28

Martin uses these passages to stress his legend theory

concerning Jesus. Since these writings supposedly represent

independent information concerning a Jesus from a hundred years

earlier than the life of the Jesus of the gospels, this calls

into question the historical nature of the Jesus of the gospels.

The difficulty with this assumption is that the Talmudic

writings spoken of here are dated into the second century A.D.

Why could it not be just as feasible that the Talmudic writings

are presenting legendary material since they are so far removed

from the apparent historical events? Some of the references

equated with Jesus are highly disputed and unreliable. Martin

references Yeshu ben Pantera in the Talmud whose mother was Mary

28 Ibid.

22

Magdala and who was crucified in B.C. 126.29 This was an apparent

attempt at showing that there were references to a crucified

Jesus dating back to the B.C. times.

The problem with this interpretation is that the writings

never identify Ben Pantera with Jesus and that this story

actually references the Egyptian mentioned in Acts 21:38 and was

spoken of by Josephus in Antiquities 20.8.6.30 What this shows is

that confusion in stories has taken place in the Talmudic

passages. So it appears that interpretations of the Talmudic

stories are incorrectly associated with the Jesus of the gospels.

In the Toledoth Yeshu, a drastically different picture of

Jesus is presented. Jesus is presented as an illegitimate child

who used sorcery to perform miracles and signs. He battles Yehuda

Iskarioto in the sky and loses. He was eventually arrested and

hanged on a cabbage stem. His body was removed from its burial

place and thrown in a water channel. His disciples claimed he had

resurrected. Rabbi Tanchuma finds the body and sheds light on the

29 Ibid.

30 McDowell and Wilson, 58.

23

hoax. His disciples flee and spread this religion around the

world.

An immediate problem with this story is that Rabbi Tachuma

lived some four hundred years after Jesus according to history.

It is obvious that this story does not portray historical

information concerning the Jesus of the gospels. The writing of

the Toledoth Yesu dates to perhaps the fifth century A.D.31 This

late writing coupled with the purely imaginative story and the

historical inaccuracies makes this narrative lack authority. The

continued use of this narrative to shed doubt on the historical

Jesus of the gospels is simply poor historical criticism and

inquiry.

While some of the later rabbinical literature is negative

toward Jesus, the earliest rabbinical teachings are “not as

bitter and hostile as that of the later rabbis.” The most

revealing information is that they do validate the historical

existence of Jesus of Nazareth.32 The earlier rabbinical writings

do validate historical references to things such as a following

31 Ibid., 61.

32 Ibid., 67.

24

among the Jews, Jewish involvement in His death, and healing

events.33

What we see in the rabbinical literature is that early

writings are seen as more reliable in presenting aspects of the

facts concerning the Jesus of Nazareth. While some of the

historical information is misleading and inaccurate, it does help

to establish that there was a true historical Jesus of Nazareth.

The later rabbinical writings carry too much of a legendary tone

with much more inaccuracies and obvious embellishments. France

concludes that “Uncomplimentary as it is, this is at least, in a

distorted way, evidence for the impact Jesus’ miracles and

teaching made.”34 The rabbinical literature in the Talmud reveals

that the writers did not think Jesus was a myth or a legend. This

speaks directly against the views of Wells.

The evidence shown thus far, points to the general

acceptance that there was a Jesus Christ who lived during the

first century A.D. There is evidence internal and external that

addresses the historical reality of such an individual based on a

33 Ibid., 62-64.

34 R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press,1986), 39, quoted in McDowell and Wilson , 67.

25

preponderance of the evidence. What needs to now be addressed is

His claim to be the Son of God, indeed equal with God. This will

need to be approached by investigating his most direct claim of

Christianity. That claim is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As

was stated earlier, debunk the claims of the Resurrection and

Christianity will collapse. If Jesus was who He claimed to be

then the evidence for those claims would pivot on the

resurrection. If there was no resurrection, then every other

teaching of Jesus would lose its foundation of truth.

Martin starts his attack on the resurrection by stating that

the resurrection of Jesus could have taken place by natural means

which are yet to be understood or discovered scientifically. He

holds that in the future, we may discover the scientific and

natural laws which brought about this resurrection.35 There are a

couple of interesting facts to mention here. It is interesting

how Martin earlier on in his book questions the historicity of

Jesus but now in his section on the resurrection he accepts it by

even attempting to question the resurrection and to offer

evidence from science for how it happened would be forthcoming.

