By Keith
Thompson
In 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 the Apostle
Paul lays out the primitive Gospel message and lists various post-resurrection
appearances to Jesus’ followers. In v. 6 mention is made of an appearance to
500 people. It states:
Then he appeared to more than five
hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have
fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 15:6).
In an article entitled Will the 500 Please Stand Up?, Ibn Anwar questions the historicity
of this appearance and concludes by asserting that, “To rely on Paul’s solitary
testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:6 is folly as he is clearly an untrustworthy
witness.” He asserts that the mention of this post-resurrection appearance to
500 is, “clearly unhistorical.”
However, the arguments Ibn Anwar
posits and the claims he makes which led him to this conclusion contain many
difficulties as we shall see. Moreover, he failed to once again present the
best of what the other side has to offer on this subject; a common problem in
Ibn Anwar’s writings. After answering Ibn Anwar’s specious arguments and
defending the historicity of this appearance of Christ it is our hope that he
will be more careful with his opinions and make sure to cite and interact with
the major scholars who disagree with him lest he leave his readers oblivious to
the best of the other side.
Three main arguments Ibn Anwar gave
to support his conclusion which we will address are: 1) This appearance story
is allegedly only found in Paul and nowhere else in the first-century record;
2) because it is allegedly not multiply attested it’s not historically
reliable; and 3) Paul was allegedly willing to engage in, and did in fact
engage in, lying or dishonesty regarding this appearance story.
Ibn Anwar quotes some liberals,
atheists, and anti-theists offering similar opinions and conclusions. Ibn Anwar
failed to present the popular argument for 1 Corinthians 15:6’s historicity
which we are going to present. We will also demonstrate that he doesn’t
understand the historical method/the criteria for historicity which serious
historians utilize and that his view falls apart once pitted against the
criteria for weighing hypotheses.
Before beginning it should be noted
that Ibn Anwar quotes an unbelieving writer named Kris Komarnitsky claiming
this appearance is not attested by anyone else. Komarnitsky quotes atheist
scholar Dr. Gerd Lüdemann stating, “[It] is improbable that such an event
witnessed by more than five hundred people should otherwise have left no
trace,” as though Lüdemann doesn’t believe this appearance is otherwise
attested at all. However, it is well known Lüdemann believes the Pentecost
event in Acts 2 to be the underlying tradition or event behind 1 Corinthians
15:6.(1) Although Lüdemann is wrong, as the ensuing case will show, it’s
important accurately report a scholar’s entire position.
Very briefly, Pentecost involved the outpouring of the Spirit, not a physical appearance of Jesus and so can not be said to be an appearance of Christ. As Dr. N. T. Wright observes: “Experience of the Spirit and seeing the risen Jesus are never, in early Christian writings, assimilated to one another.”(2)
Was Paul the Only One to Mention this Appearance?
Ibn Anwar posits that this appearance to the 500 mentioned by Paul is “otherwise unknown” quoting one of his favourite scholars M. Eugene Boring(3), a member of the liberal and heretical “Disciples of Christ” denomination/sect which has women ministers and elders, engages in “unity discussions” with false sects, and has many members who deny the virgin birth, inerrancy, and support gay marriage etc. The fact is, however, serious Christian academicians who are not contaminated by liberalism and unwarranted doubt have rightly argued that this appearance in 1 Corinthians 15:6 is to be found in Matthew 28:9-10, 16-20 which state:
Very briefly, Pentecost involved the outpouring of the Spirit, not a physical appearance of Jesus and so can not be said to be an appearance of Christ. As Dr. N. T. Wright observes: “Experience of the Spirit and seeing the risen Jesus are never, in early Christian writings, assimilated to one another.”(2)
Was Paul the Only One to Mention this Appearance?
Ibn Anwar posits that this appearance to the 500 mentioned by Paul is “otherwise unknown” quoting one of his favourite scholars M. Eugene Boring(3), a member of the liberal and heretical “Disciples of Christ” denomination/sect which has women ministers and elders, engages in “unity discussions” with false sects, and has many members who deny the virgin birth, inerrancy, and support gay marriage etc. The fact is, however, serious Christian academicians who are not contaminated by liberalism and unwarranted doubt have rightly argued that this appearance in 1 Corinthians 15:6 is to be found in Matthew 28:9-10, 16-20 which state:
9And behold, Jesus met them and said, ‘Greetings!’ And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me’. . . . 16Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age’ (Matthew 28:9-10, 16-20).
In vv. 9-10 Jesus meets the women
after the empty tomb episode and exhorts them to tell His “brothers” to go to
Galilee where Jesus would then appear on a mountain. I will argue that the
eleven disciples as well as a large crowd of brothers numbering
approximately 500 witnessed this mountain appearance based on the first-century
data.
