50 See J.B. Lightfoot, transl. and ed., The Apostolic Fathers(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971), p.31.
51 Martin, Case Against Christianity, pp. 44–45.
52 Antiquities18:3.
53 Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 48.
54 F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 37–41.
55 Drane, Introducing New Testament, p. 138. Incidently, after a detailed look at the issue in question, Charlesworth concludes that we can now be sure that Josephus didwrite about Jesus in the major reference in his Antiquities(Jesus Within Judaism, p. 96).
56 Martin, Case Against Christianity, p. 85. Later, he calls Josephus’ text a “clearly forged passage” (p. 91).
Citing what some call the “Negative Evidence Principle,” Martin seeks to discount the testimony of several extrabiblical sources for Jesus. But one of the conditions for this principle is that “all the available evidence used to support the view that p is true is shown to be inadequate.”^57 Yet, Martin has not shown this to be the case, especially with Josephus. Questions arise with regard to his treatment of several other non-New Testament sources, as well.^58
Therefore, Martin is far from proving his declaration that pagan writers present “no reliable evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus.” It simply does not follow that “we are justified in disbelieving that Jesus existed.”^59
In conclusion, there is a substantial body of data that argues for a historical Jesus who lived early in the first century. We have mentioned a few of the key strands (and we will investigate many others in Chapter 7). Paul knew of Jesus’ disciples and visited with Peter and John. Another acquaintance, James, was the brother of Jesus. Hundreds who had witnessed the risen Jesus were still alive in Paul’s day. Further, the Gospels are written within a time frame that at least raises the possibility of recording much reliable historical information about Jesus. Certain extrabiblical texts record other data about Jesus, as well. Martin’s charges at each of these points involve arguments that strain the limits of reason and even border on credulity.
While we will turn below to a positive case for the historicity of Jesus, we have argued here that the central tenets of Martin’s theses fail to account for the available data at a very basic level. Many of his problems stem from what might be considered, at best, a failure to assess carefully the available evidence on this topic. Along with Wells, one distinctly gets the sense that this thesis is held in the face of myriads of data to the contrary. That the view lacks scholarly appeal (as readily admitted by Martin himself) is not because some scholars are unwilling to embrace such a radical thesis, but that the conclusions are simply unwarranted. Summary and Conclusion
Surprisingly few scholars have asserted that Jesus never existed or have attempted to cast almost total doubt on his life and ministry. When such efforts have occurred, they have been met by rare outcries from the scholarly community.^60 We have seen that these attempts are refuted at almost every turn by the early and eyewitness testimony presented by Paul and others, as well as by the early date of the Gospels. Such evidence caused Charlesworth to conclude specifically concerning Wells’ position: “Many solid arguments can be presented against such distortions and polemics.”^61
