Christianity is a religion of history, not just a bunch of excellent moral platitudes announced by a wise teacher. And the resurrection of Jesus is the supreme evidence of Christianity. If that event didn’t occur, then it doesn’t really matter what Jesus said, his words would be no mora authoritative than Hitler’s or any other human being’s.
But Jesus did come out of that tomb. There were plenty of eyewitness accounts, and no one ever produced his dead body. We also have the research of an excellent historian to confirm the facts for us.
3. Luke the historian. There weren’t actually any “professional” historians in the ancient world, though there were some good ones (Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, and others). Luke was actually a doctor, but he also wrote more of the New Testament, by volume, than any other person (unless Paul is also the author of Hebrews). And Luke plainly stated he was writing history and did his research:
“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightiest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed” (Luke 1:1-4).
This is the old American Standard version’s rendition of these verses. The ASV is generally considered the most accurate translation from the original languages, though it’s a little difficult for modern readers to understand in some places. But the part in italics is what I want to emphasize: “having traced the course of all things accurately from the first...”
Folks, that is exactly what an historian is supposed to do. I am a trained historian, and this is what, even today, historians are expected to do—to “accurately trace the course of all things from the first.” That is history. Luke did his research, he did his homework, he investigated. He even talked to eyewitnesses. What else can an historian do?
Now, Christians believe that the entire Bible is inspired of God (II Timothy 3:16-17), and that “men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 2:21). But that didn’t preclude them from doing research and investigation. God didn’t just tell His pensmen, “take a letter.” In matters they couldn’t possibly know (e.g., the creation), He gave them what information they needed. In Luke’s case, while we certainly believe he was ultimately inspired by the Holy Spirit, he still did his research and careful investigation. It’s almost as if God is deliberately, in His foreknowledge, thwarting any accusation of “poor historical research” by His authors. No one can make that claim about Luke.
Look also at Luke 3:1-2: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness” (NKJV). This isn’t “once upon a time, in a far, far away land” stuff. Luke specifies, in the language and dating of his time, exactly when the following events occurred, and, in effect, challenges examination by skeptics. “Go look it up yourself. Here’s what happened and here’s when it happened. Check it out.” And Luke is accurate in every matter that can be verified by other historical evidence.
We are talking history here, folks. Luke did exactly what any historian today should do. And he told us that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead. He checked it out himself and drew his conclusions based upon the evidence he found.
I did graduate studies in Greek and Roman history, and every good Roman historian knows how accurate Luke is. It cannot be denied. EXCEPT the miracles. I sat in a Roman history class where the professor praised Luke’s historical ability. “Except for the miracles, of course.” That is rejected out of hand. So, Luke was good, except he recorded these superstitious miracles, which, we all know, can’t and didn’t happen.
But this is the only argument that can be leveled against Luke, and it is a fallacious one. Most modern historians are—they MUST be—Darwinian materialists because that is the “zeitgeist” of modern American academia. What that means is that the miraculous is, a priori, rejected. Before the modern “historian” even investigates the evidence, he has concluded that miracles cannot, and have never happened. But a priori rejection is not an open-minded search for truth. If a person already has his mind made up what he is going to find before he ever starts searching, then that person cannot be considered an honest investigator who will let the evidence lead him to the conclusions he comes to. “Miracles can’t happen so Jesus could not have been resurrected from the tomb.” If you decide that before you even start your historical search, guess what conclusion you are going to reach?
Luke did exactly what a (good) historian does—he did his research and drew his conclusions based only on the evidence he found. And that evidence led him to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. The eyewitnesses agree, as does the empty tomb.
As does the Old Testament. We will look at this fourth line of evidence in my next article in this series.