First, we can argue this is the
appearance Paul had in mind since in 1 Corinthians 15:6 he says this appearance
was in the midst of the adelphois (brothers/brethren), the same word
used in Matthew 28:10 when Christ commanded the women to tell His brothers/brethren
to go to Galilee for this appearance. This word was commonly used to refer to a
large group of Christians or first-century believers in general (e.g. Matt.
7:3-5; 12:50; 18:15, 21, 35; 25:40; Jn 21:23; Acts 1:15-16; Acts 2:37 etc).
Early on the word was used commonly of the inner circle of disciples. But by
the time of Matthew 28 and later it was a word used commonly by Jesus and His
followers to also refer generally to Christian believers as whole or a large
group of believers.
This is why Vine’s Complete
Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words notes that the word
often refers to, “the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matt
28:10…”(4) Notice, along with affirming that adelphois carries the
meaning of all believers, this source also cites Matthew 28:10, the text I
cited as reporting the tradition underlying 1 Corinthians 15:6, as an example
of Jesus calling a large group of believers to His future appearance, and not
merely His inner circle. This supports our contention that the Matthew 28:9-10,
16-20 appearance is the appearance to the 500 mentioned by Paul.
In his groundbreaking commentary on
Matthew respected New Testament scholar Dr. D. A. Carson offers exegesis in
support of our position:
Some have held that ‘my brothers’ raises the status of Jesus’ eleven surviving disciples. This ignores the use of the term in Matthew; for apart from the places where ‘brothers’ denotes a natural relationship, the term is employed of spiritual relationships – even before the passion – explicitly referring to the fellowship of those who acknowledge Jesus as Messiah (18:15; 23:8; cf. 5:22-24; 7:3-5; 18:21, 35). In the two other places where Jesus uses the full expression ‘my brothers’ (12:49-50; 25:40), it refers to all Jesus’ disciples and cannot possibly be limited to the apostles.
Therefore the natural way to
interpret ‘my brothers’ in v. 10 is not as a reference to the Eleven but to all
those attached to his cause who were in Jerusalem, most of whom had followed
him from Galilee to Jerusalem as his ‘disciples’ (see on 5:1-2, and esp. 26:32;
28:7). There were many others in addition to the Twelve who had followed Jesus
(e.g., 20:17; 21:8-9, 15; 27:55; cf. 20:29; 21:46; 23:1). Apart from the
Galileans, Joseph of Arimathea was certainly not Jesus’ sole disciple from the
Jerusalem region (19:13-15; 27:57-61)”(5)
Further evidence of our position is
seen in vv. 19-20 where Jesus commands those witnessing His appearance to make
disciples of all nations baptizing the masses in distant lands and
teaching them to obey Christian teaching. That Jesus would command a group of
about 500 believers to carry this out makes sense given the fact that there was
not yet access to motor vehicles and things of this nature. It is very unlikely
Jesus would command eleven men alone to travel, convert, make disciples,
baptize, and teach people from every nation on the earth. Given the fact that
Jesus predicted and anticipated the disciples’ persecution and deaths (Matt.
10:1, 5, 16-23) it makes more sense to affirm this command was given to the 500
brethren.
With respect to academic support for
the view that this Matthew 28:10, 16 appearance is identical to the one
mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:6, Dr. Gleason L. Archer notes:
… the record of the Galilean retreat closes with a large assembly of Christ’s followers – quite possibly the gathering included more than five hundred at a time (cf. 1 Cor. 15:6) – on some mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16), which though unnamed may have been Tabor, the highest and most impressive hill in Galilee.(6)
We have quoted Carson providing
evidence for this view, but, to be clear, in the same commentary he also
indicates that this is in fact his view based on the evidence:
The view that interprets the ‘some’ of v. 17 as a reference to others than the apostles is supported, and the resurrection appearance of vv. 16-20 may well be equivalent to the appearance before the five hundred reported by Paul (1 Cor 15:6).(7)
French scholar Dr. Ernest Bernard Allo
notes the following in his work Saint Paul: First Epistle to the Corinthians:
We identify, then, with moral certainty, 1 Cor 15:6 and Matt 18:16-20.(8)
In his commentary on 1 Corinthians,
commenting on 15:6, Dr. W. Harold Mare notes:
This appearance of Christ to so many
at once may have taken place at Galilee, where the eleven and possibly many
more, went to meet the risen Lord (Matt 28:10, 16).(9)
Dr. Leon Morris notes that it is in
fact probable we are looking at the Matthew 28:10, 16 appearance:
The appearance to more than five
hundred of the brothers is mentioned here only (unless, as is probable, it is
that referred to in Mt. 28:16ff.).(10)
Emeritus Professor of Systematic
Theology at Knox Theological Seminary Dr. Robert L. Reymond concurs:
Then he appeared to the Eleven on a mountain of Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20), this occasion also quite possibly being the one when he appeared to more than five hundred disciples at one time, many of whom were still alive at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:6).(11)
Scholar of early Christianity and
Judaism and formerly Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament at Yale
University Dr. Bruce Chilton notes:
So 1 Corinthians 15:6, which – with many other scholars – I would associate with Matthew 28:16-20 (and not limit that appearance to the eleven apostles).(12)
Although some scholars feel that the
reference to the appearance to the 500 is meant to be a summary of everyone
whoever saw the risen Christ without exception, we feel the evidence coheres in
suggesting the appearance in Matthew 28:10, 16 is in view. One would think that
if Ibn Anwar, who certainly knows of our view, was honest then he would at
least mention it and interact with it. But of course he didn’t.