35 Martin, 74.

26

It is difficult to defend against the resurrection of someone who

you claim to have never existed. His chapter on resurrection

presupposes the historical reality of Jesus.

When he states that scientific evidence for the resurrection

would be forthcoming, he commits an argument to the future

fallacy. We cannot claim as part of our present evidence against

something that future evidence will prove our point. We have to

first dispel with present evidence and not appeal to something

that may be forthcoming in the future. This would be the same

thing as if someone claimed that evolution is true and stated

that one day in the future we will find those transitional forms

to prove it true. Proof for an argument must come from presently

available evidences. So we can immediate disregard this approach

by Martin as poor argument.

Next he attacks the resurrection by claiming that deceit was

a motive. Martin states that “Deception, fraud, or trickery can

also make it appear as if a conflict has occurred…they could make

such claims and by various tricks deceive a gullible public into

believing them.36 Once again, Martin is offering an assertion and

36 Ibid., 75.

27

not an argument. There is no evidence being presented for his

statements. On the contrary, a quick perusal of the actions of

the early Christians would point to the fact that they believed

that what they were proclaiming was true. If they were attempting

to deceive or use trickery, they deceived themselves. What

benefit would they receive by attempting such a deception? Let us

list a few. They endured persecution, were dispersed from their

homes, suffered ridicule and hate, and gave their lives for their

belief. Would someone who knew the truths of the events

surrounding Jesus death and resurrection subject themselves to

such treatment if it was in their power to stop it?

Craig states that “Without the belief in the resurrection

the Christian faith could not have come into being. The disciples

would have remained crushed and defeated men. Even had they

continued to remember Jesus as their beloved teacher, his

crucifixion would have forever silenced any hopes of his being

the Messiah.”37

37 William L. Craig, Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1981), 116-117.

28

Taking this quote into consideration, how could we

understand the actions of the disciples if they knew this was a

deception or fraud? Are we to believe that they knowingly died

for a lie? We would not have seen empowered preaching associated

with a known deception. When Martin claims that deception is a

possibility, he fails to address the historical evidence of the

change in the early Christians and their zeal for their message.

This zeal led them to sacrifice everything including their lives.

Martin’s assertion of deceit carries no evidential weight since

it provides no supporting evidence, it too is disallowed in the

discussion of the truthfulness of the resurrection.

Martin then proceeds to attack the validity of the

resurrection on psychological grounds. Martin states that

“religious attitudes often foster uncritical belief and

acceptance. Indeed, in religious contexts uncritical belief is

often thought to be a value, while doubt and skepticism are

considered vices.”38 Again, Martin continues with the assertions

without argumentative supports. While it may be true that some do

not investigate truth claims, that does not mean that all fail to

38 Martin, 75.

29

investigate their held beliefs. Christianity offers many examples

of how the early followers investigated their beliefs and offered

support. The field of apologetics is an example of this endeavor.

Paul uses apologetics in his evangelism. He did not call for an

uninvestigated belief. He actually commended the Bereans for

researching the words he spoke to them. Paul makes this claim in

1 Thessalonians 5:20, “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but

test them all; hold on to what is good, reject every kind of

evil” (1 Thess. 5:20). This is a call to test or investigate

claims not to blindly accept all alleged truth without validating

it. It actually calls for a rejecting of false claims.

1 Peter 3:15 states, “But in your hearts revere Christ as

Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks

you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this

with gentleness and respect…(1 Peter 3:15). The call for prepared

reasoning for our beliefs is clear in Scripture. In order to have

a reason for our beliefs, we have to have investigated their

claims in order to be prepared to defend. You cannot defend what

you blindly accept without reason.

30

Luke 1:1-3 offers this defense. Luke writes, “Many have

undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been

fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those

who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated

everything from the beginning…” (Lk 1:1-3 NIV). Why didn’t Luke

just accept the accounts without investigation? Luke wanted to

present his friend Theophilus with a truthful account so that he

would be able to believe with reason and faith.

These biblical references point to the truth that the early

followers were not just gullible believers but were intentional

disciples who researched in order to defend and share the truths

of Jesus Christ. They never called for a blind acceptance but

offered proofs. If God had expected belief without evidence, then

He would have never provided any miracles to substantiate the

claims of Christ. Martin therefore is unwarranted in his claims

that Christians were just gullible believers.

