“if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is without foundation, and so is your faith.”
1 Corinthians 15:14 (HCSB)
Introduction
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is central to the Christian faith. Without it, there is no forgiveness of sins, no everlasting life after death, and no hope of a future glory and a world without sin. Therefore, when critics attack Christianity, the focus often centers on the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christian scholars have responded in a variety of ways, e.g. the minimal facts argument (historical) and the cumulative case argument (forensic). However, the archaeological argument is not often utilized, because it has a substantial interpretive element and material evidence in support of the resurrection is limited due to the destruction of ancient material culture and lack of resources to fund digs. Even with these challenges, an argument from archaeology can be made that the resurrection is the most likely explanation of the Biblical account of Jesus’ reappearance after death.
The archaeological case for the resurrection revolves around the following questions: (1) Was Jesus’ tomb empty on Resurrection Sunday apart from physical removal of the body, and (2) Is there independent enemy attestation that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was near-universally held by early Christians? The archaeological record has preserved answers to both of these questions in the form of ancient tomb discoveries, the Nazareth Inscription, and ancient letters between enemies of Christianity. Though no piece of evidence is inconclusive and without critique, combined, these lines of evidence provide strong support in favor of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In Support of the Empty Tomb
One line of archaeological evidence in support of the resurrection of Jesus Christ involves the demonstration that Jesus’ tomb was empty on Resurrection Sunday and that it was not emptied naturally. There are several sub-arguments in support of this claim. First, the checks in place at the tomb during the three days after burial ensured that no one was able to remove the body naturally. Second, the Sadducees’ immediate rebuttal to resurrection testimonies demonstrates that the tomb was indeed empty on the third day. Third, the Nazareth Inscription issued by Roman authorities, which outlawed tomb desecration, supports that an empty tomb caused serious problems for the Roman Empire. When taken together, these three lines of evidence all support the resurrection hypothesis.
Tomb Sealing and Protection
In order to ascertain whether or not the body of Jesus was stolen or moved between the time of his burial to the time of his resurrection, it is necessary to demonstrate that a tomb such as the one described by Scripture could have existed in 1st century Israel and that no one tampered with the tomb. The biblical account of Jesus’ tomb includes the following facts: (1) it is a rock cut tomb, (2) a great stone was rolled across the entrance, (3) it was a rich man’s tomb, and (4) it was a new tomb, meaning that there had never been any other people buried there.[1] Additionally, Scripture reports that the Pharisees and Pilate had secured a Roman guard to monitor the tomb for at least three days and that the stone was sealed by the guard.[2] If these facts can be corroborated by archaeological evidence, it would demonstrate that there is a good probability that Jesus was buried in such a tomb and remained undisturbed until the time of his resurrection.
Archaeological Data
Tomb Data
There are two possibilities for Jesus’ burial after execution: either He was buried in a trench or He was buried in a tomb. The fact that He was convicted and crucified in a short period of time virtually guarantees that the account of His burial in Joseph’s tomb is historically accurate. Jewish people had to be buried within 24-hours of death.[3] However, in Jesus’ case, His family was poor which would have required digging a trench tomb prior to the start of the Sabbath.[4] The timing of the crucifixion shortly before the beginning of the Sabbath meant that there was no time to dig a tomb. Thus, Joseph offered His tomb, not solely out of honor per say, but in order to meet Jewish burial customs.[5] In this way, Jesus could conceivably have been buried in a rich person’s tomb in spite of His family’s lack of wealth, just as the biblical accounts state.
There is also substantial archaeological evidence confirming the type of tomb that the biblical record asserts was used in Jesus’ burial. Jerusalem is surrounded by ancient rock-cut tombs that are artificially carved into the stone, confirmed to be used predominantly by the upper class, and were the burial site of bodies wrapped in shrouds.[6] Additionally, archaeologists have discovered three types of rock-cut tombs that were in use in the Second Temple Period. Two of these tomb types included flat shelves or benches that the deceased body would be laid upon for burial.[7] Thus, the tomb that the bible describes has direct archaeological correlates, and though it is not possible yet to determine the exact type of tomb used, it is clear that the tomb story is likely true.
