Class II: Class II: The Objectivity of History The Objectivity of History and the Historical Jesusand the Historical Jesus

Glenn GilesGlenn Giles

ApologeticsApologetics

December, 2009December, 2009

The Objectivity of History and the The Objectivity of History and the Historical JesusHistorical Jesus

A.A. The Objectivity of HistoryThe Objectivity of HistoryHistorical Relativists have asserted that history Historical Relativists have asserted that history is not objectively knowable. This would mean is not objectively knowable. This would mean that we could not trust the Bible’s account of that we could not trust the Bible’s account of historyhistory

Relativists have argued the following ten points:Relativists have argued the following ten points:1. History, unlike empirical science, is not 1. History, unlike empirical science, is not

directly observable and thus the directly observable and thus the historian deals “with facts in an historian deals “with facts in an imaginative way . . . facts . . . exist only in imaginative way . . . facts . . . exist only in the creative mind of the historian.” the creative mind of the historian.”

The material in this section comes from Geisler, The material in this section comes from Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics,Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 320-29. 320-29.

Arguments Against the Arguments Against the Objectivity of HistoryObjectivity of History

2. Historical accounts are fragmentary and 2. Historical accounts are fragmentary and thus the documents historians use “at thus the documents historians use “at best cover a small fraction of the best cover a small fraction of the events.” events.”

3. Historians are historically conditioned. 3. Historians are historically conditioned. As such, each historian is a product of his As such, each historian is a product of his own time and as such sees things own time and as such sees things through that conditioning and be through that conditioning and be objective. objective.

Arguments Against Arguments Against Objective HistoryObjective History

4. The selective nature of research is 4. The selective nature of research is subjective. The historian never uses subjective. The historian never uses all available information but selects all available information but selects what seems the most important to what seems the most important to him/her. Objectivity is not possible. him/her. Objectivity is not possible.

5. Since the historian has only partial 5. Since the historian has only partial knowledge of past events, he has to knowledge of past events, he has to “’fill in’ gaping holes with “’fill in’ gaping holes with imagination.” Hence he injects into imagination.” Hence he injects into history his own subjectivity.history his own subjectivity.

Arguments Against the Arguments Against the Objectivity of HistoryObjectivity of History

6. The need to select and arrange the 6. The need to select and arrange the fragmentary documents by the fragmentary documents by the historian into its own “value laden” historian into its own “value laden” worldview causes events “to be worldview causes events “to be understood from the relative vantage understood from the relative vantage point of the historian’s generation.” point of the historian’s generation.” The history written is thus prejudiced.The history written is thus prejudiced.

7. The actual language used by the 7. The actual language used by the historian is “value charged” and thus historian is “value charged” and thus not objective. not objective.

Objectivity of History ObjectionsObjectivity of History Objections

8. The unavoidability of worldviews. 8. The unavoidability of worldviews. Whatever the worldview of the Whatever the worldview of the historian it will impose value and bias historian it will impose value and bias on the history he writes. on the history he writes.

9. Miracles are suprahistorical. 9. Miracles are suprahistorical. Miracles are not empirically verifiable Miracles are not empirically verifiable and are myths (i.e, and are myths (i.e, GeschichteGeschichte not not Historie Historie or empirically testable).or empirically testable).

Objections to History ObjectivityObjections to History Objectivity

10. Miracles are historically unknowable 10. Miracles are historically unknowable and cannot ever be established “based and cannot ever be established “based on testimony about the past.” This is on testimony about the past.” This is based on the concept of analogy. To based on the concept of analogy. To understand something we as humans understand something we as humans need an analogy from the present that need an analogy from the present that relates to the past. “Without an relates to the past. “Without an analogy from the present” we can analogy from the present” we can “know nothing about the past.” “know nothing about the past.”

Discussion: Is this true?Discussion: Is this true?

The Objectivity of History The Objectivity of History SupportSupport

1. The problem of indirect access.1. The problem of indirect access. History can be seen as objective if does not History can be seen as objective if does not mean “absolute knowledge” but rather “a mean “absolute knowledge” but rather “a fair but revisable presentation that fair but revisable presentation that reasonable men and women should accept.” reasonable men and women should accept.” Paleontology is an example. It is not Paleontology is an example. It is not repeatable but is considered history and repeatable but is considered history and revisable.revisable.

Meaning is world view dependent.Meaning is world view dependent. Every Every “fact” has meaning only within a worldview. “fact” has meaning only within a worldview. An infinite Mind (i.e., God) however can give An infinite Mind (i.e., God) however can give “an absolute interpretation of” facts and “an absolute interpretation of” facts and ultimate meaning to them. ultimate meaning to them.