Ibn Anwar will most likely gather
quotes from unbelieving, liberal and careful scholars who will take the
position that this appearance is nowhere else attested. However, we have not
only quoted scholars who take our view and support our case, but we have
provided arguments for our position. So if Ibn Anwar wants to seriously
interact with our position he must not only quote scholars who take a view
(which both of us can do), or give their arguments/opinions, but he must
directly deal with our arguments and/or quote people who directly do so.
Failure to do that will demonstrate his incompetence once again.
Ibn Anwar’s Claims in Light of the
Criteria for Historicity
Since we’ve provided a case for 1
Corinthians 15:6’s multiple attestation, that alone is enough to overlook Ibn
Anwar’s assertion that since this story is allegedly never elsewhere mentioned
it must be unreliable. However, even if one were to take the position that Paul
was the only one to mention this event, would that mean we can not know it is
reliable based on other historical criteria? That is, is it possible that this
story be true based on other criteria of historicity? Can an account fail in
one criterion for historicity and yet be deemed true by having met other
criteria?
When studying the historical method
at seminary level I discovered very quickly that certain episodes of history
often do not meet one or more criteria of historicity while at the same time
meeting others and therefore being accepted based on those considerations. For
example, while the material we have detailing the life and many stories of
Alexander the Great (B.C. 355-323) is all late(13) and based on purported
traditions or lost works, thus failing the criteria of early accounts in
many cases, much of the material instead meets other criteria. The later
sources for Alexander the Great’s life are generally seen to be reliable and
useful historically. Our high school and college history/text books rely on
these rather late sources for most of our information on his life and the
events surrounding him.
Hence, for the sake of argument, if
we do hypothetically grant one criterion of historicity is not met with regard
to 1 Corinthians 15:6 (multiple attestation), there are other criteria that
this report does meet rendering it historical. And because of this fact one
should not so easily dismiss the account like Ibn Anwar does. For example, it
meets the criteria of an early account (1 Corinthians was written
between A.D. 53-57 and this appearance tradition is extremely primitive; see
more below).
It also meets the criteria of
embarrassment in that in vv. 8-9, while in the context of recalling this
appearance tradition, Paul says, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he
appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to
be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1
Corinthians 15:8-9). In the context Paul reveals/highlights embarrassing
information about himself when he didn’t need to thus showing genuineness of
character and repentance. This helps to establish the validity of his comments
in the context including the mention of the appearance to the 500 two verses
earlier. This material is telling on many levels since it also helps to show
later Christians did not forge this letter or invent the information contained
in it. If that were the motive then it would not do well for their cause to
include unnecessary embarrassing themes. What we have here is a repentant
Christian man who turned from the Judaism he loved admitting his past errors
and presenting to needy people things which he believed to be true.
Moreover, the criteria of
discontinuity and dissimilarity are met since there is nothing in first-century
paganism or Second Temple Judaism which suggests it was widely held or believed
that Messiah or a saviour of the world would be doing massive post-resurrection
appearances in front of his followers after having died at the hands of his enemies.
Not only that but the pagans and Jews at the time of Christ and Paul were not
anticipating a dying and rising Messiah or saviour. The Jews for example were
expecting a conquering King Messiah, who upon His advent, would overthrow Rome
and establish the physical kingdom of God.(14) If Paul were here merely
presenting ideas which the Jews of his day were anticipating then one may be
justified in being more cautious about 1 Corinthians 15:6. But since he is
going against the grain so to speak, this demonstrates he wasn’t out to just
tell people things they wanted to hear and gain credibility in their eyes in
that way. Rather, since he was telling them things which went against their
assumptions or anticipations, this is evidence for the validity or truthfulness
of Paul’s teaching/report.
Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15:3-7
tradition here, as argued even by liberals admired by my opponent such as Dr.
James D. G. Dunn, goes back to a very primitive tradition Paul received from
Peter and James in Jerusalem.(15) In fact this 1 Corinthians 15 creed seems to
be one of the earliest traditions of Christianity and so must be dated before
A.D. 53-57 to about A.D. 30-32 strengthening our case for its reliability
substantially.
Therefore, in light of the various
criteria this story does meet, and in light of the fact that a story isn’t automatically
not true just because it fails one test of historicity, Ibn Anwar is in error
when he boldly asserts that, “If indeed 500 people witnessed it the story
would be readily available across the board and not only in a single verse
in the entire New Testament.” There are other problems with this kind of
argument as well.