There is one final feature of the biblical tomb that has scholars divided: the presence of a circular stone to seal the opening. One critical archaeologist, Amos Kloner, argues that “of the more than 900 burial caves from the Second Temple period found in and around Jerusalem, only four are known to have used round (disk-shaped) blocking stones.”[8] Additionally, Kloner argues that round stones garnered substantial use after the fall of Jerusalem from the “second to seventh century” A.D.[9] He argues that the biblical accounts are in error and that Jesus was not buried in a tomb like the Bible reports. However, his own analysis proves to be his undoing. In his article he affirms that disk-shaped stones were in use during Jesus’ time by “the wealthiest Jews.”[10] Thus, the biblical account is affirmed as Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy Jew and would have had access to a stone-cut tomb with a round blocking stone. William Lane Craig also comments that the bench style tombs (arcosolia) were used by wealthy Jews and contained rolling blocking stones.[11] Considering all of the data presented, there is a high probability that Jesus was buried in a tomb of the style and type that the Bible depicted.
Guard Data
In addition to the existence of the tomb, there is also good evidence that the biblical account of the tomb being supervised by a Roman guard is accurate, assuring that nothing other than a resurrection could account for the body disappearing. First, if, as the aforementioned data about the tomb suggest, the tomb entrance was blocked by a round stone, it is most likely that the stone weighed between “one-and-one-half to two tons.”[12] The idea that the disciples would have been able to move the stone without being noticed by the guards is preposterous. The amount of human exertion combined with the noise caused by a rolling stone of that size would surely arouse the suspicion of the roman cohort.
Second, some scholars have argued that the guard was Jewish and not Roman, and thus subject to falling asleep or being bribed.[13] However, there are multiple reasons to suspect that it was indeed a Roman guard assigned to Jesus’ tomb. First, the Roman guard is attested to in the Gospel of Peter which states, “Pilate gave over to them Petronius the centurion with soldiers to safeguard the sepulcher.”[14] Though the Gospel of Peter is not as good a source as the gospels, it minimally preserves the tradition of some during the early 3rd century A.D.[15] New Testament scholars J. K. Elliot and Michael Licona affirm that the Gospel of Peter used the canonical gospels as sources, indicating that the Roman origin of the guard may have been implicit in Matthew’s account.[16] Second, New Testament scholar Raymond Brown points out that the words Matthew used to describe the assignment of the guard (koustodia) and the soldiers themselves (stratiotes) all indicate that the guard was indeed Roman.[17] Finally, the guard was tied into Pilate’s authority, which would not be the case if it was a Jewish Temple guard. The Jews had to petition Pilate to secure the tomb (Matthew 27:64) and the Jewish leadership had to keep the guard “out of trouble” with Pilate if word reached him that the tomb was empty. These things would only be true if the guard was composed of Roman soldiers who “could be executed for sleeping on watch and taking a bribe.”[18] Thus, it is almost certain that the guard was Roman and would not have let anyone near the tomb of Jesus between the time of His burial and the time of His resurrection.
Jewish Propaganda Story
Another line of supporting evidence demonstrating that the tomb was indeed empty by non-natural means is the attempted refutation of the resurrection given by the Jewish authorities after discovering that Jesus’ tomb was empty.
