by Lee Strobel
Licona smiled and moved forward to the edge of the couch. “I thought you’d never ask,” he said with a chuckle. “I’ll use just five minimal facts—and you can decide for yourself how persuasive the case is.”
FACT #1: JESUS WAS KILLED BY CRUCIFIXION
“The first fact is Jesus’ crucifixion,” he began. “Even an extreme liberal like Crossan says: ‘That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be.’26 Skeptic James Tabor says, ‘I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.’27 Both Gerd Lüdemann, who’s an atheistic New Testament critic, and Bart Ehrman, who’s an agnostic, call the crucifixion an indisputable fact. Why? First of all, because all four Gospels report it.”
I put up my hand. “Whoa! Hold on!” I insisted. “Are you operating under the assumption that the Bible is the inspired word of God?”
Licona seemed glad I had brought up the issue. “Let me clarify something: for the purposes of examining the evidence, I’m not considering the Bible to be inerrant, inspired, or scripture of any kind,” he replied. “I’m simply accepting it for what it unquestionably is—a set of ancient documents that can be subjected to historical scrutiny like any other accounts from antiquity. In other words, regardless of my personal beliefs, I’m not giving the Bible a privileged position in my investigation. I’m applying the same historical standards to it that I would apply to Thucydides or Suetonius.”
With that caveat, he went on with his case. “Now, beyond the four Gospels, we also have a number of non-Christian sources that corroborate the crucifixion. For instance, the historian Tacitus said Jesus ‘suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius.’ The Jewish historian Josephus reports that Pilate ‘condemned him to be crucified.’ Lucian of Samosata, who was a Greek satirist, mentions the crucifixion, and Mara Bar-Serapion, who was a pagan, confirms Jesus was executed. Even the Jewish Talmud reports that ‘Yeshu was hanged.’”
“Yeshu? Hanged?”
“Yes, Yeshu is Joshua in Hebrew; the Greek equivalent is translated as Jesus. And in the ancient world to be hung on a tree many times referred to a crucifixion. Galatians 3:13, for example, connects Jesus’ crucifixion with the Pentateuch, which says that ‘anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse.’”28
“What were the odds of surviving crucifixion?”
“Extremely small. You saw The Passion of the Christ, right? Even though not all of the film was historically accurate, it did depict the extreme brutality of Roman scourging and crucifixion. Witnesses in the ancient world reported victims being so severely whipped that their intestines and veins were laid bare. As I said, Tacitus referred to it as ‘the extreme penalty.’ Cicero called it ‘cruel and disgusting’—so horrendous that he said ‘the very word cross should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes, and his ears.’”
“Did anyone ever survive it?”
“Interestingly, Josephus does mention three friends who were crucified during the fall of Jerusalem. He doesn’t say how long they had been on the cross, but he intervened with the Roman commander Titus, who ordered all three removed immediately and provided the best medical attention Rome had to offer. Still, two of them died. So even under the best of conditions, a victim was unlikely to survive crucifixion. It is very doubtful that Jesus was privy to such conditions. There is no evidence at all that Jesus was removed prematurely or that he was provided any medical attention whatsoever, much less Rome’s best.”
“We’re dealing with a pretty primitive culture,” I observed. “Were they competent enough to be sure that Jesus was dead?”
“I’m confident they were. You’ve got Roman soldiers carrying out executions all the time. It was their job. They were good at it. Besides, death by crucifixion was basically a slow and agonizing demise by asphyxiation, because of the difficulty in breathing created by the victim’s position on the cross. And that’s something you can’t fake.
“Lee, this first fact is as solid as anything in ancient history: Jesus was crucified and died as a result. The scholarly consensus—again, even among those who are skeptical toward the resurrection—is absolutely overwhelming. To deny it would be to take a marginal position that would get you laughed out of the academic world.”
With that firmly established, Licona advanced to his next minimal fact.
FACT #2: JESUS’ DISCIPLES BELIEVED THAT HE ROSE AND APPEARED TO THEM
“The second fact is the disciples’ beliefs that Jesus had actually returned from the dead and had appeared to them,” Licona said. “There are three strands of evidence for this: Paul’s testimony about the disciples; oral traditions that passed through the early church; and the written works of the early church.
“Paul is important because he reports knowing some of the disciples personally, including Peter, James, and John. Acts confirms this.29 And Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that whether ‘it was I or they, this is what we preach,’ referring to the resurrection of Jesus. So in other words, Paul knew the apostles and reports that they claimed—just as he did—that Jesus had returned from the dead.
