If I Had Faked the Resurrection

I set out as a young man to debunk Christianity. I met a young Christian woman who challenged me to intellectually examine the evidence for Christianity, and I accepted her challenge. I aimed to show her-and everyone-that Christianity was nonsense. I thought it would be easy. I thought a careful investigation of the facts would expose Christianity as a lie and its followers as dupes.

But then a funny thing happened. As I began investigating the claims of Christianity, I kept running up against the evidence. Time after time, I was surprised to discover the factual basis for the seemingly outlandish things Christians believe. And one of the most convincing categories of evidence I confronted was this: The resurrection accounts found in the Gospels are not the stuff of fable, forgery or fabrication.

I had assumed that someone, or several someones, had invented the stories of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead. But as I examined those accounts, I had to face the fact that any sensible mythmaker would do things much differently from the way Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did in recording the news of the resurrection. As much as I hated to, I had to admit that if I had been some first-century propagandist trying to fake the resurrection of Jesus Christ, I would have done a number of things differently:

Few historians dispute the fact that the disciples of Jesus began preaching the news of His resurrection soon after the event itself; in fact, Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) occurred within 50 days of the Resurrection. And textual research indicates that the written accounts of the Resurrection, especially the creedal statement of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, are astoundingly early in origin, possibly within two years of the event. Such early origins argue against any notion that the Resurrection accounts are legendary.

Dr. William Lane Craig writes, "One of the most amazing facts about the early Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was that it originated in the very city where Jesus was crucified. The Christian faith did not come to exist in some distant city, far from eyewitnesses who knew of Jesus' death and burial. No, it came into being in the very city where Jesus had been publicly crucified, under the very eyes of its enemies."

I would avoid, as much as possible, using any names at all in my account, and I would certainly avoid citing prominent personalities as witnesses. Yet at least 16 individuals are mentioned by name as witnesses in the various accounts, and the mention of Joseph of Arimathea as the man who buried Jesus would have been terribly dangerous if the gospel accounts had been faked or embellished. As a member of the Sanhedrin, a Jewish "Supreme Court," he would have been well-known. J. P. Moreland writes, "No one could have invented such a person who did not exist and say he was on the Sanhedrin if such were not the case."

His involvement in the burial of Jesus could have been easily confirmed or refuted. Perhaps most important, I would avoid citing disreputable witnesses, which makes significant the record of Jesus' first appearances-to women-since in that time and culture women were considered invalid witnesses in a court of law. If the accounts were fabrications, the women would never have been included in the story, at least not as first witnesses.

As Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide writes, "We do not read in the first testimonies [of the Resurrection] of an apocalyptic spectacle, exorbitant sensations, or of the transforming impact of a cosmic event. . . . According to all New Testament reports, no human eye saw the resurrection itself, no human being was present, and none of the disciples asserted to have apprehended, let alone understood, its manner and nature. How easy it would have been for them or their immediate successors to supplement this scandalous hole in the concatenation of events by fanciful embellishments! But precisely because none of the evangelists dared to 'improve upon' or embellish this unseen resurrection, the total picture of the gospels also gains in trustworthiness."

I would painstakingly correlate my account with others I knew, embellishing the legend only where I could be confident of not being contradicted.

Many critics have pointed out the befuddling differences and apparent contradictions in the Resurrection accounts. But these are actually convincing evidences of their authenticity; they display an ingenuous lack of collusion, agreeing and (apparently) diverging much as eyewitness accounts of any event do.

I would portray myself and any co-conspirators sympathetically, even heroically.

Yet the Gospel writers present strikingly unflattering portraits of Jesus' followers (such as Peter and Thomas) and their often skeptical reactions (Mark 16:11, 13; Luke 24:11, 37; John 20:19, 25, 21:4). Such portrayals are very unlike the popular myths and legends of that (or any) time.

I would disguise the location of the tomb or spectacularly destroy it in my account.

If I were creating a resurrection legend, I would keep the tomb's location a secret to prevent any chance that someone might discover Jesus' body, or I would record in my account that the angels sealed it or carried it off into heaven after the Resurrection. Or I might have taken the easiest course of all and simply made my fictional resurrection a "spiritual" one, which would have made it impossible to refute even if a body were eventually discovered. But, of course, the Gospel accounts describe the owner of the tomb (Joseph of Arimathea) and its location ("At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb," John 19:41), and identify Jesus' resurrection as a bodily one (John 20:27).

I might pronounce a curse on anyone attempting to substantiate my claims, or attach a stigma to anyone so shallow as to require evidence. Yet note the frequent appeal of Jesus' disciples, to the easily confirmed-or discredited-nature of the evidence, as though inviting investigation (Acts 2:32, 3:15, 13:31; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6). This was done within a few years of the events themselves; if the tomb were not empty or the Resurrection appearances were fiction, the early Christians' opponents could have conclusively debunked the new religion.