One needs to be consistent since
things can be found to be true historically without the story being “readily
available across the board.” For example Alexander the Great accomplished many
great things seen by many people. These people may have even written about
these things during their lifetime. But just because we don’t have access to
multiple accounts from them 2300 years later (due to such writings being lost
etc), that does not automatically mean there was nothing to write about
or that they didn’t write about such things. This applies to any story of
antiquity which we don’t have multiple contemporaneous accounts for.
Moreover, even if not a lot of
contemporary people wrote about a particular event concerning Alexander the
Great that doesn’t automatically render what we read about Alexander the Great
erroneous either. We must fully consider the criteria of historicity before
jumping to rash and hasty conclusions. Moreover, Ibn Anwar needs to keep the
low literacy rates(16) of those days in mind too. To demand this account be
“readily available across the board” in light of all of these various
considerations is, quite frankly, absurd. And, as we will see, Ibn Anwar is
being inconsistent since the Quran which he believes in contains stories which
do not meet the test of multiple attestation.
In his 2010 tome on the resurrection
Dr. Michael R. Licona rightly notes that, “the plausibility or probability …
may be increased in those cases when multiple criteria are present.”(17)
Therefore, since 1 Corinthians 15:6 meets multiple criteria of historicity one
is not justified in discounting it just because one believes/argues it doesn’t
meet one of the criterion of historicity (multiple attestation).
At the same time it must also be
said, however, that when you are dealing with two contradictory sources
concerning an event or issue, that is when not having multiple attestation can
be a major determining factor in your historical judgement. If one source is
multiply attested and says one thing, but another non-multiply attested source
says something else about the same event or issue, then one may be correct in
siding with the multiply attested event or issue.
An example would be the non-multiply
attested claims and views of the Ebionites against the Apostle Paul vs. the
broad array of early testimony vouching for his reliability. For more
information on that issue see my article
The Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship: And a Critique of Muslim
Arguments. However, this dilemma does not fit with the 1 Corinthians 15:6
appearance to the 500 since there is not a contradictory multiply attested
source/tradition undermining 1 Corinthians 15:6. Thus, in this case, not having
multiple attestation would not be as damaging as it could otherwise be (though
I hold that it does have multiple attestation e.g. Matt. 28:10, 16).
Did Paul Sanction Lying and Engage
in Lying Concerning this Appearance Story?
In order to try to undermine Paul’s
credibility and hence his account of the appearance to the 500, Ibn Anwar
argues that Philippians 1:18 and Romans 3:7 support his ad hoc conspiratorial
view that Paul was supportive of and willing to engage in deception and lying.
However, Ibn Anwar’s reading requires that one discards even the most
elementary principles of exegesis and logic. I submit that the passages he
cites do nothing to support his argument when understood properly in context.
The texts in question state:
What then? Only that in every way, whether in honest or dishonest motives, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice (Philippians 1:18).
But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? (Romans 3:7).
Ibn Anwar quotes anti-theist M.
Anton Mikicic’s self-published book God is Redundant p. 98:
Paul also defends himself against
accusations he’s a liar, which suggests to me that someone called him one.
Paul’s own words suggest he felt if
the end result was saving souls for the next world, it didn’t matter what you
did in this world to accomplish it, including lying.
Ibn Anwar concludes that Paul “is
clearly an untrustworthy witness.” That Ibn Anwar and the anti-theist writer he
quotes are guilty of eisegesis is evident upon a close and responsible analysis
of these texts. With respect to Philippians 1:18 the context is that while in
prison (Phil. 1:7, 13, 16) for the sake of the Gospel Paul exhorts the
Christians of Philippi to holiness and advances the Christian teaching on
perseverance (v. 6). Paul displays his affection for these Philippians and
encourages them to press on in the faith (vv. 7-14).
Vv. 15-19 then follow and, contra
Ibn Anwar, this text concerns Paul rejoicing in the midst of trouble and trying
to find good and positivity in a bad situation, rather than Paul advocating the
bad which was present in the situation:
15Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18What then? Only that in every way, whether in honest or dishonest motives, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, 19for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance (Philippians 1:15-19).
What is the positive or good which
Paul takes from this negative situation of deception? The name of Christ was
still being spread in an ungodly and unbelieving world. In no way does this
mean Paul positively advocates deception as a method to spread Christ’s
name, in any kind of universal sense, however. What he does is express that
even when these dishonest people who rejoice in Paul’s imprisonment (v. 17)
engage in such behaviour, one can still nevertheless find consolation in the
fact that Jesus’ name was being spread – and for that reason alone Paul can
still rejoice in the midst of negativity and wrong.
