Dealing with those who oppose

Christianity is based on an event. All the teaching and all the doctrine come from this one historical event. It is of such importance that even the Bible says that without it, our faith is useless (1 Cor 15:14). This event is the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

In my dealings with those who doubt the stories of Christ, I have found that this event is argued against from two similar directions. There are those who argue that it cannot happen today, it breaks the laws of nature and therefore can never have happened. Then there are those who are slightly more open-minded and say simply that there is no evidence of the event we claim.

Now, I have dealt with the resurrection before on this blog and it is not my intention to do so again here. Rather, I would like to discuss the ‘there’s no evidence’ argument. I think that there is plenty of evidence and I would like to show that this evidence is not only sufficient, it is trustworthy.

Before I get to the main point of this post, perhaps we need to discuss what could possibly be admitted as evidence. I am a firm believer in the tenet of the law that things in a court should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If this standard is enough to convince a jury to either convict or free someone, it should be enough for the student of religion. Whilst studying history at university, I had, after all, learned that for the historian (and as I will show, we are studying an alleged historical event), objective, observable truth is impossible. We have to look at as much of the evidence as we can find and make our best guess. If you are looking for scientific evidence of the resurrection, you will not find it. Nor could you reasonably have hoped to do so. Science is based on observation and repetition. Given that the resurrection was a once and for all event, it can neither be observed nor repeated. We need to find different evidence. If we cannot observe it, we need to look at what the records say. What those who did observe it said and what they left behind. Having found these records, we need to do our best to corroborate or disprove these records.

Luckily, we have four records of the events and this is where I would like to look for the evidence. A different person wrote each of the four and each has some slight differences in detail. These differences are not a major issue but I shall be addressing them in a future post. Those who say that the resurrection didn’t happen, often would dismiss my argument right at this point. They say that the gospels cannot be trusted. They were written by illiterate Palestinian fishermen (such an insulting term and so patronising) many years after the purported events and with a great deal of bias.

'Illiterate and uneducated fishermen' is an insult. Not only is it patronising to assume that levels of incredulity were higher in the past (as if people in the past were more gullible!), it is simply wrong. Of the four widely accepted authors of the gospels, one was a fisherman (John the son of Zebedee). One was a Roman tax collector (Matthew), one was a doctor (Luke) and one was someone we know very little about. It is hardly fair to dismiss the gospels because of the educational level of their authors. I wonder how those who have not finished their post-graduate would feel if I were to dismiss them because they hadn’t been educated as far as I would like them to have been?

Likewise, the gospels were not written so long after the crucifixion. The date of Christ’s death is not known exactly but it seems likely to have been around AD33. UP until fairly recently, it was thought that the four gospels were written over 100 years later. There are to points to be made here. Firstly, even if this were the case, this is not a problem for other ancient sources. The earliest copy we have of Caesar’s Gallic Wars come from 900 years after the events recorded. We cannot say for certain that there were earlier copies yet nobody doubts their veracity. Secondly, this argument about the late writing of the gospels is simply wrong. Not only is it ridiculous when those who oppose the gospel stories themselves use and trust books written millennia after the events, the evidence simply doesn’t support the assertion.

There are clues to the dating of the gospels within the text itself. In Luke 21:6, Matthew 24:1 and Mark 13:1 Jesus prophesies that the temple will be destroyed. Now, the temple was destroyed and this fact is not mentioned. If the gospels were written after the event, surely the authors would have added it to show that Jesus was correct. Some would argue that the prophecy recorded is a subtle way to show that Jesus was mystical and that the readers of the gospels would have known that the temple had been destroyed. I don’t think that this is the case. Certainly Luke, who writes his gospel for a gentile readership, would have had to explain in more detail if this passage about the destruction of the temple was a fulfilled prophecy. It seems to me that the simplest solution to the ‘problem’ of the prophecy is that it was just that. Jesus was predicting what would happen. It is only those who are closed-minded and who deny the possibility of prophecy that would deny this.

The book of Acts is another clue to the dating of the gospels. It is undeniably the sequel to the gospel of Luke and he omits another key date. He does not mention the persecution of Christians (recorded elsewhere, in non-Christian sources) under the emperor Nero in AD64. During this, it is widely accepted that both Peter and Paul died in Rome. Neither of these deaths is recorded in Acts and nor is that of James the apostle two years before. Instead, Acts ends with Paul under House Arrest in Rome. If Luke is such a biased author with the aim of proselytising the world, surely he would have included the deaths of these martyrs to the faith. These heroes died and went to heaven and this would have been a great example. Instead, they are conspicuous by their absence. There are only two possible conclusions that can be drawn from this. Either Luke wasn’t an apologist and therefore was not biased (thus making him a trustworthy author) or Luke wrote his books before AD62 with the gospel being several years before these events (thus making him a trustworthy author).

Matthew and Luke are thought to be largely based on the gospel of Mark. They certainly contain a lot of the same information and this has more to say about the dating. Mark was not an apostle. He was not one of the twelve but he had access to one of them. It is thought to be based on the recollections of Peter. If this is the case, it is probable that it was written before AD64 when Peter died. If we then accept that Luke consulted Mark before making his studies, he must have written it well before Luke wrote his (which as we have seen must have been before AD62). There is compelling evidence that the earliest of the gospels was written in the period AD55-60 and this is only about 20 years after Christ died and rose again.