“As they were on their way, some of the guards came into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. After the priests had assembled with the elders and agreed on a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money and told them, “Say this, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole Him while we were sleeping.’ If this reaches the governor’s ears, we will deal with him and keep you out of trouble.” So they took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been spread among Jewish people to this day.”[19]
The Jewish authorities’ reaction to the news that the tomb was empty is a perfect example of a knee-jerk reaction to attempt to discredit it. This polemic against the resurrection is affirmed by the gospel writer to be wide-spread and well-known among the antagonistic Jews. In order for this polemic to work to protect the Jewish people against belief in the resurrection, it must be addressing a real reason that people were becoming convinced of the resurrection. Interestingly, the polemic presupposes the following historical data: (1) the tomb where Jesus was buried was generally known, (2) Jesus’ tomb was empty on the morning of the resurrection, (3) there were guards present at the tomb for the duration of the entombment of Jesus, and (4) the guards did not believe that anyone had stolen the body or robbed the tomb. At the time, the Jewish polemic may have served to dissuade some people from accepting Jesus and the resurrection; however, for the modern hearer, it affirms exactly the opposite. Setting aside the claim that the disciples stole the body, the inclusion of the guard and their diligence at the tomb within the story solidifies their historical existence, since “it is unlikely that the Christians [or Jews] would invent a fiction like the guard, which everyone … would realize never existed.”[20]
With the guard’s presence affirmed, one can fully address the Jewish objection that the disciples stole the body. This theory is easy to dismiss as historically fallacious due to many facts. First, the following early Christian creeds all affirmed the validity of the resurrection: Romans 1:3-4; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3-5; Philippians 2:6-11; Luke 24:34; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20-23; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10. As these sections are recognized as creedal, they demonstrate not only the views of their authors (Peter, Paul and Luke), but also of the early Christian community dating back to the first few years of Christianity.[21] This unanimous ascent to the resurrection cannot be accounted for by the body being stolen. Importantly, Paul and James held to these early creeds. Both of these men were not converted by a testimony from the disciples, but rather by direct appearances of Jesus resurrected. Their agreement is further evidence, since there is no reason for them to have gone along with or been brought into a conspiracy involving the disciples.
Additionally, the disciples would have had to maintain their conspiracy throughout their lives, but everything about their lives demonstrates that if they did steal the body they should have come clean at some point. For instance, none of the disciples had the proper motivation for maintaining a conspiracy. They did not stand to gain any money, power, or women from maintaining that Jesus rose from the dead.[22] In fact, in a substantial dissertation, historical scholar Sean McDowell demonstrated that “There is convincing evidence Peter, Paul, James the son of Zebedee, and James the brother of the Lord died as martyrs” and that it is “more probable than not that Thomas and Andrew died as martyrs” as well.[23] Not only would the disciples not have benefited from maintaining a conspiracy, they would have had to die for it. Thus, the data concerning conspiracies purported by the Jewish leadership coupled with the data of the guards at the tomb and the tomb’s style and type as recorded in the gospels presents a narrative that can only be reconciled by the resurrection.
The Nazareth Inscription
Archaeological Data
There is one other major archaeological find that seems to implicitly corroborate the resurrection by way of verifying a disturbance that resulted from the discovery of an empty tomb. This find, called the Nazareth Inscription, was given to the Frohner Collection in 1878 with the simple designation “This marble was sent from Nazareth.”[24] As such, it is an unprovenanced discovery which allowed it to pass into obscurity for over 50 years. However, archaeologist Clyde Billington used historiography and textual analysis to demonstrate that the inscription was an edict of Emperor Claudius and carved in Sepphoris (close to Nazareth) by “a Greek stone-cutter.”[25]
The Inscription reads:
“Edict of Caesar”
“It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs – whoever has made them for religious observances of parents, or children, or household members – that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person I order that a judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under the title of tomb-breaker.”[26]
Critique and Implications