That Paul does not support the
method of the people who he is speaking about is evident by the fact he
contrasts their method of “dishonest motives” (v. 18), with the method of those
who preach from “good will” (v. 15). Hence, Paul does not believe those who use
deception to be of good will and so for Ibn Anwar to attribute to Paul
the belief that it is good to practice dishonesty, he is engaging in the very
thing he accuses Paul of: dishonesty and bearing false witness.
Paul is very clear in his writings
insofar as avoiding deception, lying and dishonesty is concerned. For example,
in Colossians 3:9 Paul says, “Do not lie to one another, seeing that you
have put off the old self with its practices” (Colossians 3:9). Moreover, in
Ephesians 4:25 Paul states, “Therefore, having put away falsehood, let
each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members
one of another” (Ephesians 4:25). In Romans 3:13 Paul condemns using one’s
tongue to deceive. In 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 Paul speaks against the “wicked
deception” of the coming lawless one (the antichrist).
Therefore, to attribute to Paul the
idea that he supported the deceptive method of those he was speaking against in
Philippians 1, when in reality he taught they’re not of good will, condemns
lying and deception over and over, and merely says he rejoiced in the fact that
Jesus’ name was still being spread in this negative situation, is a big stretch
to say the least.
Now, with respect to Romans 3:7
which says, “But if through my lie God's truth abounds to his glory, why am I
still being condemned as a sinner?,” the context is vital and it refutes Ibn
Anwar. In Romans 3:1-8 Paul is posing hypothetical questions to himself from an
anticipatory unbelieving Jewish interlocutor’s/objectors perspective.(18) And
Paul then answers as a Christian. This is to help the Roman Christians better
understand his teaching. Hypothetical Jewish objections to his teaching are
found in vv. 1, 3, 5, 7-8a. Paul’s Christian answers are found in vv. 2, 4, 6,
8b and in the ensuing discussion in the rest of the chapter/book.
Thus Ibn Anwar has confused v. 7 as
Paul’s position or a statement from him indicating his mindset, when in reality
it is a verse which is meant to be read as a Jewish interlocutor’s/objector’s
objection to Paul. The reason Paul, as a hypothetical unbelieving Jew, asks if
though through his lie God is still glorified since God judges the liar and
receives glory, why is the Jew or sinner is still punished?, is because Paul
just got finished teaching unfaithfulness or sin ends up revealing the
righteousness of God through judgement (vv. 3-5). Thus the argument to Paul is:
why shouldn’t I just lie or sin then since everything just ends up glorifying
God in the end (i.e., since sin leads to God’s judgement which brings glory to
God and shows God’s righteousness)? Paul’s answer in v. 8 is, “some people
slanderously charge us with saying [this]. Their condemnation is just.” Thus,
some falsely take this fatalistic approach as a logical conclusion of Paul’s
teaching. However, Paul reveals that’s not his position and says those
who attribute such a teaching to Paul and other Christians (as Ibn Anwar does)
will be justly condemned (see v. 8 again). Thus, the conclusion is that it is
not okay to sin or lie even though doing so results in God’s judgement (i.e.,
God’s glory and righteousness being revealed). How one can then turn things
around and make it as though Paul were a liar is inexcusable.
In summary, Romans 3:7’s mention of
“my lie,” when understood in context, in no way whatsoever, has Paul admitting
to being a liar. That is a hypothetical unbelieving Jew’s objection to Paul,
not his own admission. As we noted earlier, Paul’s letters are filled with
admonitions to avoid lying and deception.
We have answered this false
accusation over and over again on Answering-Islam. For Ibn Anwar to use it yet
again after it has been explained many times is hardly a sign of his
intellectual honesty. For example: 1,
2,
3.
Ibn Anwar’s own inconsistency and
deception is, however, truly evident here since Muhammad on the other-hand
actually did sanction lying and deception to further Islam unlike Paul and
Christianity. The two texts Ibn Anwar cited do not support his case on this
subject. But when we turn to Bukhari for example we read:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." ... (19)
Ibn Anwar’s Method Applied to
Islamic Stories Shows his Inconsistency
We have argued that 1 Corinthians
15:6 is multiply attested and that it meets other criteria of historicity. But
what makes Ibn Anwar even more inconsistent is that there are many stories in
the Quran which are not multiply attested. Therefore, if 1 Corinthians 15:6
isn’t historical due to allegedly not being multiply attested as Ibn Anwar has
argued (even though it is), then many stories in the Quran can’t be historical
since they are not multiply attested or attested by any contemporaneous sources
at all!
Consider for example the Quranic
teaching that Jesus spoke and gave theological discourses as a baby in his
cradle which Surah 3:46 and 19:28-34 mentions:
He shall preach to men in his cradle and in the prime of manhood, and shall lead a righteous life (Surah 3:46).