As to the bias of the authors, this is not in dispute. All of them were believers in Jesus and none of them were ashamed of it. The issue is, though, the extent to which this boas makes their writings untrustworthy. Many of the people with whom I have debated will utterly dismiss the gospels because of this bias. They argue that these works are meant to make you believe so they surely have exaggerated the good and missed out the bad etc. However, most authors have a purpose. Either they want to sell books or they want to convince the reader that they are right about something. I fail to see what makes the gospel writers any less reliable than other authors. If one wants to rile some of the more vocal opponents of Christianity, one could do little better than criticise Professor Richard Dawkins. To many, he is the arch-sage and the lone voice of reason. His works, they argue, are a valid refutation of religion and religious thought. This despite the fact that right at the start of The God Delusion, Dawkins himself states his hope that believers will pick up his book and by the time they have finished it, they will have become atheists. This is a far more explicit and biased statement than, say, Luke’s at the start of his gospel that he merely has tried to find out the truth. If someone wants to use Richard Dawkins’ points in a discussion, they have no right to exclude the far less biased gospels.

So, it seems that it is only fair to admit the gospels as evidence. They are records of the death and resurrection of Christ and there is nothing in their nature that should exclude them. I could go on about the four gospels but I would rather focus on just one of them. It is my favourite gospel and perhaps the most reliable of the four. The gospel of Luke. William Ramsay, a great archaeologist, who had a liberal theological training, believed Luke to be a late and untrustworthy gospel. He changed his mind. Luke was, he said ‘a historian of the first rank… unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness’.

What makes it so trustworthy? I believe that there are several reasons. Firstly, Luke starts his gospel with a declaration of purpose. He decided to write ‘an orderly account’ (1:3) so that we ‘may know the certainty of the things you have been taught’ (1:4). Luke wanted to tell the truth. He had after all ‘carefully investigated everything from the beginning’. This is good history (if it is carried out) finding facts, carefully investigating and simply telling the truth.
Luke is also good at giving us markers. He places everything in its proper historical context. Chapter 1 verse 5 gives us a date for Christ’s birth. It names Herod and Zechariah. These were verifiable people at specific times. Likewise he dates the birth to the time of a census decree by Caesar Augustus when Quirinius was governor. This has caused problems because very little evidence exists of either the census or Quirinius’ governorship. However, there is some evidence that supports it and certainly no evidence that directly refutes the claim. This is something that many opponents of Christianity do, they see the silence of the evidence and decide that their view is correct. It seems unfair when they will not allow Christians to make an argument from silence.

There are other markers as well. Lysanius the Tetrarch of Abiline is mentioned in Luke 3:11. For years this was seen as a flaw. The only Lysanius that could be found was, at the time mentioned in the gospel, ruler of Chalcis where he reigned from 40-36 BC. He was not known as a tetrarch either, in fact nobody had ever heard that title. However, an inscription from AD14-37 has been discovered which mentions Lysanius the Tetrarch of Abila near Damascus. It seems that Luke was right.

Furthermore, whilst Luke was not an eyewitness to the ministry of Christ, he certainly had access to those who were. This is particularly true of chapter 2 where he recounts the childhood of Jesus. In verse 51 he says that ‘his mother treasured all these things in her heart’. It seems to me that Luke would have included this because he spoke to Mary.

History isn’t an easy discipline. Sometimes we have to take a guess. We can’t ever say that X is certain but we can say that it is the most likely option. Much of what we guess at is taken on faith. At this point, many of those who oppose Christianity would start screaming ‘but you can’t argue based on no evidence’ (despite doing so themselves so often). However, the leap of faith I made with Luke’s gospel was based on evidence. Quite a lot of evidence as it turns out.

In studying Luke and Acts, I decided that if there was external evidence that parts of his gospel were true and that if there was no evidence directly refuting any of it, I could judge him as a trustworthy historian. If he was a trustworthy historian then why should I discount the rest of his story? The point is, one shouldn’t assume that he is lying about something just because there is a shortage of evidence, especially when those parts that are supported by evidence are so well supported.

Going back to Acts, we see more and more corroboration of the historicity of Luke. Archaeology supports Acts 18:12-17 which mentions Gallio Proconsul of Achaea. An inscription found at Delphi names ‘Lucius Julius Gallio, my friend and the proconsul of Achaia’. It is a letter from the emperor Claudius and is dated to AD52 that sits well with when Paul was supposed to be there. Then there is Erastus whom nobody believed until 1928 until an inscription was discovered describing him directly as Luke did. Luke names Plubius as the ‘first man of the island’ (Acts 28:7) and this has also been substantiated by archaeological discoveries.

Time and time again, Luke’s account has been proven right. All the supposed mistakes have proven not to be. Norman Geisler (Baker Encyclopaedia of Apologetics 1999 p47) says that ‘In all, Luke names 32 countries, 44 cities and 9 islands without error’. It leaves me with the thought that it would be absurd to dismiss the historical reliability of Luke.

So here is the point where one starts to begin leaping. Luke is trustworthy in all the small details (as are the other gospels but I don’t have the time to go into that here). As this is the case, surely that makes it ok to trust the bits that have not yet been substantiated with external evidence. Now I know that some people won’t do this as they need more evidence but I try and believe that if you want to walk on the water you have to get out of the boat.

If the leap is made, we find ourselves with an accurate, reliable and highly detailed record of the last days of Jesus. What a remarkable record it is and what a remarkable conclusion it leads us to. Luke’s well researched, well written and well attested gospel ends with a risen Christ. As Christ himself points out, these things were meant to happen. He said he was going to rise from the dead and he was right. If Luke is trustworthy (and I have proven to at ;east my satisfaction that he is) and this record is correct then surely all the other claims of Jesus made in Luke can be trusted. These claims include the biggest one of all. That Jesus Christ, the risen Son of God is Lord of all.