Theism vs. Relativism Theism vs. Relativism on Objectivityon Objectivity

Within a theistic worldview “objectivity in Within a theistic worldview “objectivity in history is possible, since in a theistic world history is possible, since in a theistic world history would be His-story.” Hence, history would be His-story.” Hence, “objectivity in history is possible within a “objectivity in history is possible within a worldview.” It then behooves us to choose worldview.” It then behooves us to choose the correct worldview if we have any hope the correct worldview if we have any hope to find truth whether historical or otherwise. to find truth whether historical or otherwise. What is your WV?What is your WV?

A relativistic worldview does not allow for A relativistic worldview does not allow for any absolute meaning and so objectivity is any absolute meaning and so objectivity is not possible. not possible. Compete relativism is self-Compete relativism is self-defeating since it makes relativism absolute defeating since it makes relativism absolute which is contrary to relativism.which is contrary to relativism. Discussion Discussion

Objectivity of HistoryObjectivity of History

There is ample evidence contrary to There is ample evidence contrary to the assumptions of the radical the assumptions of the radical biblical critics that the Jesus of the biblical critics that the Jesus of the NT is the Jesus of history and that NT NT is the Jesus of history and that NT history is objective.history is objective.

The Objectivity of HistoryThe Objectivity of History

2. The problem of the fragmentary 2. The problem of the fragmentary nature of historical accounts.nature of historical accounts. Paleontology is fragmentary also but this Paleontology is fragmentary also but this does not destroy its objectivity does not destroy its objectivity ----objectivityobjectivity “most certainly resides in “most certainly resides in the view that best fits the facts the view that best fits the facts consistently into an overall theistic system consistently into an overall theistic system which is supported by good evidence.” which is supported by good evidence.” Without an overarching perspective that a Without an overarching perspective that a theistic system gives, there can be no theistic system gives, there can be no objectivity for any view of facts, objectivity for any view of facts, fragmentary or not. fragmentary or not.

Discussion:Discussion: Can Relativism be objective? Can Relativism be objective?

The Objectivity of HistoryThe Objectivity of History

3. The problem of historical 3. The problem of historical conditioning and relativity.conditioning and relativity.

Everyone is influenced by his place in Everyone is influenced by his place in time but “it does not follow that time but “it does not follow that because the historian is a product of because the historian is a product of a time that the person’s historical a time that the person’s historical research is also a product of time.” research is also a product of time.” Relativity is avoidable.Relativity is avoidable.

Do you agree? Why or Why not? Do you agree? Why or Why not?

Objectivism and RelativismObjectivism and Relativism Note Geisler’s statement”Note Geisler’s statement”

““If relativity is unavoidable the position of If relativity is unavoidable the position of the historical relativists is self-refuting. For the historical relativists is self-refuting. For either either their viewtheir view is historically is historically conditioned and therefore unobjective, or conditioned and therefore unobjective, or else it is not relative but objective. If the else it is not relative but objective. If the latter, it thereby admits that it is possible latter, it thereby admits that it is possible to be objective in viewing history. On the to be objective in viewing history. On the contrary, if the position of historical contrary, if the position of historical relativism is itself relative, then it cannot relativism is itself relative, then it cannot be taken as objectively true.” be taken as objectively true.”

If the later, then relativism is not objective If the later, then relativism is not objective the very thing it charges against history!the very thing it charges against history!

The Selectivity of MaterialsThe Selectivity of Materials

4. Selection of materials “does not 4. Selection of materials “does not automatically make history purely automatically make history purely subjective.” subjective.”

““The selection of facts can be The selection of facts can be objective to the degree that the facts objective to the degree that the facts are selected and reconstructed are selected and reconstructed in in the contextthe context in which the events in which the events represented actually occurred.”represented actually occurred.”

Do you agree? Do you agree?

The Structuring of the The Structuring of the Material of HistoryMaterial of History

5. “The problem of the objective 5. “The problem of the objective meaning of history cannot be meaning of history cannot be resolved apart form appeal to a resolved apart form appeal to a world view.” There is no meaning world view.” There is no meaning apart from a structure, a world view. apart from a structure, a world view. It is necessary. It is necessary.

----Discussion:Discussion: Is this true? If so, how Is this true? If so, how important to historical truth is having important to historical truth is having the the correctcorrect world view? world view?

The Selecting and Arranging The Selecting and Arranging of Materialsof Materials

6. It is possible “to rearrange data 6. It is possible “to rearrange data about the past without distorting it.” about the past without distorting it.” “As long as the historian consistently “As long as the historian consistently incorporates all the significant events incorporates all the significant events in accordance with an overall in accordance with an overall established worldview, objectivity is established worldview, objectivity is secure.” How impt is the correct WV?secure.” How impt is the correct WV?