O sister of Aaron! Thy father was
not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot. Then she pointed to him. They
said: How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle? He said:
"I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book and has made me
a prophet. And has made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and has enjoined upon
me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive, And (has made me) dutiful
toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. Peace on me the
day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! Such
was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which
they doubt (Surah 19:28-34).
Since no first-century source says
that Jesus gave theological discourses as a baby, that means this story is not
attested by any early material (and thus certainly not multiply attested). How
could this be? Based on Ibn Anwar’s method this story should be “readily
available across the board.” If the Messiah spoke as a baby in his cradle to
people then surely such a monumental miracle would have been reported by at
least one source in the time of Jesus and His followers. Since it wasn’t it
can’t be true according to Ibn Anwar. He has thus falsified Islam with his own
criteria.
It should be clear that Ibn Anwar
quotes and sides with radical liberals and atheists who deny the supernatural.
He will accept the lenses through which they read the Holy Bible and critique
it. But if those same standards are applied to the Quran then Islam is
disproved. Yet this doesn’t stop the Muslims from using inconsistent methods
and siding with the liberals and anti-supernaturalists. This common
inconsistency of Muslims where they appeal to and heavily rely on liberals and
atheists is quite revealing since it demonstrates they can’t argue against
Christianity and at the same time be a consistent Muslim. That says a lot about
the strength of their arguments.
Ibn Anwar’s Take on 1 Corinthians
15:6 vs. the Criteria for Weighing Hypotheses
We have covered the issue of
criteria for historicity. Now we must cover four criteria for weighing
hypotheses.(20) Ibn Anwar has given his hypothesis concerning 1 Corinthians
15:6. He argued that Paul was lying about this appearance to the 500 because he
allegedly supported deception and thus it’s ahistorical. I am arguing Paul was
correct about this tradition which we see in Matthew 28:10, 16 and he reported
it in order to advance truth and the Gospel. When we examine our positions
against the four criteria for weighing hypotheses which we will use, it becomes
evident that Ibn Anwar’s view falls short and must therefore be rejected by the
serious person inquiring about truth.
Criteria #1: Explanatory Scope
Whose hypothesis can account for the
largest quantity of known facts of the case? The hypothesis which does will be
the true hypothesis. The one which can’t will be in error.
Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis can not
account for the fact that the 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 creed which v. 6 is
contained in was created no more than 2 or 3 years after Jesus’ crucifixion
(Ibn Anwar’s hero Dunn even argues months!) and transmitted to Paul by Peter
and James around A.D. 35 in Jerusalem.(21) My hypothesis can account for this
fact. Amazingly Ibn Anwar didn’t even interact with this crucial point in his
paper.
Moreover his view can’t adequately
account for the fact that in v. 9 Paul reveals embarrassing information about
himself in the context of recalling this appearance tradition thus showing
genuineness and honesty (unless it’s an ad hoc reason).
It’s a fact that we have no writings
or traditions challenging this appearance to the 500. My view that the
appearance is historical and had witnesses who could vouch for Paul explains
why we have no evidence of anyone arguing: “we checked and no one is vouching
for your appearance story, Paul.” If there were no 500 brothers who saw Christ
one may expect at least a later tradition of a rejoinder against Paul from a
critic(s) (or sect of critics) even if contemporary information is not readily
available to us. Ibn Anwar’s view can’t account for the probable view that no
tradition ever existed which is based on the fact that there is no evidence of
such writings or even a later tradition. If there were in fact an early known
tradition (written or oral) from objectors who argued there were no witnesses
who would come forward to vouch for Paul then Paul’s Ebionite detractors (or
others) would certainly pick up on it and use it in their second/third-century
polemics against him.
Though it must be noted in fairness
that the fact there are no survived writings or even traditions is not an
absolutely conclusive proof for our case since such writings/traditions,
had they even existed, could have been lost. But if it is true that there never
were any, and it is probable that there weren’t since it’s a fact there is no
evidence of them when there should be given Paul’s later heretical and ruthless
detractors, then we have more evidence of Ibn Anwar’s view having less
explanatory scope. I believe the evidence to be on my side here based on the
fact that there are no survived objections against Paul of this sort when if
there were we would expect groups like the Ebionites to exploit them.
Ibn Anwar attempted to provide facts
which my view can’t account for such as this report not being multiply
attested, and this report allegedly needing to be readily available in many
early sources in order to be deemed true, but we have disproved those two
non-facts.
Criteria #2: Explanatory Power
Whose hypothesis requires the least
amount of pushing/straining relevant facts? Whose hypothesis requires the least
amount of effort, vagueness, and ambiguity? That will be the hypothesis with
explanatory power.
Ibn Anwar has to strain the fact
that Paul used an early source/tradition. In order to make this fact fit his
case, Ibn Anwar has to discount this earlier source/tradition. He does so
without proper warrant (see more below). Moreover, Ibn Anwar has to push or
strain the idea that this report isn’t multiply attested by quoting the
opinions of doubtful sceptics and liberals even though there is a powerful case
for this appearance being attested in Matthew 28:10, 16.
Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis requires a
lot of vagueness since he offered no sufficient reasons as to why Paul would
even report this tradition if it were not in fact true or if he didn’t believe
it were true. To argue it was merely for the sake of spreading lies is vague
and requires that he bends the fact of Paul’s genuineness to fit his hypothesis
and replace it with a deceptive motive. My view that he wished to deliver truth
and teachings he firmly believed for the sake of providing the Corinthian
Church with facts about their beloved Messiah doesn’t require any strain or
vagueness concerning Paul’s character or the information surrounding this case.
My hypothesis doesn’t require that
one strain the fact that Paul is a trustworthy witness (that’s evidenced as I
will argue below). Nor do I have to strain the fact that this story is multiply
attested since there are good arguments for that position which many scholars
agree with. Nor do I need to strain the fact that v. 6 is part of an early
tradition. A broad strand of scholarship agrees and lots of evidence is in
support of this fact. Ibn Anwar’s view requires a strain on all of these facts
in order for them to fit his hypothesis.
Criteria #3: Plausibility
Whose hypothesis is consistent with
other known facts in other areas? That is, whose view is consistent with other
background knowledge in our area of focus? The more plausible hypothesis in
this regard will be correct.
My hypothesis is in accord with the
fact that we know there were post-resurrection appearances happening at the
time.(22) Thus it is not a big stretch to agree with the evidence and affirm
this appearance to the 500 took place. Ibn Anwar’s view that there was no
appearance to the 500 is out of step with the fact that we know others were
taking place contemporaneously.
Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis can’t account
for the fact that Paul was, for the sake of his Christian beliefs, willing to
leave Pharisaic Judaism which was his way of life and which he was a respected
scholar of, and that Paul was willing to be imprisoned, persecuted, and
martyred(23) for such beliefs as Jesus’ resurrection and these appearances. My
view of 1 Corinthians 15:6 being historical can account for these set of facts.
Ibn Anwar’s lie/deception hypothesis can’t.
Ibn Anwar’s view can’t account for
the fact that Paul was not willing to lie in the form of denying he believed in
Christ to save himself.(24) If he wouldn’t engage in that kind of lie or
deception when it came to saving his life, why assume he would in regards to
reporting appearances?
Ibn Anwar attempted to argue that
Paul was allegedly a liar who supported deception. But since we refuted that
claim it does not count as a known fact with which my hypothesis is not in
accord with.
Criteria #4: Less ad hoc
Whose hypothesis consists of
non-evidenced assumptions? The one which is guilty of that is less likely to be
true.
Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis is ad hoc
since he claims that, “Whatever the source of Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15:6 may be
using it to prove the historicity of the resurrection is untenable...” However,
this is a non-evidenced assumption since he admits he doesn’t even know what
the source is. And his reasons for rejecting the tradition were disproved. So
he has no grounds to say the tradition is untenable. Also, we know the source
is a creed/tradition which is extremely primitive and apostolic so his
non-evidenced assumption about Paul’s source is incorrect.
Ibn Anwar’s view that Paul was a
deceiver and liar is a non-evidenced assumption common among Muslims as we have
shown. This is strange since there are early Muslim traditions teaching Paul’s
reliability.(25) My view that Paul was not a deceiver or liar is evidenced by
many considerations which we discussed.
Ibn Anwar’s view also requires that
one assume the apostles and their students (who abandoned their sacred religion
of Judaism for Christianity and even willingly suffered persecution and
martyrdom) would not call Paul out if he were going around reporting fabricated
stories. They did not do so, however. In fact, as I argued in the article the Historical
Case for Paul’s Apostleship the evidence is clear that they supported Paul
and worked with him. Thus, this assumption Ibn Anwar is required to make is
erroneous.
I haven’t argued anything which
requires one to accept non-evidenced assumptions on the other-hand. I based all
of my arguments and views on sound evidenced arguments.
Conclusion
In summary, we have provided an
historical case for the appearance to the 500 reported by Paul in 1 Corinthians
15:6. We have addressed Ibn Anwar’s central arguments and exposed his overall position
as faulty. It has been seen that when pitted against the criteria of weighing
hypotheses which historians employ, Ibn Anwar’s hypothesis is seen to be
problematic and erroneous. It is my hope that the Muslims will turn from their
rash scepticism, faulty arguments, and reliance on unbelievers and liberals and
instead view the evidence consistently and with an open heart. And, Lord
willing, the Muslims will put their faith in the person and work of Jesus
Christ before it is too late.
Christ has risen, He is Lord!
Endnotes:
1.) Gerd Lüdemann, The
Resurrection of Jesus: History, Experience, Theology, [Fortress Press,
1994], pp. 100-109.
2.) N. T. Wright, The
Resurrection of the Son of God, [Fortress Press, 2003], p. 325.
