The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, Part Three

The Minimal Facts, Part Two

In our previous post in this series on the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, we discussed the first two of five “minimal facts” concerning the resurrection. The first of these two was that Jesus was actually put to death via the standard Roman execution method for non-Roman citizens, crucifixion. The second was that the disciples actually believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. The reader can access that post if she wishes further details as to why it is held that these are “minimal facts” of the resurrection.

In this post, we will be addressing two more of the “minimal facts” that have nearly unanimous acceptance, the conversions of Paul (a persecutor of the early followers of Jesus) and James (the skeptical brother of Jesus). We will also address the fifth “minimal fact”; the empty tomb of Jesus.

The Conversion of Saul (Paul)

The conversion of Saul/Paul is the third in our list of four plus one “minimal facts”. His conversion is an established fact in the New Testament. According to the book of Acts, Saul was a persecutor of the early followers of Christ. Luke records Saul’s approval of the stoning of the early church deacon, Stephen, and his subsequent conversion while journeying to Damascus in order to arrest and extradite followers of Jesus in that city back to Jerusalem for trial by the Sanhedrin. It was on this journey that Saul experienced the risen Jesus of Nazareth (see Acts 9, 22 & 26). Paul wrote about his conversion a number of times (1 Corinthians 15:9-10; Galatians 1:13-16; Philippians 3:6-7). This event was also a part of early Christian oral tradition circulating in Judea (Galatians 1:22-23).

Further the fact that the convert Paul suffered and was later martyred for his belief in Jesus has been attested to by Luke (Acts 14:19; 16:19-24; 17:5, 13-15; 18:12-13; 21:27-36; 23:12-35). The early church fathers such as Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 5:2-7), Polycarp (Pol. Phil. 9:2), Tertullian (Scorpiace 15; also cited by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8), Dionysius of Corinth (cited by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8), and Origen (Commentary on Genesis cited by Eusebius in EH 3:1). As well as by Paul himself (2 Cor. 11:23-28; Phil. 1:21-23).

The Conversion of James

The gospels report that Jesus’ brothers were unbelievers prior to Jesus’ resurrection (Mark 3:21, 31; 6:3-4; John 7:5). The early creed, found in 1 Corinthians mentions James (1 Cor. 15:7). Lastly, both Paul and Luke (in Acts) identify James as a leader in the Jerusalem church (Galatians 1:19; Acts 15:12-21).

Secondly, James’ suffering and persecution is attested to by Josephus (Ant. 20:200), Hegesippus (quoted at length by Eusebius in EH 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1 and mentioned in EH 2:23).

The Empty Tomb

This final fact does not boast the near unanimous acceptance by scholars as the previous four do. According to Habermas’ research this fact is accepted by about 75% of the scholars that he studied. As with all the facts we mention, just because scholars hold to something as a fact does not “prove” anything. That being said there are three reasons why the empty tomb is treated as a fact by the vast majority of scholars.

First, if the body of Jesus was still in the tomb it would have been impossible for Christianity to even survive in Jerusalem let alone in the world. All the enemies of Jesus would have needed to have done is produce the corpse and Christianity would have died before it even began.

Secondly, there is enemy attestation to the fact that the tomb Jesus’ was buried in was empty. In claiming that Jesus’ disciples stole the body, Jesus’ enemies indirectly affirmed the empty tomb (Matthew 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30). If Jesus’ body was still in the tomb, then why make this claim?

Lastly, there is the testimony of the women to the empty tomb of Jesus. In the gospels, women were listed as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb. It is unlikely that the Jewish disciples of Jesus would have invented this story as women were held in low regard in the Jewish cultural context. In fact, the story that women were the first witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection would have actually damaged the claims of the disciples (Luke 24:11; Josephus, Ant. 4:8:15; Talmud: J Sotah 19a; Rosh Hashannah 1:8; Kiddushin 82b; Origen, Contra Celsum 2:59; 3:55; Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Augustus 44).

Further, the testimony of the women demonstrates that the resurrection was not some myth later added to the story of Jesus the “great moral teacher.” If the resurrection is merely a mythical insertion by later second or third century writers of the New Testament (as liberals, skeptics and anti-theists assert), then it makes no sense to include this embarrassing fact of women and not the male disciples being the first witnesses of the empty tomb.

These three and the previous two are five facts that must be dealt with by any opposing theory that can be used to discredit the resurrection of Jesus. In our next post we will begin looking at these opposing theories in depth and why they fail to account for one or more of these “minimal facts.”

Reflections

Sunday (March 6th) began gloriously. I was able to attend church and hear an excellent sermon on pride. How did I know it was excellent? It kicked my butt all over the auditorium. The day continued in this vein as a discovered that Liverpool beat Manchester United 3-1 in Manchester. I was able to spend a great day with my beloved over a nice lunch. Then we went home. It was there that we were informed that a very good friend of ours passed away earlier Sunday morning after preaching at another church.

I first met Tino at the first Sunday morning church service I ever attended in 1991. The Friday before, God saw fit to save me at a Nicky Cruz evangelistic event that this church had hosted. I talked to Tino, and told him my story. I also peppered him with question after question about Christianity in general, and Pentecostalism in particular. He was very patient and answered my questions not with his opinion, but with Biblical support.


Over time, TIno and I became very good friends. As sometimes friends do we bumped heads. This was do more to me and my pride, than it was anything he did. Many times we would discuss theology and doctrine, especially as began to move from Arminianism and towards Calvinism. One of Tino's favorite topics was John MacArthur's views on the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement.


Our friendship begin as a sort of mentor/pupil and evolved to peers. I never stopped respecting him as a man of God, and a man of the Scriptures. Most importantly, I do not believe I have ever met a man as humble as he. Who put up with so much junk from others, and yet never acted out in a unchristian manner.

We also worked together in creating a sort of Christianity 101 class for people new to our church. I can't begin to tell you how much joy it brought me to teach these people about God, and to sit under Tino, and learn how to make theology more practical for people.

About a year ago, my wife and I wanted to move on to another church. I spoke to Tino a number of times about this move. He gave me a number of issues to think about, but ultimately it was time for my wife and I to leave that church and establish ourselves in a new church that was more in line with our beliefs and convictions.


A couple of weeks ago I had to stop by that church. Tino greeted me with his usual greeting, "Mr. Manning, how art thou?" We chatted for about ten minutes, and I told him that I would talk to him later. Little did I know that later will be heaven some day soon.


I will miss my friend. I grieve with my former church family as they lost a pillar. I mourn for his wife and family. One thing I do know they and I have been made better people because God saw fit to place him in our lives.