In order to see how this inscription relates to the resurrection, it is vital to understand its historical purpose. Billington argues persuasively for the inscription origin to be dated to 41 A.D. at Claudius’ ascension to the throne of the Roman Empire.[27] At this time, Claudius was attempting to quell a Jewish revolt and was specifically afraid of “the Jewish belief in the coming Messiah/Christ, who would establish [a] worldwide Jewish Empire on the earth.”[28] This belief was specifically linked to Jesus as His resurrection was causing a stir in the Roman world as reported in Suetonius’ Life of Claudius which states: “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”[29] The reason for the instigation was that the Jewish Christians were claiming that Jesus was raised from the dead. That Claudius would have known that the Jesus and His resurrection were the central issue is clear from statements made to people in the Roman government. For example, Acts 24:5 records Paul informing Governor Felix that the Jews called him “a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” indicating that Jesus of Nazareth was the head of his sect.[30] Thus, when Claudius wanted to clamp down on Christianity it is likely that he “wrote an imperial rescript forbidding the removal of bodies from tombs to counter the Christian doctrine that Jesus had been resurrected.”[31] Minimally, this inscription supports the fact that the resurrection of Jesus was central to Christianity “immediately after his crucifixion.”[32]
Additionally, the inscription highlights specific aspects of the empty tomb narrative that seem to indicate Claudius had that story in mind when he wrote the edict. First, the edict does not seem to be concerned with grave-robbing or even general desecration but specifically with “any person who has destroyed or extracted those who have been buried, or those who have moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places.”[33] This lines up perfectly with the resurrection story and the Jewish polemic that the disciples stole the body. Second, the edict explicitly mentions “moving sepulcher-sealing stones.” The most reasonable explanation for this statement’s inclusion is that a central part of Matthew’s recounting of the empty tomb was that “a great stone” was rolled “against the entrance of the tomb” upon burial and on Resurrection Sunday, an angel “rolled back the stone.”[34] Third, the edict does not fit Gentile burial customs. Gentiles in the first century were buried in the ground in coffins or cremated.[35] Additionally, the edict mentions family style tombs which were not in use in the Roman Empire.[36] Fourth, though not related to the gospel narrative, is the surprising inclusion of the death penalty for the unauthorized removal of the body which does not occur anywhere else in Roman Law descriptions.[37] All of these things taken in concert provide good evidence that the inscription was written in order to quell the belief in the resurrection of Jesus as reported in the gospel of Matthew.
Documentation of Belief in Resurrection
Another substantial line of evidence in support of the resurrection comes from independent, non-Christian, and enemy attestation that the earliest Christians believed in the resurrection of Jesus. When taken in tandem with the evidence for the empty tomb, this testimony demonstrates that alternative explanations and anti-resurrection polemics proposed to Jews and Gentiles alike were not sufficient to dissuade or deter the disciples and others from professing and believing that Jesus was actually resurrected. Thus, these ancient literary fragments demonstrate that the resurrection explanation was not a myth made up at a later date but originated from the event itself and is best explained by that event.
Josephus
Archaeological Data
Josephus was a Roman historian for Emperor Vespasian in the first century A.D.[38] Though he only mentions Jesus twice in his books, one of those citations contains a direct reference to the resurrection. Unfortunately, most scholars agree that the section discussing the resurrection was probably edited by the church “sometime between the first and fourth centuries.”[39] The relevant portion of the Testimonium Falvianum found in the Greek copies of Eusebius reads:
“For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wonderous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.”[40]
Before engaging in a discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum it is important to remember that it is one of the most hotly debated sections of ancient literature and though many scholars think they have the final say on the Testimonium, no single theory has emerged as dominant.
The controversy around the Testimonium centers on the fact that from the first few centuries A.D. Christians thought Josephus was the “most important external source for the context of the Jesus movement and origins of Christianity” and they believed that he supported “crucial points of salvation history that started with Jesus Christ.”[41] As such, one of the first attacks to come against Christian use of this passage was that Josephus was a Jew and at best neutral or worst hostile toward Christianity. Thus, many assumed that Josephus would never have written a passage affirming Jesus’ messiahship and resurrection. Instead, they purport that the entire passage is a “wholesale Christian interpolation.”[42]
One way scholars such as Shlomo Pines attempted to get around the seemingly Christian phraseology and affirmation of the Testimonium was to assert that later manuscripts which contained a more neutral or muted statement were derived from a source that was closer to Josephus’ original writing.[43] Aside from the Greek version, the medieval church has preserved an Arabic version from the 10th century and a Syriac version from the 12th century.[44] The Arabic version reads, “They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted.”[45] Though the Arabic version does seem more plausible to have come from a Jewish historian’s pen, there are a few key factors that remove it from being derived from a more authentic manuscript than Eusebius’s version. First, it seems as though both of the later renditions of the Testimonium share utilize chronicle of Theophilus of Edessa as a source, which is dated to 785 A.D.[46] Additionally, Michael’s Testimonium is identical to the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Testimonium.[47] Thus, rather than being based on documents closer to the original Josephus than Eusebius’ version was, it is most likely true that the later manuscripts are based on translations of Eusebius.
