by Lee Strobel
“He had nothing to gain in this world—except his own suffering and martyrdom—for making this up.”
FACT #4: THE CONVERSION OF THE SKEPTIC JAMES, JESUS’ HALF-BROTHER
“The next minimal fact involves James, the half-brother of Jesus,” Licona said.
“Some people might be surprised that Jesus had siblings,” I commented.
“Well, the Gospels tell us that Jesus had at least four half-brothers—James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon—as well as half-sisters whose names we don’t know.40 The Jewish historian Josephus, in a section most historians regard as authentic, refers to ‘the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James.’”
“Do we know much about James?” I asked.
“In the second century, Hegesippus reports that James was a pious Jew who strictly abided by the Jewish law. But more significantly for our purposes, we also have good evidence that James was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus’ lifetime.”
“How do you know?”
“Mark and John both report that none of Jesus’ brothers believed in him.41 In fact, John’s passage is particularly interesting. It suggests that his brothers had heard about his alleged miracles but didn’t believe the reports and were, in a sense, daring their brother to perform them in front of crowds. They were sort of taunting him!”42
“Why do you consider the skepticism of Jesus’ brothers to be authentic?” I asked.
“Because of the principle of embarrassment,” Licona replied. “People are not going to invent a story that’s going to be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them, and it would be particularly humiliating for a first-century rabbi not to have his own family as his followers.”
“Do you have any other evidence for their skepticism?”
“At the crucifixion, to whom does Jesus entrust the care of his mother? Not to one of his half-brothers, who would be the natural choice, but to John, who was a believer. Why on earth would he do that? I think the inference is very strong: if James or any of his brothers had been believers, they would have gotten the nod instead. So it’s reasonable to conclude that none of them was a believer, and Jesus was more concerned with his mother being entrusted into the hands of a spiritual brother.
“Then, however, the pivotal moment occurs: the ancient creedal material in 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that the risen Jesus appeared to James. Again, this is an extremely early account that has all the earmarks of reliability. In fact, James may have been involved in passing along this creed to Paul, in which case James would be personally endorsing what the creed reports about him.
“As a result of his encounter with the risen Jesus, James doesn’t just become a Christian, but he later becomes leader of the Jerusalem church. We know this from Acts and Galatians.43 Actually, James was so thoroughly convinced of Jesus’ Messiahship because of the resurrection that he died as a martyr, as both Christian and non-Christian sources attest.44
“So here we have another example of a skeptic who was converted because of a personal encounter with the resurrected Lord and was willing to die for his convictions. In fact, critical scholar Reginald Fuller said that even if we didn’t have the 1 Corinthians 15 account, ‘we should have to invent’ such a resurrection appearance to account for James’ conversion and his elevation to the pastorate of the Jerusalem church, which was the center of ancient Christianity.”45
Licona paused as if he had finished his point. But something occurred to me as he was telling the story of James. “Makes you wonder why James wasn’t a believer during the lifetime of Jesus,” I mused. “What did Jesus do or not do that left James skeptical?”
Licona seemed slightly taken aback. “I have to admit, Lee, that has bothered me over the years,” he said, his voice taking on a more personal tone. “It still bothers me some, to be honest with you. If the virgin birth really occurred, then how could Jesus’ brothers not have believed in him? I’m sure they would have heard it from Mary. Sincerely, I have really struggled with that.
“I mentioned this recently to a friend who is somewhat of a skeptic, and he surprised me by saying, ‘It doesn’t bother me at all. If I had a brother who was perfect, even if he had been born of a virgin, I’d hate him, and I just wouldn’t follow him.’ That was interesting to me. But honestly, we don’t really know, historically speaking.”
I ventured another explanation. “I suppose if you had a brother who was making implicit but very grandiose claims about himself, that might be an embarrassment,” I said.
“You know, you’re right,” Licona replied. “I hadn’t thought of the peer pressure of the community in which you live. This guy thinks he’s the Son of God? C’mon! Set your brother straight. You’re going to feel embarrassed.”
“In the end, do you think James’s conversion is significant evidence for the resurrection?”
“Absolutely, yes, I do,” he said. “As resurrection scholar William Lane Craig asks, ‘What would it take to convince you that your brother is the Lord?’ Really, the only thing that could account for that would be what’s reported in the early creed: that the crucified Jesus appeared alive to James.”
With that, Licona advanced to the last of his minimal facts.
FACT #5: JESUS’ TOMB WAS EMPTY
“Although the fifth fact—that the tomb of Jesus was empty—is part of the minimal case for the resurrection, it doesn’t enjoy the nearly universal consensus among scholars that the first four do,” Licona began. “Still, there’s strong evidence in its favor.”
“How strong?” I asked.