Martin then attacks the reasoning behind the writing of the

Resurrection stories in the gospels. He quotes Reginald Fuller

who states that the Gospel narratives “can no longer be read as

31

direct accounts of what happened, but rather as vehicles of

proclamation. Such was their original intention…”39 Martin then

goes on to add that “if the Gospel stories of the Resurrection

were indeed shaped by the purposes of the evangelists and

intended as vehicles of proclamation…we should be suspicious of

their reliability.”40 Martin has taken an historical document and

attempted to turn it into Christian propaganda again without any

evidence to support this claim. This is a large leap and it must

be understood that the burden of proof is on the one making the

claim. Martin offers no such proof.

The supposed inconsistencies in the gospel message accounts

are accepted by Martin to be ample reason to doubt the historical

accuracy of the gospel stories. Martin evaluates the specific

instances in the gospels where the story writers offer differing

specifics concerning the events at the tomb. Martin speaks of the

specifics of when the stone is moved away and the different

versions which speak of varying angel appearances as well as the

39 Reginald Horace Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 172-173, quoted in Martin, 77.

40 Martin, 78.

32

individuals present at the tomb.41 Martin sums up his objections

by stating that “the accounts of what happened at the tomb are

either inconsistent or can only be made consistent with the aid

of implausible interpretations. Without such interpretations they

simply could not all be true.”42

Norman Geisler offers an explanation for these supposed

contradictions. Historians use the term “coherence with

dissimilarity” to relate to eyewitness events that tell the same

story but with differing details.43 Multiple eyewitnesses that

relate similar stories with some dissimilar details actually

strengthen the case. Each viewer of an event observes an event

from their particular perspective and vantage point. When an

investigator interrogates witnesses to a crime, he will look for

dissimilarity in their stories. If the stories relate exactly the

same details, then there remains the possibility that coercion

has taken place and that the stories have been rehearsed. The

same can be true in the cases of the gospel stories. The writers

41 Ibid., 78-79.

42 Ibid., 81.

43 Geisler and Turek, 231.

33

are recording the viewpoints of multiple witnesses. They would of

course contain slight differences in the story.

Simon Greenleaf a famous Harvard lawyer was converted to

Christianity based on reviewing the evidence presented by the

Gospel writers. He concluded that “Copies which had been as

universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels, would

have been received in evidence in any court of justice, without

the slightest hesitation.”44 The reasoning behind this is that

the gospels can be harmonized to a point that still shows no

collusion of the events. A too perfectly harmonized story would

cause suspicion rather than dispel it.

Now that the integrity of the story has been shown to be

strong and historically sound, we will now turn to a discussion

of some of the ways in which the facts of the Resurrection itself

have been challenged. An interesting fact concerning the

arguments against the Resurrection is that they are repetitive.

Arguments against the Resurrection have been asked and answered,

yet these same objections keep showing up.

44 Geisler, 649.

34

Martin suggests that the only eyewitness account of Jesus’

postresurrection was Paul. The rest are only second and third

hand reports. He then attacks Paul’s vision as hallucinatory.45

This of course is inaccurate. John 20 records that the disciple

whom Jesus loved was also present at the empty tomb. He later in

his Gospel in John 21 discloses that this beloved disciple is an

“eyewitness to and writer of the things recorded in the Gospel…At

face value the statement says that the Beloved Disciple is the

author of the Gospel and saw personally what is recorded in

it.”46 It is obvious that Martin is incorrect in trying to claim

that there are no independent eyewitnesses to the Resurrection.

If Martin could show that Paul was the only eyewitness of the

Resurrected Jesus, then he would only have to attack Paul’s

story. This however is not allotted to Martin.

Concerning the hallucinatory accusation against Paul, Martin

makes this claim. “It is unclear from this if Paul’s experience

was that of an embodied Jesus and, if it was an experience of a

body, if other people would have had a similar experience if they

45 Martin, 81-82.

46 Craig, 77-78.

35

had been similarly situated…Thus we have no good reason to

suppose that Paul’s experience was not a hallucination.”47

Because Paul records seeing a light and hearing a voice, Martin

says it is unclear as to whether this was a hallucination or a

true vision of the risen Jesus. Martin then goes further and

suggests that “Paul, no less than other early Christians, could

have constructed stories that furthered his own purpose of

spreading Christianity.”48

The question that needs to be asked of Martin is why. Why

would Paul desire to further the spread of Christianity when he

was intent on destroying the Christian church? What would change

a man such as Paul from destruction to collaboration? Ludemann,

in his book The Resurrection of Jesus, also claims hallucination as the

answer. Ludemann asserts that Paul “had a guilt complex because

he struggled under the Jewish law and its demands. So he

hallucinated Jesus on the Damascus Road.”49

47 Martin, 82.48 Ibid., 83.

49 Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli eds., Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 49.