Though textual criticism refuses to give up the secrets of the authenticity of the Testimonium, historical and literary analysis may provide the answers for which scholars and apologists have been searching. Recent scholarship has led to the investigation of the Testimonium in terms of its place of origin and the possible role of oration in determining its meaning. New Testament scholar John Curran draws attention to the fact that Josephus originally wrote and presented Antiquities in Rome and that the Latin copies preserved via Jerome are the best manuscripts and accurately record what Josephus said. These earliest manuscripts record corrections of the text from “he was the Christ” to “he was believed to be the Christ.”[48] The initial view held that Jerome made the change because he had issues with according the pro-Christian language to Josephus. However, Curran argues that Eusebius was not the source of Jerome’s Testimonium; rather, Jerome received a Greek or Latin version directly from one of his friends in Rome.[49] Thus the correction was based on Jerome’s knowledge of a direct copy of Antiquities. If this proves to be the case, then the testimonium preserved in the Latin texts is most likely reflective of the original.
Implications
Using the Latin version as the original text yields a novel understanding of the Testimonium as a negative, antagonist polemic against Christianity. At the time Josephus wrote Antiquities, he was addressing the conflict between Rome and the Jews as well as commenting on how the Jews were to understand their relationship with God in a post-Temple setting.[50] This led Josephus to write a series of three stories, the second of which is the Testimonium. The first of these stories contained Pilate’s attempt to quell a Jewish rebellion against his aqueduct development.[51] The end result concerning the Jews is that “a great number of them [were] slain.”[52] This serves as the first of three incidents that “put the Jews into disorder” and caused trouble to befall them.[53] The third calamity, the one after the Testimonium, occurred because “irresponsible perverters of the Law of Moses … intervene[d] in the lives of high-born Romans [and brought] the wrath of the State down upon the whole community.”[54] In this way, the Testimonium is sandwiched between two stories which resulted in persecution of the Jews, with the third calamity being specifically caused by people calling themselves Jews but who were guilty of perverting the law.
What purpose does the Testimonium have in this setting? Suetonius, who will be analyzed below, recounts that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because of some of their Christian beliefs.[55] Additionally, the epitome of Dio Cassius records that Flavius and other people were killed for “atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned.”[56] In this context, Josephus’ inclusion of the Testimonium is clear. He wants to distance the Jews from the Christians and make it clear that the Christians were responsible for theological issues with which the Romans took issue.
Now that a negative interpretation of the Testimonium is plausible, there are a number of textual attacks that can be seen. First, in the Latin transcripts, Josephus starts the Testimonium saying, “about this time there arose (one) Jesus.”[57] This phrase holds two negative connotations. First the phrase “about this time” also introduces the calamitous events of the third story, linking the stories together to be seen in the same negative light. Second, if it is authentic, the inclusion of the word “one” would be “construed as carrying a potentially contemptuous, or at least disrespectful meaning.”[58] Next, Josephus calls Jesus a “wise man” but then makes an ironic statement about Jesus’ nature, implying that those who profess to be Christians were still somewhat unclear as to who exactly Jesus was.[59] There is also a jab at those who believed the teachings about Jesus through the statement, “a teacher of such people as accept the “truth” gladly.” Some scholars argue that the word “gladly” has a “distinctly negative connotation in the New Testament usage” and that Josephus is making fun of gullible people who have believed in the seemingly unbelievable story of Jesus.[60] Finally, when holding the Latin version to be more authentic, Josephus states that Jesus was “believed to be ‘the anointed one.’” That Jesus was only believed to be the Messiah is a definite slight against the Christians, but calling Him the Christ or Anointed one is just as bad since Josephus “denounced [messiahs] without equivocation as dangerous trouble-makers.”[61] Under this view, Josephus’ acknowledgment of the resurrection at the end of the section becomes the reason why “despite his shameful death … Christians … continue in existence down to Josephus’ day.[62] Thus, the entire Testimonium can be interpreted as an attempt to place Christians in the same category as Jews who were causing uprisings and rebellious activities against the empire.