“Habermas determined that about 75 percent of scholars on the subject regard it as a historical fact. That’s quite a large majority. Personally, I think the empty tomb is very well supported if the historical data are assessed without preconceptions. Basically, there are three strands of evidence: the Jerusalem factor, enemy attestation, and the testimony of women.”
“Jerusalem factor?” I asked. “What’s that?”
“This refers to the fact that Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem and then his resurrection was proclaimed in the very same city. In fact, several weeks after the crucifixion, Peter declares to a crowd right there in Jerusalem: ‘God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.’46 Frankly, it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if Jesus’ body were still in the tomb. The Roman or Jewish authorities could have simply gone over to his tomb, viewed his corpse, and the misunderstanding would have been over. But there’s no indication that this occurred.
“Instead, what we do hear is enemy attestation to the empty tomb. In other words, what were the skeptics saying? That the disciples stole the body. This is reported not only by Matthew, but also by Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Here’s the thing: Why would you say someone stole the body if it were still in the tomb? This is an implicit admission that the tomb was empty.
“I’ve got a twelve-year-old son. If he went into school and said, ‘The dog ate my homework,’ he would be implicitly admitting he doesn’t have his homework to turn in. Likewise, you wouldn’t claim that the disciples stole the body if it were still in his tomb. It’s an indirect admission that the body was unavailable for display.”
“And enemy attestation is strong evidence in the eyes of historians,” I commented.
“That’s correct. Here, you’ve got Jesus’ opponents conceding his tomb was vacant. There’s no way they would have admitted this if it weren’t true. On top of that, the idea that the disciples stole the body is a lame explanation. Are we supposed to believe they conspired to steal the body, pulled it off, and then were willing to suffer continuously and even die for what they knew was a lie? That’s such an absurd idea that scholars universally reject it today.
“In addition, we have the testimony of women that the tomb was empty. Not only were women the first to discover the vacant grave, but they are mentioned in all four Gospels, whereas male witnesses appear only later and in two of th
em.”
“Why is this important?”
“Because in both first-century Jewish and Roman cultures, women were lowly esteemed and their testimony was considered questionable. They were certainly considered less credible than men. For example, the Jewish Talmud says, ‘Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women,’ and, ‘Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer).’ Josephus said, ‘But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.’
“My point is this: if you were going to concoct a story in an effort to fool others, you would never in that day have hurt your own credibility by saying that women discovered the empty tomb. It would be extremely unlikely that the Gospel writers would invent testimony like this, because they wouldn’t get any mileage out of it. In fact, it could hurt them. If they had felt the freedom simply to make things up, surely they’d claim that men—maybe Peter or John or even Joseph of Arimathea—were the first to find the tomb empty.”
“So this is another example of the criterion of embarrassment.”
“Precisely. The best theory for why the Gospel writers would include such an embarrassing detail is because that’s what actually happened and they were committed to recording it accurately, regardless of the credibility problem it created in that culture.
“So when you consider the Jerusalem factor, the enemy attestation, and the testimony of women, there are good historical reasons for concluding Jesus’ tomb was empty. William Ward of Oxford University put it this way: ‘All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.’”47
I interrupted. “Let’s put this into context, though: an empty tomb doesn’t prove the resurrection.”
“Granted, but remember that this is just one of the five minimal facts. And it’s entirely congruent with the beliefs of the disciples, Paul, and James that Jesus rose from the dead, since a resurrection implies an empty tomb.”
“Okay, I’ve given you a chance to lay out your mimimal facts,” I said. “How would you summarize your case?”
“Let’s consider what we have. Shortly after Jesus died from crucifixion, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead. They said he appeared not only to individuals but in several group settings—and the disciples were so convinced and transformed by the experience that they were willing to suffer and even die for their conviction that they had encountered him.
“Then we have two skeptics who regarded Jesus as a false prophet—Paul, the persecutor of the church, and James, who was Jesus’ half-brother. They completely changed their opinions 180 degrees after encountering the risen Jesus. Like the disciples, they were willing to endure hardship, persecution, and even death rather than disavow their testimony that Jesus’ resurrection occurred.
“Thus we have compelling testimony about the resurrection from friends of Jesus, an enemy of Christianity, and a skeptic. Finally, we have strong historical evidence that Jesus’ tomb was empty. In fact, even enemies of Christianity admitted it was vacant. Where did the body go? If you asked the disciples, they’d tell you they personally saw Jesus after he returned to life.
“So we’ve looked at relevant sources, and we’ve applied responsible historical methodology. Now we need restrained results. We have to ask ourselves: What’s the best explanation for the evidence—the explanation that doesn’t leave out any of the facts or strains to make anything fit? My conclusion, based on the evidence, is that Jesus did return from the dead.”
“You personally think the case is strong?”
“Oh, absolutely, because it outdistances the competing hypotheses by such a large margin. No other explanation comes close to accounting for all the facts. That makes future disconfirmation unlikely. Historically speaking, I think we’ve got a cogent and convincing case.”
