I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (52 page)

The Disciples’ Faith Led Their Belief in the Resurrection—
John Dominic Crossan is cofounder of the far-left group of scholars and critics who call themselves “The Jesus Seminar.” They have decided that only 18 percent of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are authentic (for more on them see appendix 3). They don’t give any real evidence for this skepticism, just speculative theories about how the faith of the disciples led to their belief in the Resurrection and just about everything else in the New Testament.

This theory was brought out well during the debate Crossan had with William Lane Craig over the Resurrection. Crossan offered the theory that the disciples made up the Resurrection story because they “searched the Scriptures” after his death and found that “persecution, if not execution, was almost like a job description of being God’s elect.”
¹⁵

The entire two-hour debate turned on Craig’s response. He said, “Right. And that came
after
they experienced the resurrection appearances. . . .
The faith of the disciples did not lead to the [resurrection]
appearances, but it was the appearances which led to their faith;
they then searched the scriptures.”
¹⁶

Indeed, the scared, scattered, skeptical disciples were not of the mind to invent a resurrection story and then go out and die for it. They were of the mind to go and hide for fear of the Jews! It was the resurrection appearances that gave them bold faith, not the other way around. Crossan has it backwards.

In addition to the fact that there’s no evidence for his theory, Crossan cannot account for the resurrection appearances to more than 500 people. Nor can he account for the empty tomb or the Jewish attempt to explain it. The Jews knew the disciples were claiming that the Resurrection was a real historical event, not a mere product of their faith. If, as Crossan says, the Resurrection didn’t really occur, then why did Jewish authorities right through the second century continue to insist that the disciples had stolen the body? Crossan has no answer because his theory is false.
You have to have a lot of faith—and overlook a lot
of evidence—to believe it.

The New Testament Writers Copied Pagan Resurrection Myths—
This theory asserts that the New Testament is not historical because New Testament writers merely copied pagan resurrection myths. Skeptics are quick to cite supposed resurrections of mythical characters like Marduk, Adonis, and Osiris. Is the New Testament just another myth? Could this theory be true? That’s not likely, for a number of reasons.

First, as we have seen, the New Testament is anything but mythological. Unlike pagan myths, the New Testament is loaded with eyewitness evidence and real historical figures, and it is corroborated by several outside sources. C. S. Lewis, a writer of myths himself, has commented that the New Testament stories do not show signs of being mythological. “All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that’s my job,” said Lewis. “And I’m prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legends or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I’ve read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legends that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff.”
¹⁷

Second, the pagan-myth theory can’t explain the empty tomb, the martyrdom of the eyewitnesses, or the testimony of the non-Christian writings. Nor can it explain the evidence that leads nearly all scholars to accept the other historical facts we listed at the beginning of this chapter.

Third, ancient non-Christian sources knew that the New Testament writers were not offering mythical accounts. As Craig Blomberg observes, “The earliest Jewish and pagan critics of the resurrection understood the Gospel writers to be making historical claims, not writing myth or legend. They merely disputed the plausibility of those claims.”
¹⁸

Fourth, no Greek or Roman myth spoke of the literal incarnation of a monotheistic God into human form (cf. John 1:1-3, 14), by way of a literal virgin birth (Matt. 1:18-25), followed by his death and physical resurrection. The Greeks were polytheists, not monotheists as New Testament Christians were. Moreover, the Greeks believed in reincarnation into a different mortal body; New Testament Christians believed in
resurrection
into the same physical body made immortal (cf. Luke 24:37; John 9:2; Heb. 9:27).

Fifth, the first real parallel of a dying and rising god does not appear until A.D. 150, more than 100 years
after
the origin of Christianity.
¹⁹
So if there was any influence of one on the other, it was the influence of the historical event of the New Testament on mythology, not the reverse.

The only known account of a god surviving death that predates Christianity is the Egyptian cult god Osiris. In this myth, Osiris is cut into fourteen pieces, scattered around Egypt, then reassembled and brought back to life by the goddess Isis. However, Osiris does not actually come back to physical life but becomes a member of a shadowy underworld. As Habermas and Licona observe, “This is far different than Jesus’ resurrection account where he was the gloriously risen Prince of life who was seen by others on earth before his ascension into heaven.”
²⁰

Finally, even if there are myths about dying and rising gods prior to Christianity, that doesn’t mean the New Testament writers copied from them. The fictional TV show
Star Trek
preceded the U.S. Space Shuttle program, but that doesn’t mean that newspaper reports of space shuttle missions are influenced by
Star Trek
episodes! One has to look at the evidence of each account to see whether it is historical or mythical. There’s no eyewitness or corroborating evidence for the historicity of Osiris’s resurrection or for that of any other pagan god. No one believes they are true historical figures. But, as we have seen, there is strong eyewitness and corroborating evidence to support the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

D
O
Y
OU
H
AVE
A
NY
E
VIDENCE FOR
T
HAT
?

Christians are used to “counter-punching” alternative theories to the Resurrection. In fact, we’ve just done that by pointing out the numerous deficiencies in the alternative theories ourselves. But that’s not enough. While skeptics rightfully put the burden of proof for the Resurrection on Christians (and, as we have seen, Christians can meet that burden with good evidence),
Christians need to put the burden of
proof on skeptics for their alternative theories.
In light of all the positive evidence for the Resurrection, skeptics must offer positive, first-century evidence for their alternative views.

It’s one thing to concoct an alternative theory to the Resurrection, but it’s another thing to actually find first-century evidence for it. A theory is not evidence. Reasonable people demand evidence, not just theories. Anyone can concoct a theory to explain any historical event. For example, if someone were to claim that all of the video footage from the Holocaust concentration camps was staged and manufactured by Jews in order to garner sympathy and support for a Jewish state, would you believe that theory? Of course not, because it flies in the face of all the known evidence. To be taken seriously, those who offer such a theory must present credible, independent eyewitness reports and other corroborating evidence to counter the numerous reports that say the Holocaust was real and was actually carried out by the Nazis. But no such counterevidence exists.