There are many important implications that can be derived from this reading. First, it explains why early Christian apologists did not use the Testimonium in their arguments. If it had a negative connotation, early apologists would likely ignore it. Second, it explains the confluence of the text’s excellent manuscript record, the oddity of a text that sounds so pro-Christian being written by a Jewish historian, and placement of the text between two stories about Jewish uprising and persecution. Third, it takes on an apologetic value similar to the Jewish Polemic and the Nazareth Inscription. The Testimonium is hostile enemy evidence that supports the idea that the early Christians did indeed believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the very inception of the church.
Tacitus
Archaeological Data
Tacitus lived from 56 to 120 A.D. and is widely regarded as “the greatest of the Roman historians.”[63] In his final book, Annals, Tacitus records the following passage about Nero and Christians:
“Therefore, to squelch the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected to the most refined tortures those whom the common people called “Christians,” [a group] hated for their abominable crimes. Their name comes from Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the moment, the deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land which originated this evil, but also in the city of Rome.”[64]
The source that Tacitus used for this passage is unknown, but scholars like Robert Van Voorst argue that Tacitus uses “his sources carefully” and that the text’s “accuracy has never been seriously impeached.”[65]
Critique
One of the most prominent critiques against this passage, put forth by Richard Carrier, is that Tacitus’s source was Christian in origin and thus unreliable.[66] Carrier argues that Tacitus would not have used government records as, (1) according to his analysis, “his report contains no distinctive information” that would be found in such a record, (2) Tacitus would not have spent time trying to find this piece of information, and (3) there were no governmental records available to Tacitus because the libraries of Rome were recently burned twice.[67] Carrier’s first point holds no water because he offers no citation or defense for demonstrating how Tacitus’ text is incongruous with government records, nor does he does address how Tacitus may have used government records to craft his story. Carrier’s second point fairs much worse as it amounts to a general disregard for Tacitus as a historian and is nothing more than an assumption about Tacitus’ state of mind when crafting his works. To defend his third point Carrier cites the fires of Cassius Dio and Suetonius; however, to assume that these fires resulted in a Rome-wide loss of all historical information is a far-fetched tale. In order to make his point, Carrier tried to demonstrate that it was highly unlikely that that there was any way Tacitus would use government records, but all he accomplished was crafting a nice story that fit his agenda.
Carrier continues his critique saying that Pliny the Younger, a close friend of Tacitus, “discovered what Christians preached in 110 CE” through hearing or reading the gospels.[68] Then, Pliny gave Tacitus the rough gospel account which Tacitus used in his book, Annals.[69] Carrier goes on to argue that because this story cannot be ruled out it serves as evidence that Tacitus may not be an independent source and should not be treated as such. He then makes a move to declare that since Tacitus’ source cannot be verified “his information has no effect on the probability of myth or historicity.”[70]
On this point, Carrier is guilty of claiming too much with too little evidence. First, as demonstrated above, Carrier did not do a sufficient job demonstrating that Tacitus did not use Roman records; thus, that option is still on the table as a source for Tacitus. Second, Carrier only offers a story of how the information could have arrived in Tacitus’ account, not any actual evidence. There is no reason to accept Carrier’s version of events over any other possible version. Thus, his story does not hold weight in light of other evidence. What is known is that Tacitus was a great Roman historian and would most likely not flippantly include falsities in his accounts as Carrier seems to suggest. Additionally, while we cannot determine the source Tacitus used with certainty that is not grounds to completely throw out the account. Carrier mentions that non-independent sources are worthless, and then imposes his judgment on Tacitus without any discernable citations. Indeterminate origin and non-independent origin are two completely different assertions. When a source is only indeterminate, the credulity of the author should be considered when determining historicity. Thus, Carrier ignores evidence when it goes against his theory and there is no reason at this point to take the Tacitus account as anything less than what Licona judges it as: “possible.”[71]
Implications
