Evidencing the fact that he had been raised from the dead, Jesus appeared to Peter and the other disciples (Ignatius, Justin). During these encounters, Jesus allowed and even encouraged the disciples to touch his risen flesh, which they did (Ignatius). Jesus also ate and drank with his followers (Ignatius) and taught them concerning how he had fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Justin). Later, Jesus ascended to heaven (Justin, cf. Quadratus).
These early Christian authors asserted that Jesus’ resurrection provided the assurance that the gospel which he preached was ordained by God (Clement). This event was an example of the believer’s resurrection and was the reason why the disciples despised death (Ignatius). Summary and Conclusion
What value do these early extra-New Testament sources have in reconstructing a historical life of Jesus? Do such Christian authors provide any exceptional evidence for the death and resurrection? Actually, there are both positive and negative considerations in such questions.
Positively, the Christian sources presented in this chapter are early. Clement wrote at the end of the first century, or at approximately the same time as some of the later New Testament writings. Ignatius’ seven books date from about fifteen to twenty years later. These men were also close to apostolic sources, as is evident from their own works,^25 and from other early testimony.^26
Another factor is that some of these early authors were scholars or leaders in their own right. Clement and Ignatius were well-known bishops in the early church,^27 while Justin was a rather distinguished philosopher.^28 Additionally, these writers were frequently careful to cite evidence for their assertions. Clement and Ignatius referred to the resurrection as the basis for Christian truth. Quadratus backed his testimony with eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus’ miracles. Justin referred to miracles and fulfilled prophecy as evidence.
25 See Ignatius, Romans, 4; cf. Clement, Corinthians, 47.
26 For example, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical HistoryIII: XV-XVI.
27 Ibid., III:XV-XXII.
28 Ibid., IV:XVI.
However, in spite of these early sources, scholarly testimonies and citings of evidence, there are also weaknesses in our usage of these sources. Initially, it is obvious that these writings rely on the New Testament for much of their data, as is specifically reported by Justin.^29 That they do so is certainly not a weakness in itself, for we have argued repeatedly that the New Testament is a good historical source. However, the point is that if they rely on the New Testament, then they are not totally extra-New Testament, and the object of this work is to ascertain what evidence of this latter kind is available.
It should also be remembered that the purpose of these writers was not a critical investigation of history per se, but the reporting of Christian origins. While such is certainly a fair and worthwhile approach, and can yield historical facts, additional evidence could also strengthen the case.
Such additional, corroborative data is partially available from the secular sources in Chapter 9, where many of the reports confirm the citings singled out here, especially with regard to the teachings and crucifixion of Jesus. There are also parallels concerning his life and the reports of his resurrection. Thus we continue to witness the ancient corroboration of Jesus’ story. As we have said, he is actually one of the most-mentioned figures in the ancient world.