----Discussion:Discussion: How does one determine How does one determine what event is “significant” and should what event is “significant” and should be incorporated into history?be incorporated into history?

Value laden language judgmentsValue laden language judgments

7. Language is “value laden” but that 7. Language is “value laden” but that “by no means makes historical “by no means makes historical objectivity impossible” if the objectivity impossible” if the historian ascribes “to the events the historian ascribes “to the events the value which they had in their original value which they had in their original context.”context.”

Miracles are UnknowableMiracles are Unknowable

8. Miracles are suprahistorical and cannot be known:8. Miracles are suprahistorical and cannot be known:--This is based upon a naturalistic world view --This is based upon a naturalistic world view

interpretation which locks the idea of God out of the interpretation which locks the idea of God out of the universe. universe.

Discussion:Discussion: Does the naturalistic worldview allow Does the naturalistic worldview allow credible miracle credible miracle eyewitness testimonyeyewitness testimony? If not then ? If not then it could never discover a miracle and would be blind to it could never discover a miracle and would be blind to any actual event that would be classified as any actual event that would be classified as “suprahistorical.” The naturalistic worldview cannot “suprahistorical.” The naturalistic worldview cannot handle miracles.handle miracles.

--Is Naturalism then a correct world view for discovering --Is Naturalism then a correct world view for discovering truth?truth?

Skeptic Hume’s Criteria for Skeptic Hume’s Criteria for Credible WitnessesCredible Witnesses

1. Do the witnesses contradict each other?1. Do the witnesses contradict each other?

2. Are there a sufficient number of 2. Are there a sufficient number of witnesses?witnesses?

3. Were the witnesses truthful?3. Were the witnesses truthful?

4. Were they non-prejudicial?4. Were they non-prejudicial?

How does the NT account of Jesus stand up?How does the NT account of Jesus stand up?Material in this section comes from Geisler, 779-81. Material in this section comes from Geisler, 779-81.

Hume’s Criteria Applied Hume’s Criteria Applied to the Resurrectionto the Resurrection

1.There is 1.There is no contradictionno contradiction of the witnesses in the NTof the witnesses in the NT::a. Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem.a. Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem.

b. He claimed to be the son of God and offered miracles in b. He claimed to be the son of God and offered miracles in support of his claim.support of his claim.

c. He was crucified, confirmed to be dead and buried, and c. He was crucified, confirmed to be dead and buried, and his tomb was empty three days later.his tomb was empty three days later.d. Jesus physically appeared to a number of groups of d. Jesus physically appeared to a number of groups of people over the next weeks, in the same nail-people over the next weeks, in the same nail-scarred body that scarred body that had died.had died.e. He proved his physical reality to them so convincingly e. He proved his physical reality to them so convincingly

that these skeptical men boldly preached the that these skeptical men boldly preached the resurrection a resurrection a little over a month later in the same little over a month later in the same citycity

Do the witnesses contradict each other on this topic?Do the witnesses contradict each other on this topic?

The Sufficiency of The Sufficiency of the Number of Witnessesthe Number of Witnesses

2. The 2. The number of witnesses is sufficientnumber of witnesses is sufficient::a. There are 27 NT books written by at least 9 a. There are 27 NT books written by at least 9 different different

writers, each one either an eyewitness or a writers, each one either an eyewitness or a contemporary of the events testified to.contemporary of the events testified to.b. Direct eyewitnesses would include, Matthew, Mark, b. Direct eyewitnesses would include, Matthew, Mark,

John, James, Jude, Peter, and Paul John, James, Jude, Peter, and Paul c. Scriptures in support of this eyewitness testimony c. Scriptures in support of this eyewitness testimony

include Acts 4:20; I Pet. 5:1; II Pet. 1:16; John include Acts 4:20; I Pet. 5:1; II Pet. 1:16; John 19:35; 21:24; I John 1:1-3; I Cor. 15:6-8; Acts 9.19:35; 21:24; I John 1:1-3; I Cor. 15:6-8; Acts 9.

How many witnesses would be “sufficient”?How many witnesses would be “sufficient”?

The Truthfulness of the The Truthfulness of the EyewitnessesEyewitnesses

3. The 3. The witnesses were truthful witnesses were truthful based on the following:based on the following:a. The Apostles held to and taught Jesus’ high standard a. The Apostles held to and taught Jesus’ high standard

of morality expounded in the NTof morality expounded in the NTb. Peter openly writes that “We did not follow cunningly b. Peter openly writes that “We did not follow cunningly

devised fables” (II Pet. 1:16) and Paul devised fables” (II Pet. 1:16) and Paul commanded, commanded, “Do not lie to one another” (Col. 3:9).“Do not lie to one another” (Col. 3:9).c. The history found in the writings of the New c. The history found in the writings of the New

Testament which can be verified is supported by Testament which can be verified is supported by outside sources.outside sources.