As Dr. Edwin Yamauchi says of the citation of the resurrected Christ appearing to more than 500 people in 1 Corinthians 15, "What gives special authority to the list [of witnesses] as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' "

No one in his right mind would have chosen to create a fictional message that would invite opposition and persecution from both civil and religious authorities of those days. How much easier and wiser it would have been to preach a less controversial gospel- concentrating on Jesus' teachings about love, perhaps-thus saving myself and the adherents of my new religion a lot of trouble.

Lee Strobel has written, "People will die for their religious beliefs if they sincerely believe they're true, but people won't die for their religious beliefs if they know their beliefs are false.

"While most people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, the disciples were in a position to know without a doubt whether or not Jesus had risen from the dead. They claimed that they saw him, talked with him, and ate with him. If they weren't absolutely certain, they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be tortured to death for proclaiming that the resurrection had happened."

These are not the only reasons I believe in the truth of the Bible and the reality of the Resurrection. But these were among the "many convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3) that I encountered in my attempts to prove Christianity wrong, which eventually led me to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be and that He really did rise from the dead. It didn't happen immediately, but eventually I gave in to the truth, and on Dec. 19, 1959, the Risen Christ radically changed my life. I've seen Him do the same for countless others, and I pray, if you haven't done so already, you will let Him do the same for you.

Josh McDowell is a speaker, author, and traveling representative for Campus Crusade for Christ. His books include Evidence That Demands a Verdict, More Than a Carpenter, and The New Tolerance. He was assisted in writing this article by Bob Hostetler, an award-winning writer who lives in Hamilton, Ohio.
This article appeared in Focus on the Family magazine.
Copyright © 2000 Josh McDowell.
All rights reserved.

I have been contemplating your reply for some time now.

Let me start by saying that in my analysis of your reply I cannot find therein a single objective documentary source for your rejection of the veracity of Luke on the subject of the registration or census, or anything else that he wrote. I do not see sufficient evidence to support your conclusion that Luke was writing a pious fiction. I see only conjecture, and an argument from (apart from Luke) silence.

Please allow me to address the issue of the veracity of Luke, and your rejection of the testimony of pre-eminent experts and scholars in their respective fields, such as Sir William Ramsey. Ramsey was a skeptic, perhaps similar to you in some respects, who is considered one of the world's greatest archaeologists, certainly one of the most famous of the 20th century. He believed that the New Testament, particularly the books of Luke and Acts, were second-century forgeries. He literally spent thirty years in Asia Minor, trying to dig up enough evidence to prove that Luke-Acts was nothing more than a lie. But after his digging, in his book he states;

"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

He further said:

"Luke is unsurpassed in respects of its trustworthiness." (Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 108-109)

Dr. Clifford Wilson, another former skeptic, who, due to the discoveries that he made, concluded this: "It is the studied conviction of this writer that the Bible is ... the ancient world's most reliable history textbook..." (Wilson, Rocks, Relics And Biblical Reliability, p. 126)

Dr. Wilson, like Ramsey, says this concerning the accuracy of Luke:

"Luke demonstrated a remarkably accurate knowledge of geographical and political ideas. He referred correctly to provinces that were established at that time, as indicated in Acts 15:6. He demonstrated a clear knowledge of local customs, such as those relating to the speech of the Lycaonians (Acts 14:11), some aspects relating to the foreign woman who was converted at Athens (Acts 17:34), and he even knew that the city of Ephesus was known as the "temple-keeper of Artemis" (Acts 19:35) ... he refers to different local officers by their exact titles – the proconsul (deputy) of Cyprus (Acts 13:7), the magistrates at Phillipi (Acts 16:20,35), the politarchs (another word for magistrates) at Thessalonica (Acts 17:6), the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12), and the treasurer of Corinth (Aedile) – which was the title of the man known as Erastus at Corinth (Acts 19:22; Romans 16:23 ...)

Luke had accurate knowledge about various local events such as the famine in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:29); he was aware that Zeus and Hermes were worshiped together at Lystra, though this was unknown to modern historians (Acts 14:11,12). He knew that Diana or Artemis was especially the goddess of the Ephesians (Acts 19:28); and he was able to describe the trade at Ephesus in religious images." (Ibid., pp. 112-113)

Wilson's statement:

"Those who know the facts now recognize that the New Testament must be accepted as a remarkably accurate source book..." (Ibid., p. 120)

In short, my dear PaganConservative, you have presented no documentary or archeological evidence to support your conclusion that Luke was writing a pious fiction.

"In Acts, Luke mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also mentions ninety-five persons, sixty-two of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament. And his references, where checkable, are always correct. [emphasis mine] This is truly remarkable, in view of the fact that the political/territorial situation of his day was in a state of almost constant change..." (Wayne Jackson, 1991b, 27[1]:2).

It is true that the conjectures of FF Bruce and Sir William Ramsay are NOT evidence. But when you as an expert in the field have spent thirty years digging up evidence to disprove Luke, as Ramsey did, come back and let me know what you find. So, on what rational, evidential basis do you question Luke's veracity on the historical details? If you wish to pit your opinion and expertise against the likes of Ramsey, Albright and Glueck, et al., be my guest.