“Then we have oral tradition. Obviously, people in those days didn’t have tape recorders and few people could read, so they relied on verbal transmission for passing along what happened until it was later written down. Scholars have identified several places in which this oral tradition has been copied into the New Testament in the form of creeds, hymns, and sermon summations. This is really significant because the oral tradition must have existed prior to the New Testament writings for the New Testament authors to have included it.”
“So it’s early.”
“Very early, which weighs heavily in its favor, as any historian will tell you. For example, we have creeds that laid out basic doctrines in a form that was easily memorized. One of the earliest and most important creeds was relayed by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church, which was written about AD 55. First Corinthians 15:3–7 says: ‘For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.’30
“Many scholars believe Paul received this creed from Peter and James while visiting with them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion. That would be within five years of the crucifixion.”
Licona’s eyes got wide. “Think about that—it’s really amazing!” he declared, his voice rising in genuine astonishment. “As one expert said, ‘This is the sort of data that historians of antiquity drool over.’31 Not only is it extremely early, but it was apparently given to Paul by eyewitnesses or others he deemed reliable, which heightens its credibility even more.”
“How important is this creed, in your opinion?”
“It’s powerful and persuasive,” he declared. “Although early dating does not totally rule out the possibility of invention or deceit on the part of Jesus’ followers, it is much too early to be the result of legendary development over time, since it can practically be traced to the original disciples of Jesus. In fact, this creed has been one of the most formidable obstacles to critics who try to shoot down the resurrection. It’s simply gold for a historian.
“And we’ve got even more oral tradition—for instance, the New Testament preserves several sermons of the apostles. Actually, these are apparently summaries of the preaching of the apostles, since most of them can be read aloud in five minutes or less. I’m sure the actual sermons lasted a lot longer than that. At a minimum, we can say that the vast majority of historians believe that the early apostolic teachings are enshrined in these sermon summaries in Acts—and they’re not at all ambiguous: they declare that Jesus rose bodily f
rom the dead.
“For example, Paul says in Acts 13, which is very similar to what Peter reports in Acts 2: ‘For when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.’32 That’s a bold and forthright assertion: David’s body decayed, but Jesus’ didn’t, because he was raised from the dead.
“Finally we have written sources, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It’s widely accepted, even among skeptical historians, that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even very liberal scholars will concede that we have four biographies written within seventy years of Jesus’ life that unambiguously report the disciples’ claims that Jesus rose from the dead.
“I think an excellent case can be made for dating the Gospels earlier, but let’s go with the more generous estimations. That’s still extremely close to the events themselves, especially compared to many other ancient historical writings. Our two best sources on Alexander the Great, for instance, weren’t written until at least four hundred years after his life.
“As for Caesar Augustus, who is generally regarded as Rome’s greatest emperor, there are five chief sources used by historians to write a history of his adulthood: a very brief funeral inscription, a source written between fifty and a hundred years after his death, and three sources written between a hundred and two hundred years after he died. So it’s really remarkable that in the case of Jesus, we have four biographies that even liberals agree were written within thirty-five to sixty-five years after his execution.”
My earlier interview with textual critic Daniel B. Wallace came to mind. “You’d admit, though, that the final verses in Mark, which describe the resurrection appearances, were not part of the original text.”
“Yes, I believe that’s true,” he said. “But still, Mark clearly knows of the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Mark predicts the resurrection in five places,33 and he reports the testimony of the angel to the resurrection, the empty tomb, and the imminent appearance of Jesus in Galilee. In fact, Mark’s reference to Peter in Mark 16:7 may be the very same appearance reported in the creed I just mentioned.”
Licona paused, then added: “One more thing. Most scholars believe Mark is the earliest Gospel, but we have an even earlier report about the resurrection: the 1 Corinthians 15 creed that I mentioned. This clearly spells out various post-Easter appearances by Jesus—including at one point to five hundred people.
“Then we have the writings of the apostolic fathers, who were said to have known the apostles or were close to others who did. There’s a strong likelihood that their writings reflect the teachings of the apostles themselves—and what do they say? That the apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus’ resurrection.
“Consider Clement, for example. The early church father Irenaeus reports that Clement had conversed with the apostles—in fact, Irenaeus commented that he ‘might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes.’ Tertullian, the African church father, said Clement was ordained by Peter himself.”
“So what does Clement report about the beliefs of the disciples?” I asked.
“In his letter to the Corinthian church, which was written in the first century, he writes: ‘Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.’34
“Then we have Polycarp. Irenaeus says that Polycarp was ‘instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ,’ including John; that he ‘recalled their very words’; and that he ‘always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles.’ Tertullian confirms that John appointed Polycarp as bishop of the church in Smyrna.
