Why would the Apostles lie? Many skeptics of Christianity contend the early church embellished legends of Jesus. Jesus' resurrection, they argue, was a farce. Ben Witherington III made some interesting observations in the current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. He points to two factors which make a fraudulent tale unlikely.
First is cultural perception. The Middle East region then was a “shame and honor” culture he contends. Crucifixion was the most shameful form of death. While we view it as a heroic act, that culture viewed the manner of death as the ultimate statement of a man’s character. Most would have viewed a crucified person as a “scoundrel”. No one making up a story would likely have started with a crucified man.
Second, that culture was highly patriarchal. Machismo was highly valued. That Jesus’ key disciples had fled and hid (John 20:19) would be a hindrance to gaining a following, Witherington contends. And, the first key witnesses of Jesus resurrection were not men but women who did not have standing in court. Their credibility as witnesses was non-existent.
It is highly unlikely the Apostles would have concocted this tale. It would have been counter to every sense of credibility. While no one in his right mind would have started a fraud in this way, Christianity excelled. What propelled such an unbelievable story to the foremost of history? Could it be His first followers were telling the truth?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be respectful of others when leaving a post. Please do not use profanity in comments you post on this blog. Comments will be reviewed to ensure these requests are observed.