If none of the witnesses contradict each other, if they lied If none of the witnesses contradict each other, if they lied what would that mean they would have had to do when what would that mean they would have had to do when presenting themselves to the public?presenting themselves to the public?

Unprejudiced WitnessesUnprejudiced Witnesses

4. The 4. The witnesses were unprejudiced:witnesses were unprejudiced:a. The witnesses were not “predisposed to believe the a. The witnesses were not “predisposed to believe the

events” that they testify to. In fact it was hard for events” that they testify to. In fact it was hard for them to believe. them to believe. b. The Apostles themselves did not believe at first.b. The Apostles themselves did not believe at first.c. It was not just to believers (or followers) that Jesus c. It was not just to believers (or followers) that Jesus

appeared. He also appeared to unbelievers appeared. He also appeared to unbelievers including including

his brother James (I Cor. 15:7) and Paul (Acts 9)his brother James (I Cor. 15:7) and Paul (Acts 9)d. “Witnesses of his resurrection had nothing to gain d. “Witnesses of his resurrection had nothing to gain

personally from their testimony.” In fact witnesses personally from their testimony.” In fact witnesses were threatened with death (Acts 4, 5 , 8).were threatened with death (Acts 4, 5 , 8).

Do you think there was prejudice toward the resurrection?Do you think there was prejudice toward the resurrection?

NT WitnessesNT Witnesses

Geisler states that to discount the New Geisler states that to discount the New Testament witness testimonies Testament witness testimonies

““of those who believed in the of those who believed in the resurrected Christ is like discounting resurrected Christ is like discounting an eye-witness of a murder because an eye-witness of a murder because he actually saw it occur. The he actually saw it occur. The prejudice in this case is not with the prejudice in this case is not with the witnesses but with those who reject witnesses but with those who reject their testimony.” their testimony.”

Historical Rooting of ChristianityHistorical Rooting of Christianity

1.1. Luke 1:1-5: “eyewitnesses” and “In Luke 1:1-5: “eyewitnesses” and “In the time of Herod, king of Judea”the time of Herod, king of Judea”

2.2. Luke 2:1: Days of “Caesar Augustus” Luke 2:1: Days of “Caesar Augustus” “census” “Quirinius” “governor of “census” “Quirinius” “governor of Syria”Syria”

3.3. Luke 3:1-2: Several historical figuresLuke 3:1-2: Several historical figures

4.4. Luke/Acts: real names and real Luke/Acts: real names and real places throughoutplaces throughout

Non-Christian Evidence for the Non-Christian Evidence for the Historicity of Jesus: 8 ExamplesHistoricity of Jesus: 8 Examples

1. Tacitus1. Tacitus a first-century Roman historian says: a first-century Roman historian says:

““Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of a the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures of a class hated for their abominations, called Christians class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered an extreme penalty during the its origin, suffered an extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment again superstition, thus checked for the moment again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of evil, broke out not only in Judea, the first source of evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.” (center and become popular.” (AnnalsAnnals 15:44). 15:44).[1][1]

[1][1] Quoted by Geisler, 381. Quoted by Geisler, 381.

SuetoniusSuetonius

2. Suetonius, the chief secretary to 2. Suetonius, the chief secretary to Hadrian (Emperor from 117-138 AD) Hadrian (Emperor from 117-138 AD) states:states:

““Because the Jews at Rome caused Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.” (them from the city.” (Claudius,Claudius, 25). 25). [1][1][1][1] Geisler, 381. Unless otherwise noted, quotes in this section are from Geisler, 381ff. Geisler, 381. Unless otherwise noted, quotes in this section are from Geisler, 381ff.

JosephusJosephus

3. Flavius Josephus3. Flavius Josephus (37/38-97 AD), the first century Jewish (37/38-97 AD), the first century Jewish historian:historian:

““Now there was about this time Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man,Jesus, a wise man, if it be if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the)many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named form him, are not him; and the tribe of Christians, so named form him, are not extinct at this day.”extinct at this day.”[1][1]

[1][1] William Whiston, translator, William Whiston, translator, The Works of JosephusThe Works of Josephus (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 480. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 480.

