Further, Martin asserts that Luke (and probably Matthew) was unknown to either Clement of Rome or Ignatius, being known first by Polycarp, whom he dates from 120–135.^48 However, citations of the sayings of Jesus found in all three synoptic Gospels are found in Clement, while Ignatius cites a text on a resurrection appearance of Jesus found in Luke.^49 Additionally, while Martin admits that Polycarp knows Matthew and Luke, he dates this ancient writer much later than most others would place him.
43 Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 43. In the name of fairness, we must agree with Martin that a detailed discussion would be far too complex to present as a chapter subsection of any book.
44 Drane, Introducing New Testament, p. 184.
45 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 88.
46 Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 43.
47 See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III:XXXIX.
48 Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 43.
49 See Clement, Corinthians13, 46; Ignatius, Smynaeans3. Whatever view one takes on the sources of these quotes, the minimal point here is that Martin seems unaware of the errors in his statements or the critical case that could easily be mounted against him.
On a related matter, Martin charges that Clement “is not clear” about whether the disciples received their instructions from Jesus “during his life on earth,” citing Corinthians24. But chapter 42 seems quite clear, with a fair reading most likely referring to Jesus’ sojourn on earth: “The apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God . . . .”^50 Jesus and his apostles were contemporaries.
Martin’s radical conclusions are unfounded, but he nonetheless bases still other claims upon them. Contending the possibility that the earliest Gospel was not written “until the beginning of the second century,” he concludes that these books were “not written by eyewitnesses.”^51 Yet he fails to establish any of these claims.
3.Extrabiblical sources
A last area that Martin investigates is whether sources outside the New Testament provide viable data concerning the historicity of Jesus. But here, once again, Martin’s research exhibits several flaws.
Concerning Josephus’ major reference to Jesus,^52 Martin thinks there is “almost uniform agreement that this passage is spurious.”^53 While he is, of course, entitled to his opinion about the current state of scholarship, the endnote is curious. Martin lists five scholars who apparently support his view, while accusing Habermas of holding a dissenting position without being aware of those who oppose him.
Yet, upon closer inspection, at least two of the remaining five scholars cited by Martin actually oppose Martin’s position! While F.F. Bruce explains in the page cited by Martin that words were added to Josephus’ text, the reader who continues will discover that Bruce favors the view that this is an authentic reference to Jesus that records several key facts, including Jesus’ crucifixion at the hands of Pontius Pilate.^54 Further, Martin seems to miss the fact that John Drane not only disagrees with his thesis, but Drane adds that “most scholars have no doubts about the authenticity” of the majority of the passage.^55 Thus, with three of six scholars listed by Martin himself disagreeing with him, and Drane saying that mostothers also object, it is difficult to understand how Martin’s note corroborates his additional conclusion that “this passage is almost universally acknowledged by scholars to be a later Christian interpolation.”^56