Though not the strongest evidence, Tacitus’ account does provide another example that the resurrection was the core distinctive belief of the early Christians and that many of them held to that belief under torture and death. If in the future it can be determined that Tacitus used an independent source, then his account would rank among the greatest and earliest extra-biblical sources confirming the early Christian belief in the resurrection.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the resurrection of Jesus Christ has excellent archaeological evidence in support of its historicity. That Jesus was buried in a tomb of the kind described by Scripture is supported by discoveries of similar ancient tombs attributed to the wealthy class in 1st century A.D. Additionally, the precautions placed at the tomb more than secured it against tampering or theft as supported by ancient documentation of Roman guards as well as the Roman seal placed over the door blocking stone. The empty tomb was corroborated by at least two independent means through the Jewish propaganda story and the Nazareth Inscription which levied the death penalty against any who would steal or move an entombed body. Later documents written by Josephus and Tacitus further confirmed that the resurrection was believed by all early Christians and that none of the tactics devised by Christian enemies worked to dissuade their belief in the resurrection. Thus, the archaeological record provides a substantial argument for the bodily resurrection of Christ.
Bibliography
Billington, Clyde E. “The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ? Part I.” Artifax (n.d.). Accessed September 12, 2018. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/The-Nazareth-Inscription-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx#Article.
———. “The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ? Part II.” Artifax 20, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 17–21.
Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. Vol. 2. New York City, NY: Doubleday, 1994.
Carrier, Richard. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014.
Craig, Willliam Lane. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.
———. “The Guard at the Tomb.” New Testament Studies 30, no. 2 (April 1984): 273–281.
Curran, John. “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again).” Novum Ttestamentum 59 (2017): 71–94.
Dio Cassius. Roman History, n.d.
Josephus. “Antiquities of the Jews.” In Josephus: Complete Works, translated by William Whiston. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1867.
Kloner, Amos. “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” Biblical Archaeology Review 25, no. 5 (October 1999): 22–25, 28–29, 76.
Licona, Michael. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic/InterVarsity Press, 2010.
Longenecker, Richard, N. New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999.
Magness, Jodi. “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?” Society of Biblical Literature Forum 5, no. 2 (2007). Accessed September 10, 2018. https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=640.
———. Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Times of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011.
McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. Evidence for the Resurrection: What It Means for Your Relationship with God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009.
McDowell, Sean. “A Historical Evaluation of the Evidence for the Death of the Apostles as Martyrs for Their Faith.” Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014.
Meier, J. P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and Person. New York City, NY: Doubleday, 1991.
———. “The Testimonium.” Bible Review 7, no. 3 (June 1991): n.p.
Olsen, Ken. “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum.” In Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, edited by Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Schott, n.p. Hellenic Studies Series 60. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013. Accessed September 12, 2018. https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871.
Paget, James Carleton. “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity.” The Journal of Theological Studies 52, no. 2 (October 2001): 539–624.
Pines, Shlomo. An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications. Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Academy of Arts and Humanities, 1971.
Suetonius. “Life of Claudius,” n.d. Accessed September 11, 2018. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html.
Van Henten, J. W. “Josephus, Fifth Evangelist, and Jesus on the Temple.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71, no. 1 (July 2, 2015).
Van Voorst, R. E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Wallace, J. Warner. Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2013.
Whealey, Alice. “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic.” New Testament Studies 54 (2008): 573–590.
[1] Matthew 27:57-61 (HCSB).
[2] Matthew 27:62-66 (HCSB).
[3] Jodi Magness, “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?,” Society of Biblical Literature Forum 5, no. 2 (2007), accessed September 10, 2018, https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=640.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Times of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 145-146.
[7] Willliam Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), 186.
[8] Amos Kloner, “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?,” Biblical Archaeology Review 25, no. 5 (October 1999): 23.