This is the case with the Resurrection. While skeptics have formulated numerous alternative theories to explain away the Resurrection, there is no evidence from any first-century source supporting any of them.
²¹
The only alternative theory that’s even mentioned in a first-century source (the disciples stole the body) is from Matthew, and it is clearly identified as a lie. No one from the ancient world—not even the enemies of Christianity—has offered a
plausible
alternative explanation for the Resurrection. Many alternative theories formulated over the past 200 years are rooted in anti-supernaturalism. Since modern scholars philosophically rule out miracles in advance, they concoct ad hoc explanations to explain away the Resurrection. As we have seen, their ad hoc explanations contain multiple absurdities or improbabilities.

Those who have alternative theories for the Resurrection should be asked, “What evidence do you have for your theory? Can you please name three or four first-century sources that support your theory?” When honest skeptics are presented with this question, they typically answer with silence or a stuttering admission that they have no such evidence because none exists.
²²

And it’s not just the Resurrection that the skeptics have to explain. They also have to explain the other thirty-five miracles that eyewitnesses have associated with Jesus. Are we to believe that the four Gospel writers were all deceived about all of those miracles as well as the Resurrection?

This mass deception theory needs evidence. Do we have any other first-century sources that offer a different explanation for the works of Jesus? The only one discovered (and it’s probably from the second cen-tury) is the Jewish Talmud, which admits that Jesus performed unusual acts by saying that he “practiced sorcery.” But this explanation is just as weak as the Jewish explanation for the Resurrection (the disciples stole the body). Perhaps sorcery could explain
some
of Jesus’ “miracles,” but all thirty-five? Sorcerers and magicians cannot perform the kinds of acts that Jesus is said to have performed—raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, walking on water, and so forth.

So if there’s no ancient evidence for deception, are we to take the New Testament miracles at face value? Why not? We live in a theistic universe where miracles are possible. And while it’s true that we don’t have independent attestation for all of the miracles in the New Testament (because some are mentioned by only one writer), we certainly have multiple attestation for many of them (including the Resurrection). The sheer number of Jesus’ miracles cited by independent sources is too great to be explained away as a great deception. One person may be deceived once, but not numerous observers repeatedly.

German scholar Wolfgang Trilling writes, “We are convinced and hold it for historically certain that Jesus did in fact perform miracles. . . . The miracle reports occupy so much space in the Gospels that it is impossible that all could have been subsequently invented or transferred to Jesus.”
²³
William Lane Craig concludes, “The fact that miracle working belongs to the historical Jesus is no longer disputed.”
²⁴
That is, miracles are not disputed on historical grounds, only on philosophical grounds (more on this in a minute).

The bottom line is that there are too many miracles and too much testimony to believe that all of the eyewitnesses got it wrong every time. With regard to the Resurrection, all alternative theories have fatal flaws, and we have strong eyewitness and circumstantial evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead. In other words, not only do we lack a natural explanation for the empty tomb, we have positive evidence
for
the Resurrection. The explanation that requires the
least
amount of faith is that Jesus really did perform miracles and really did rise from the dead as he predicted.
So we don’t have enough faith to believe that the New
Testament writers were all deceived.

W
HY
D
ON
’
T
A
LL
S
CHOLARS
B
ELIEVE
?

If we have an accurate copy of early testimony (chapter 9); if that testimony is not only early but from eyewitnesses (chapter 10); if those eyewitnesses recorded what they saw accurately (chapter 11); and if those eyewitnesses were not deceived about what they recorded (this chapter), then why don’t all scholars take the New Testament at face value? For the same reason Darwinists refuse to acknowledge the evidence that defeats their view: they have a philosophical bias against miracles.

This bias was admitted during the debate between Craig and Crossan. Craig believes, as we do, that the evidence for the historicity of the literal resurrection is strong. Crossan, on the other hand, does not believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead. Here is a very telling exchange between the two men:

Craig: Would there be anything, Dr. Crossan, that could convince you that Jesus was risen from the dead as a historical fact?

Crossan: I need to make certain of what we’re talking about. Let’s say we have a situation outside the empty tomb on Easter Sunday morning. If somebody had a video-cam, would we have recorded something coming out of the tomb? Is that the type of question?

Craig: I guess what I’m asking, and what I think Mr. Buckley [the moderator] is pushing for, is this: what evidence would it take to convince you? Or are your preconceived ideas about the impossibility of the miraculous and so forth so strong that, in fact, they skew your historical judgment so that such an event could never even be admitted into court?

Crossan: No. . . . A doctor at Lourdes might admit, “I have absolutely no medical way of explaining what has happened.” That is a right statement. Then one has the right to say, “I by faith therefore believe that God has intervened here.”
But it’s a theological presupposition
of mine that God does not operate that way. . . .
What would it take to prove to me what you ask? I don’t know, unless God changes the universe. I could imagine discovering tomorrow morning that every tree outside my house has moved five feet. That needs some explanation. I don’t know the explanation, but I won’t immediately presume a miracle.
²⁵

Crossan’s explicit statement of his theological presupposition against miracles is a candid admission on his part. Of course Crossan doesn’t speak for all skeptical scholars. But certainly a majority of them deny the plain reading of the New Testament because they share his philosophical bias against miracles. It is not that the historical evidence for the New Testament is weak (it’s very strong indeed). It’s that they’ve ruled out miracles in advance. They arrive at the wrong conclusion because their bias makes it impossible for them to arrive at the right conclusion.