“Around AD 110, Polycarp wrote a letter to the Philippian church in which he mentions the resurrection of Jesus no fewer than five times. He was referring to Paul and the other apostles when he said: ‘For they did not love the present age, but him who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God.’35
“So think about the depth of evidence we have in these three categories: Paul, oral tradition, and written reports. In all, we’ve got nine sources that reflect multiple, very early, and eyewitness testimonies to the disciples’ claims that they had seen the risen Jesus. This is something the disciples believed to the core of their being.”
“How do you know that?”
“Because we have evidence that the disciples had been transformed to the point where they were willing to endure persecution and even martyrdom. We find this in multiple accounts inside and outside the New Testament.
“Just read through Acts and you’ll see how the disciples were willing to suffer for their conviction that Jesus rose from the dead. The church fathers Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Origen—they all confirm this. In fact, we’ve got at least seven early sources testifying that the disciples willingly suffered in defense of their beliefs—and if we include the martyrdoms of Paul and Jesus’ half-brother James, we have eleven sources.”
“But,” I objected, “people of other faiths have been willing to die for their beliefs through the ages—so what does the martyrdom of the disciples really prove?”
“First, it means that they certainly regarded their beliefs to be true,” he said. “They didn’t willfully lie about this. Liars make poor martyrs. Second, the disciples didn’t just believe Jesus rose from the dead, but they knew for a fact whether he did. They were on the scene and able to ascertain for sure that he had been resurrected. So it was for the truth of the resurrection that they were willing to die.
“This is totally different than a modern-day Islamic terrorist or others willing to die for their beliefs. These people can only have faith that their beliefs are true, but they aren’t in a position to know for sure. The disciples, on the other hand, knew for a fact whether the resurrection had truly occurred—and knowing the truth, they were willing to die for the belief that they had.”
“Then what’s the bottom line?” I asked.
“Habermas completed an overview of more than two thousand scholarly sources on the resurrection going back thirty years—and probably no fact was more widely recognized than that the early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus,” Licona replied.
“Even the atheist Lüdemann conceded: ‘It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.’36 Now, he claims this was the result of visions, which I simply don’t believe is a credible explanation. But he’s conceding that their experiences actually occurred.”
Licona reached over to the coffee table and picked up a copy of his book The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, quickly flipping to page 60. “As Paula Fredriksen of Boston University put it—and, again, she’s not an evangelical but a very liberal scholar—
I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.37
“In fact, Fredriksen says elsewhere that ‘the disciples’ conviction that they had seen the risen Christ…is [part of] historical bedrock, facts known past doubting.’38 I think that’s pretty much undeniable—and I believe the evidence is clear and convincing that what they saw was the return of Jesus from the dead. And we’re not done yet—we’ve got three more minimal facts to consider.”
The case for the disciples encountering what they believed to be the risen Jesus did,
indeed, seem strong. Still, skeptics have raised some fresh objections in recent years. Rather than sidetrack Licona at this point, however, I decided to wait until he finished describing his five minimal facts. At that point, I could cross-examine him in more depth.
“Go ahead,” I said. “What’s your third minimal fact?”
FACT #3: THE CONVERSION OF THE CHURCH PERSECUTOR PAUL
“We know from multiple sources that Paul—who was then known as Saul of Tarsus—was an enemy of the church and committed to persecuting the faithful,” Licona continued. “But Paul himself says that he was converted to a follower of Jesus because he had personally encountered the resurrected Jesus.39 So we have Jesus’ resurrection attested by friend and foe alike, which is very significant.
“Then we have six ancient sources in addition to Paul—such as Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen—reporting that Paul was willing to suffer continuously and even die for his beliefs. Again, liars make poor martyrs. So we can be confident that Paul not only claimed the risen Jesus appeared to him, but that he really believed it.”
I couldn’t let this point slip by without at least one brief objection. “People convert to other religions all the time,” I said. “What’s so special about Paul?”
“When virtually all people convert, it’s because they’ve heard the message of that religion from secondary sources—that is, what other people tell them,” Licona explained. “Yet that’s not the case with Paul. He says he was transformed by a personal encounter with the risen Christ. So his conversion is based in primary evidence—Jesus directly appeared to him. That’s a big difference.
“You can’t claim that Paul was a friend of Jesus who was primed to see a vision of him due to wishful thinking or grief after his crucifixion. Saul was a most unlikely candidate for conversion. His mind-set was to oppose the Christian movement that he believed was following a false Messiah. His radical transformation from persecutor to missionary demands an explanation—and I think the best explanation is that he’s telling the truth when he says he met the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.