Evaluating An Apologist’s Evidence For The Resurrection, Part 3: The Crucifixion Is Historical Fact

I recently came across the blog of a Christian apologist who has posted ten very extensive articles on the “strong” evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Is his claim correct? Is there “strong” evidence for Christianity’s core claim? I am going to respond to his most provocative statements here, addressing his evidence post by post.

Here we go, part 3:

“The agnostic historian Bart Ehrman states that “One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. “.⁷ The highly critical scholar of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, writes, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.” ⁸ Like Ehrman, Crossan is not a Christian. Yet both Ehrman and Crossan agree that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is a historical fact. Gerd Ludemann, an atheist historian said: “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is an indisputable fact.” “

I do not dispute the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus. I do dispute the historicity of the stories in the Gospels about his crucifixion. The undeniable fact is, the independence of the four Gospels is disputed. Hotly disputed. We know that Matthew and Luke had access to Mark. Luke says he had access to multiple sources, so he may have had access to Matthew too, explaining why Matthew and Luke have common material not found in Mark. And since the Gospel of John was written last at the end of the century, it is entirely possible that the author had heard the stories told in Mark, Matthew, and Luke prior to writing his Gospel.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.