[9] Ibid, 26-28.
[10] Ibid, 28.
[11] Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, 186.
[12] Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection: What It Means for Your Relationship with God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2009), 176.
[13] Willliam Lane Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” New Testament Studies 30, no. 2 (April 1984): n.p.
[14] Gospel of Peter 31, trans. Raymond Brown, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html.
[15] Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic/InterVarsity Press, 2010), 2688, Kindle.
[16] Ibid, 2710, Kindle.
[17] Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 2 (New York City, NY: Doubleday, 1994), 1295.
[18] Matthew 28:14 (HCSB); Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” n.p.
[19] Matthew 28:11-15 (HCSB).
[20] Craig, “The Guard at the Tomb,” n.p.
[21] Richard Longenecker N., New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 6-26.
[22] J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2013), 240.
[23] Sean McDowell, “A Historical Evaluation of the Evidence for the Death of the Apostles as Martyrs for Their Faith” (Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014), 408.
[24] Clyde E. Billington, “The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ? Part II,” Artifax 20, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 17.
[25] Ibid, 19.
[26] Ibid, 17.
[27] Ibid, 20.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Suetonius, “Life of Claudius,” chapter 25, verse 3, accessed September 11, 2018, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html.
[30] Acts 24:5 (HCSB).
[31] Billington, “The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ? Part II,” 20.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid, 17.
[34] Matthew 27:60; 28:2 (HCSB).
[35] Clyde E. Billington, “The Nazareth Inscription: Proof of the Resurrection of Christ? Part I,” Artifax (n.d.), accessed September 12, 2018, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/The-Nazareth-Inscription-Proof-of-the-Resurrection-of-Christ.aspx#Article.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 2346, Kindle.
[39] Ibid, 2346-2367, Kindle.
[40] J. P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and Person (New York City, NY: Doubleday, 1991), 60.
[41] J. W. Van Henten, “Josephus, Fifth Evangelist, and Jesus on the Temple,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71, no. 1 (July 2, 2015), 2.
[42] J. P. Meier, “The Testimonium,” Bible Review 7, no. 3 (June 1991): n.p.
[43] Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications (Jerusalem, Israel: Israel Academy of Arts and Humanities, 1971), 60.
[44] Alice Whealey, “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic,” New Testament Studies 54 (2008): 573.
[45] Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications as quoted in Alice Whealey, “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic,” New Testament Studies 54 (2008): 574.
[46] Whealey, “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic.”
[47] Ibid, 578.
[48] John Curran, “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again),” Novum Ttestamentum 59 (2017): 77-78.
[49] Ibid, 78.
[50] Ibid, 83-86.
[51] Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews,” in Josephus: Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1867), III, 1-2.
[52] Ibid, III, 2.
[53] Ibid, III, 4.
[54] Curran, “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again),” 87.
[55] Suetonius, “Life of Claudius.”
[56] Dio Cassius, Roman History, Epitome of Book 67:14:1-2.
[57] Insertion of “(one)” based on Curran’s recommendation from Ambrosianus F128 manuscript http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/AmbrosianusF128_testimonium_flavianum.png.
[58] James Carleton Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” The Journal of Theological Studies 52, no. 2 (October 2001): 565.
[59] Curran, “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again),” 89.
[60] Ken Olsen, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum,” in Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, ed. Aaron Johnson and Jeremy Schott, Hellenic Studies Series 60 (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013), n.p., accessed September 12, 2018, https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871.
[61] Curran, “‘To Be or to Be Thought to Be’: The Testimonium Flavianum (Again),” 90.
[62] Meier, “The Testimonium,” n.p.
[63] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 2411, Kindle.
[64] Tacitus, Annals, 15:44, trans. J.P. Meier; as quoted in Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 2411-2419, Kindle.
[65] R. E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 39.
[66] Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014), 17506, Kindle.
[67] Ibid, 17469, Kindle.
[68] Ibid, 17469, Kindle.
[69] Ibid, 17487, Kindle.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 2421, Kindle.
Comments