36

Comparing these two accusations, it is easy to see that

these assertions do not offer the best of explanation. They are

once again merely assertions and not arguments. Based on what we

know of Paul’s life, it is not easily accepted that Paul was

suffering any guilt since he himself believed that what he was

doing was preserving the truths of Judaism against the teachings

of Christianity.

William Lane Craig gives criterion that must be used to

evaluate arguments against the Resurrection. He says to ask the

following questions. “Does it have great explanatory

scope?...Does it have great explanatory power?...Is it

plausible?...”50 When these questions are applied to the before

mentioned assertions, it becomes clear that they do not meet this

criterion. For Paul to change as he did, there had to be some

greater reason than a guilty conscience and a vivid imagination.

When Paul’s teachings are compared to the other Christian writers

of the New Testament, they correlate well. Paul does not come

across in his letters as one who was struggling with internal

guilt surrounding the Jewish law. He even at times subjected

50 Ibid., 49-50.

37

himself to that law in order to show that his actions were not an

attack on Jewish law but that his hope in Jesus was a fulfillment

of the hopes of Judaism. The Messiah had come. In Acts 21:21-26,

Luke records that Paul willingly went through the purification

rites of the Jews in order to show that he was not attacking

Jewish law. Paul’s conversion to Christianity was not reactionary

but was due to a true experience with the risen Jesus. This is

the best explanation of the events.

One of the most compelling of all of the proofs for the

Resurrection centers on the responses of the early followers of

Christ. The disciples were willing to die for their belief in the

risen Christ. Eleven of the twelve disciples died a martyr’s

death for their beliefs. Arguments can be made that there is no

independent eyewitness accounts from these disciples written by

their own hands but as has been shown this is incorrect. Even if

it were true and we only had second hand accounts written, that

would not change the historical fact that these men were willing

to die for what they knew to be true.

Martin attacks this proof by claiming that Christians are

not the only ones willing to die for their beliefs. He states

38

that “People who have not claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus’

appearances have also been transformed into people who were

willing to die for their Christian beliefs. In addition,

Christian heretics have been willing to die for their beliefs.

Let us not forget either that Muslims. Mormons… and many others

have been willing to die for what they believed.”51

What Martin is failing to understand here is that the early

disciples were willing to die for what they knew to be true, not

what they had accepted as true. They were eyewitnesses of the

risen Jesus. Had they been attempting to deceive, they would have

never let that deception lead to their deaths. Individuals such

as Muslims and Mormons are willing to die for what they have been

told is true. There is a major difference here. No man will die

for what they know to be a lie.

Built on the previous statements concerning what the

disciples had personally witnessed, some have even proposed the

idea of a mass hallucination. Martin suggests the possibility

that collective delusions or mass hysteria could account for the

51 Martin, 91.

39

Resurrection stories.52 He quotes Hines, “a significant part of

the population of an area, which can be as small as a single

building or as large as a nation, becomes convinced that some

strange event is taking place for which there is no immediately

obvious explanation…Sometimes paranormal…causes are proposed and

accepted.”53 Martin would have us accept that the events of the

Resurrection could be explained away by simply creating a mass

hysteria. The early believers convinced themselves

psychologically that a Resurrection had taken place.

One way to dispense with this argument is to recall that the

early followers of Christ were just as shocked at the crucifixion

as anyone else. They were not looking for a resurrection. They

were hiding away in an upper room. They were surely disillusioned

and in despair. Even when they received word of a resurrection,

they doubted it. Jumping to the conclusion that a resurrection

had taken place would not have been their first response. As Lane

states, “They did not expect Jesus to come back to life. As far

52 Martin, 92.

53 Terrance Hines, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1988), 278-279, quoted in Martin, 93.

40

as they were concerned, the last act of the tragedy had been

played, and the show was over.”54

Craig states that the hallucination hypothesis could not

explain how the Gospel stories could have developed in such a

short time and with such physical details. There were many

appearances of Jesus under different circumstances. More

compelling is that fact that hallucinations do not provide any

new information because hallucinations are a projection of the

individual’s mind. They do not create totally new experiences.55

Regardless of any of this discussion concerning

hallucinations, the evidence of an empty tomb must still be dealt

with. If there is no explanation for the empty tomb then it makes

sense to go with the most comprehensive and complete explanation

of the facts.