Pliny the YoungerPliny the Younger

4. Pliny the Younger4. Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and , a Roman author and administrator writes to Emperor Trajan (c.112 AD) administrator writes to Emperor Trajan (c.112 AD) concerning Christian worship:concerning Christian worship:‘‘There were in the habit of meeting on a certain There were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to alternate verses a hymn to ChristChrist, as to a god, and , as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, but never commit any fraud, theft, wicked deeds, but never commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.” (of an ordinary and innocent kind.” (Letters, Letters, 10:96).10:96).

Emperor HadrianEmperor Hadrian

5. Emperor Hadrian5. Emperor Hadrian in a letter to Mincius Fundanus, in a letter to Mincius Fundanus, an Asian proconsul (recorded by church historian an Asian proconsul (recorded by church historian Eusebius) states:Eusebius) states:

““I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers, If, malicious proceedings be offered to informers, If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the charges against the Christians,Christians, so as to answer so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine would bring an accusation, that you should examine it” (it” (Ecclesiastical History,Ecclesiastical History, 4:9). 4:9).[1][1]

[1][1] Geisler, 383. Geisler, 383.

Babylonian TalmudBabylonian Talmud

6. The Jewish Babylonian Talmud6. The Jewish Babylonian Talmud (compiled (compiled between 70 and 200 AD) in Sanhedrin 43a states:between 70 and 200 AD) in Sanhedrin 43a states:

““On the eve of Passover On the eve of Passover Yeshu Yeshu was hanged. For was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the ever of the Passover!”the ever of the Passover!”[1][1]

[1][1] Geisler, 383. Geisler, 383.

LucianLucian

7. Lucian of Samosata7. Lucian of Samosata, a second century Greek writer, a , a second century Greek writer, a critic of critic of Christianity, states:Christianity, states:

““The Christians, you know, worship The Christians, you know, worship a mana man to this day—the to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account . . . You see, these and was crucified on that account . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are converted, and deny the original lawgiver that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sagecrucified sage, and live , and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (them merely as common property.” (Death of Pelegrine, Death of Pelegrine, 11-13).11-13).Geisler, 383.Geisler, 383.

ValentinusValentinus

8. Valentinus (135-160) upholds Jesus as an historical person:8. Valentinus (135-160) upholds Jesus as an historical person:

““For when they had seen him and heard him, he granted For when they had seen him and heard him, he granted them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them beloved Son. When he had appeared instructing them about the Father . . . For he came by means of fleshly about the Father . . . For he came by means of fleshly appearance.” (appearance.” (The Gospel of TruthThe Gospel of Truth 30:27-33; 31:4-6) 30:27-33; 31:4-6)

““Jesus was patient in accepting sufferings . . . since he Jesus was patient in accepting sufferings . . . since he knows that his death is life for many . . . he was nailed to a knows that his death is life for many . . . he was nailed to a tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross . . . tree; he published the edict of the Father on the cross . . . He draws himself down to death through life . . . Having He draws himself down to death through life . . . Having stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on stripped himself of the perishable rags, he put on imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from imperishability, which no one can possibly take away from him” (him” (The Gospel of TruthThe Gospel of Truth 20:11-14, 25-34). 20:11-14, 25-34).[1][1][1][1] Both quotes from Geisler, 384. Both quotes from Geisler, 384.

Summary of Extrabiblical AccountsSummary of Extrabiblical Accounts

Geisler notes that from non-Christian sources we can Geisler notes that from non-Christian sources we can determine that, like the depiction of Jesus in the Gospels: determine that, like the depiction of Jesus in the Gospels:

(1)(1) Jesus was from Nazareth; Jesus was from Nazareth; (2)(2) he lived a wise and virtuous life; he lived a wise and virtuous life; (3)(3) he was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the he was crucified in Palestine under Pontius Pilate during the

reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered reign of Tiberius Caesar at Passover time, being considered the Jewish king;the Jewish king;

(4)(4) he was believed by his disciples to have been raised from he was believed by his disciples to have been raised from the dead three days later; the dead three days later;

(5)(5) his enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats his enemies acknowledged that he performed unusual feats they called “sorcery”;they called “sorcery”;

(6)(6) his small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading his small band of disciples multiplied rapidly, spreading even as far as Rome; even as far as Rome;

(7)(7) his disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and his disciples denied polytheism, lived moral lives, and worshiped Christ as Divine.”worshiped Christ as Divine.”

SummarySummary

Contrary to radical biblical criticsContrary to radical biblical critics

--there is ample evidence to accept the --there is ample evidence to accept the NT account that the Jesus of the NT is NT account that the Jesus of the NT is the Jesus of history the Jesus of history

--and that the NT understood from and --and that the NT understood from and within a theistic world view presents within a theistic world view presents an objective history to this fact.an objective history to this fact.