True enough, on its face. So, "riddle me this, Batman": if it was not required by the Empire, why would "everyone (Lk2:3, TEV)" do it? How would they all know to do it? More importantly, why would Rome permit them to do it? Rome didn't care about ancestral hometowns.

Why then please explain the documentary evidence presented previously, namely, the Roman census edict from 104 A.D in neighboring Egypt:

"Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt, says: The house-to-house census having been started, it is essential that all persons who for any reason whatsoever are absent from their homes be summoned to return to their own hearths, in order that they may perform the customary business of registration..." (See A.H.M. Jones, ed., "A History of Rome Through the Fifth Century", New York: Harper and Row, 1970, II, pp. 256 f.)

As to why "all" or "everyone" would do it:

Lexicon Results for pas (Strong's 3956)
Greek for 3956

Pronunciation Guide
pas {pas}
TDNT Reference	Root Word
TDNT - 5:886,795	including all the forms of declension
Part of Speech
adj
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) individually a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything 2) collectively a) some of all types ++++ ... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go after Christ? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan." Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts -- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ... C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1243
AV - all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + 3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + 3739 + 302 3, always + 1223 3, daily + 2250 2, any thing 2, no + 3361 2, not tr 7, misc 26; 1243
Thayer's Lexicon (Help)
MORE (439 KBytes)

Word / Phrase / Strong's Search Here
Previous Strong's 3955	H G			Next Strong's 3957

------------------------------------------

You asked me for unbiased, verifiable source material, and I have listed some of what is available. You do not like the web sites on which some of this material resides. That's fine, but to assert the information is in error because of the web site on which it resides is to commit a classic example of a genetic fallacy. If you can impugn, discredit, or otherwise impeach the source material in some substantive way, however, please fire away:^) I'm all ears.

As it stand now, though, at least imho, you have presented no documentary, archeological evidence that impugns Luke's testimony, or any affirmative documentary or archeological support for your own opinion that what Luke wrote is nothing but a "pious fiction". Luke's references, where verifiable, have ALWAYS proved correct.

Cordially,

It is so powerful that some Jewish scholars are forbidden to even read this chapter.

Nonsense. Please post your evidence of this.

About 50 years later, King Cyrus of Persia (present day Iran) conquered Babylon in 538 b.c. After another 70 years, a Persian King came to power named Artaxerxes I. He reigned from 464 b.c. to 425 b.c. He issued a decree well over 100 years after this prophecy was written:

The original decree was issued by Cyrus, not Artaxerxes.

who says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd,
and he shall fulfil all my purpose';
saying of Jerusalem, `She shall be built,'
and of the temple, `Your foundation shall be laid.'" (Isaiah 44:28)

However, there is one small problem. Jewish calendars have 360 days in a year (12 months of 30 days).

Another error. There is no such thing as a "prophetic year" as claimed here. Quoting from Revelation hardly verifies ancient Hebrew practice!

In our study of the different translations we will compare the Hebrew text with that of the King James Version of the Bible. It contains the grossest errors, which are, in whole or in part, duplicated by other Christian versions of the Bible. First, the King James Version puts a definite article before "Messiah the Prince" (9:25). The original Hebrew text does not read "the Messiah the Prince," but, having no article, it is to be rendered "a mashiach ["anointed one," "messiah"], a prince," i.e., Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1, 13; Ezra 1:1-2).

The word mashiach is nowhere used in the Jewish Scriptures as a proper name, but as a title of authority of a king or a high priest. Therefore, a correct rendering of the original Hebrew should be: "an anointed one, a prince."

Second, the King James Version disregards the Hebrew punctuation. The punctuation mark 'atnach functions as the main pause within a sentence. The 'atnach is the appropriate equivalent of the semicolon in the modern system of punctuation. It thus has the effect of separating the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks: ". . . until an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks; then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again . . ." (9:25).

By creating a sixty-nine week period, which is not divided into two separate periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks respectively, Christians reach an incorrect conclusion, i.e., that the Messiah will come 483 years after the destruction of the First Temple.

Some Christians claim that there is something called a "prophetic year" of 360 days, thus shortening the interval between the beginning of the 483 years which they claim began in 444 B.C.E., and the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. They do this in order to make the dates coincide, but the claim of a "prophetic year" is without any scriptural foundation.

Third, the King James Version omits the definite article in Daniel 9:26, which should read: "And after the threescore and two weeks. . . ." By treating the sixty-two weeks as a distinct period, this verse, in the original Hebrew, shows that the sixty-two weeks mentioned in verse 25 are correctly separated from the seven weeks by the 'atnach. Hence, two anointed ones are spoken of in this chapter, one of whom comes after seven weeks (Cyrus), and the other after a further period of sixty-two weeks (Alexander Yannai).

Fourth, the words v'ayn lo (9:26) are incorrectly translated by the King James Version as "but not for himself." They should be translated as "he has nothing" or "he shall have nothing." There are Christian commentators who maintain this phrase has both meanings, but that claim cannot be supported grammatically.

This prophecy is amazing because it accurately predicts the time that the Messiah will be killed more than 500 years before it happened.

Yes, if you manipulate the numbers just right, you get the results you want. Big surprise.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.