The next claim by Martin is that perhaps a deception was

made by some outside group or persons in order to perpetuate a

fraud on the disciples making them suppose that they had seen

Jesus after his death. Martin continues to state that there is as

54 Craig, 109.

55 Ibid., 110.

41

much a possibility of this scenario as for the Resurrection

story.56 Martin continues a bad habit of making assumptions in

order to spread doubt. Martin still fails to answer any of the

questions pertaining to the actions of the early followers.

Martin pieces together conspiracy theories, possible fraud

attempts, mass hallucinations and the like to try and create a

plausible explanation against the Resurrection. The outcome of

this attempt is speculation after speculation without any

supportive walls.

One last attempt by Martin is to attack whether the

Resurrection proves anything anyways. If the Resurrection were an

accurate historical event, does that prove Jesus’ claims to

deity? Martin goes as far as to state that miracles such as the

Resurrection “could be brought about by a supernatural being who

was not God. Thus, it would be perfectly consistent for an

atheist in the narrow sense to believe that Jesus was restored to

life.”57

56 Martin, 95.

57 Ibid., 97.

42

Proof of a Resurrection does not imply evidence for a

Christian God or that Jesus was his Son. Martin states that “it

is not implausible to suppose that although having supernatural

powers is a necessary condition for being a god it is not a

sufficient cause. If this is correct, then disbelief in a god or

gods is compatible with belief in supernatural beings.”58

It becomes apparent that the rejection that Martin seems to

have is against the Christian God Himself. He does not have a

problem holding to some other supernatural being being

responsible for miracles such as the Resurrection. He just does

not see this possibility in Jesus Christ. He asks the following

question. “What sort of evidence would make it probably that God,

rather than some other supernatural being, was the cause of the

Resurrection?”59 The answer to his question is obvious. It would

take a collection of evidence that when put together would offer

the most comprehensive and plausible answer that offers the most

explanatory power. This follows the criterion mentioned earlier

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid., 98.

43

by Craig. Christianity offers the best explanation for the facts

at hand.

Martin closes his argument on the Resurrection by stating

that if there is a God, he could have accomplished his task. He

concludes that if God is all powerful there is an” indefinite

number of ways that he could have carried out his purpose. For

example, instead of dying on the cross, Jesus could have become

transformed into an obviously heavenly being.”60

This final assertion from Martin shows clearly that Martin

has no idea of the true redemptive plan of God. Tracing

throughout the entire Old and New Testament is the redemptive

story of the need for the shedding of blood for the remission of

sin. Jesus was fulfilling exactly those demands. There had to be

a perfect sacrifice for the sins of men. God offers Himself

through His Son Jesus Christ. Martin has no understanding of the

basic doctrines of the Bible. It is therefore not surprising that

his work lacks any clarity or argumentative power. He doesn’t

even understand the teachings of his opponent.

60 Ibid., 99.

44

This research paper has shown that there is ample evidence

to support the historical nature of the Christian faith. Jesus

Christ is a true historical figure that is supported by internal

and external evidence. The message from the Gospels and the

letters of the New Testament provide a cohesive and comprehensive

story relating the truths of Christianity. As far as the

Resurrection is concerned, the New Testament offers the best

explanation for the events. No other opposing argument offers the

strength of claim that we see in the New Testament accounts. The

willingness of the followers to die for their beliefs is among

the strongest of the evidences. What we are left with is a high

degree of certainty concerning the historical truth of

Christianity.

45

46

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Copan, Paul and Ronald K. Tacelli eds. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or

Figment? A

Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann. Downer’s Grove:

InterVarsity

Press, 2000.

Craig, William L. Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection. Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1981.

Geisler , Norman L. and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an

Atheist.

Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand

Rapids: Baker

Books, 1999.

Martin , Michael. The Case Against Christianity. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press, 1991.

McDowell, Josh and Bill Wilson. Evidence for the Historical Jesus.

Eugene: Harvest

47

House Publishers,1993.