THE REST OF THE STORY
Licona could have presented all kinds of historical evidence for the resurrection, but instead he limited himself only to five facts that are extremely well-attested historically and that the vast majority of scholars—including skeptics—concede are trustworthy. I was impressed that he didn’t merely throw around hyperbolic affirmations for the resurrection from conservative Christians who only considered the evidence in favor of their cherished doctrine. Making his case from the lips of liberal and disbelieving scholars served greatly to heighten the credibility of the Easter event. I was reminded of the conclusions of historian N. T. Wright, author of the 741-page Jesus and the Victory of God and a visiting professor at Harvard University:
It is no good falling back on “science” as having disproved the possibility of resurrection. Any real scientist will tell you that science observes what normally happens; the Christian case is precisely that what happened to Jesus is not what normally happens. For my part, as a historian I prefer the elegant, essentially simple solution rather than the one that fails to include all the data: to say that the early Christians believed that Jesus had been bodily raised from the dead, and to account for this belief by saying that they were telling the truth.48
As Licona finished his presentation and relaxed back into the couch, I thumbed through the notes attached to a clipboard in my lap. Having studied the most current—and most compelling—objections of Muslims, atheists, and other resurrection doubters, I knew that there was another side to the story. How strong was it? How would Licona respond? Would his evidence emerge unscathed or disintegrate under scrutiny?
“Let’s grab some lunch,” I suggested as I stood and stretched. “Then we’ll see how good your case stands up to cross-examination.”
CHALLENGE #3
PART TWO:
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION
COL. JESSEP:
You want answers?
LT. KAFFEE:
I think I’m entitled.
JESSEP:
You want answers?
KAFFEE:
I want the truth!
JESSEP:
You can’t handle the truth!
from the film A Few Good Men
Few scenes are as gripping in the movies—or in real life—as the tenacious and effective cross-examination of a witness in a criminal trial. The prosecution may have presented a persuasive case during the first part of the proceedings, but sometimes the persistent questioning of a witness can reverse the entire outcome of a trial.
That’s what happened in the Broadway play and subsequent film A Few Good Men, in which military attorney Daniel Kaffee was assigned to defend two Marines accused of murdering a problem comrade at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Kaffee was trying to prove that his clients were merely following the orders of the ambitious base commander, Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, who had allegedly ordered a “Code Red” against the victim, which is slang for unsanctioned punishment.1
In the film’s climactic scene, Kaffee (played by Tom Cruise) relentlessly presses Jessep (portrayed by Jack Nicholson) for the truth about what took place. Jessep’s anger was clearly mounting. “Did you order the Code Red?” the lawyer demands. “I did the job I was sent to do,” barks Jessep. With more intensity, Kaffee repeats: “Did you order the Code Red?” That’s when the witness breaks. “You’re——right I did!” Jessep shouts back—and his fate is sealed. He is immediately arrested—his career destroyed—but not before he lunges at Kaffee and threatens to kill him.
That’s great cinema, but in real life witnesses are rarely badgered into confessing to crimes on the witness stand. Skillful and well-prepared attorneys, however, often succeed in casting doubt on a witness’s credibility, poking holes in their opponent’s theories, and generating reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors. I learned quickly as the legal-affairs editor of the Chicago Tribune never to reach conclusions based on hearing only one side of a case.
So far, New Testament historian Michael Licona had presented seemingly conclusive arguments for Jesus�
�� resurrection by using only five “minimal facts” that are well-evidenced and accepted by the vast majority of critical scholars: Jesus was killed by crucifixion; his disciples believed he rose and appeared to them; the conversion of the church persecutor Paul; the conversion of the skeptic James, who was Jesus’ half-brother; and Jesus’ empty tomb.
Unchallenged, these facts appear to point convincingly toward the verdict that Jesus returned from the dead and thus authenticated his claim to being the unique Son of God. But what happens when these facts are subjected to cross-examination? How would Licona respond to the alternate theories that have been advanced in the last few years by respected scholars, popular authors, and Internet gadflies? Would “the other side of the story” prompt a far different conclusion: That the resurrection is actually more wishful thinking than historic reality?
Licona and I reconvened in my family room. His eyes seemed to take on a heightened intensity as he watched me shuffle through my list of prepared questions. My plan wasn’t to try to provoke, intimidate, or badger him in the style of Tom Cruise’s character; rather, I wanted to test his five facts with the most cogent arguments of critics and see whether Licona’s answers would really hold up. This wasn’t a game of “gotcha”; it was a genuine desire to see how the resurrection would fare against its latest critics.
Since Licona had started his case with the crucifixion of Jesus—confidently declaring that it was “as solid as anything in ancient history”—I decided to begin there too. After all, I mused, the more than one billion Muslims in the world would adamantly dissent from Licona’s assertion.