3.) Although Boring’s The
People’s New Testament Commentary does say this event is “otherwise
unknown,” Ibn Anwar omitted part of this author’s position since on the same
page we also read that this appearance, “may refer to something like the
Pentecost event of Acts 2:1-42” and that Paul affirmed, “the resurrection is
not some twilight zone, never-never-land event in the mythical past, but an
event in recent history to which many of his own generation could testify” M.
Eugene Boring, Fred B. Craddock, The People's New Testament Commentary,
[Westminster John Knox Press, 2010], p. 543.
4.) W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger,
William White Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New
Testament Words, [Thomas Nelson, 1996], p. 82 italics mine.
5.) D. A. Carson, Matthew, The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Vol. 8,
ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, [Zondervan, 1984], p. 589.
6.) Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia
of Bible Difficulties, [Regency Reference Library, 1982], p. 355.
7.) D. A. Carson, Matthew, The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version, Vol. 8,
ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, [Zondervan, 1984], p. 589.
8.) Ernest Bernard Allo, Saint
Paul: First Epistle to the Corinthians, [Gabalda, 1956], p. 396.
9.) W. Harold Mare, 1 Corinthians,
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version,
Vol. 10, [Zondervan 1976], p. 282.
10.) Leon Morris, The First
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New
Testament Commentaries, Vol. 7, [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1985], pp.
202-203.
11.) Robert Reymond, A New
Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith: 2nd Edition - Revised and Updated,
[Thomas Nelson Inc, 1998], eBook.
12.) Bruce Chilton, Rabbi Jesus:
An Intimate Biography, [Random House Digital, Inc., 2002], p. 282 n. 3.
13.) For Alexander the Great’s life
and the stories involved we rely primarily on later sources such as Plutarch,
Diodorus, Curtius, Justin, and Arrian etc.
14.) The Jews of Christ’s time
looked to Old Testament texts concerning the Davidic conquering King Messiah
and anticipated He would overthrow Rome and restore rule under YHWH (Isaiah
9:7; Daniel 7:14; Psalms 2:7-9; 2 Samuel 22:44-51; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Amos
9:11-12; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:25 etc). Acts 1:6 among other texts shows Jesus’
followers still retained this type of thinking for a while and then understood
correctly later on. There were events in the first-century bearing this King
Messiah expectation out. For example during the great revolt the Judeans
exalted Simon Bar Giora as king who would drive Rome out of their land. He
amassed an army to fight the Romans but was captured and executed during his
efforts by Vespasian and his son Titus (account can be found in Josephus’s Jewish
Wars). The Testament of Levi (2nd c. B. C.) states the
Messiah’s, “star shall rise in heaven as the star of a king. . . . And there
shall be peace in all the earth” (The Testament of Levi, 18); thus
affirming this mindset.
16.) “The literacy rate in antiquity
was nowhere close to what it is in most countries today. Even a liberal
estimate would suggest that no more than 20 percent of the general populace in
Paul’s day could read and write” Ben Witherington III, New Testament
History: A Narrative Account, [Baker Academic, 2003], p. 238.
17.) Michael R. Licona, The
Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, [InterVarsity
Press, 2010], p. 295.
18.) Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle
to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, [Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 1996], pp. 180-181; Leslie C. Allen, Romans, New International
Bible Commentary Based on the NIV Translation, ed. F. F. Bruce, [Zondervan,
1979], p. 1322; Everett F. Harrison, Romans, The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary with the New International Version, ed. Frank E. Gaebelen,
[Zondervan, 1976], p. 36.
19.) Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4,
Book 52, Number 271.
20.) An explanation of each
criterion can be found in Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A
New Historiographical Approach, [InterVarsity Press, 2010], p. 109-111.
22.) Without giving all of the
arguments Drs. Licona and Habermas note, “(1) the disciples themselves claimed
that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and (2) subsequent to Jesus’ death
by crucifixion, his disciples were radically transformed from fearful, cowering
individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution into bold
proclaimers of the gospel of the risen Lord. They remained steadfast in the
face of imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom. It is very clear they sincerely
believed that Jesus rose from the dead. There is almost unanimous consensus
among scholars to this belief on the part of the disciples” Gary R. Habermas,
Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, [Kregel
Publications, 2004], p. 50.
23.) The evidence shows that before
becoming a Pharisee, in “A. D. 15-20 ... Saul begins his studies in Jerusalem
with Rabbi Gamaliel, grandson of Rabbi Gamaliel the elder” Ben Witherington
III, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus,
[InterVarsity Press, 2001], p. 307 cf. Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14. That Paul was
imprisoned, persecuted and martyred see The First Epistle of Clement, Ch.
5 cf. Paul’s trials in Acts.
24.) “…and come to the extreme limit
of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he
removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a
striking example of patience” Clement, The First Epistle of Clement, Ch.
5 cf. 2 Tim. 2:12; Rom. 8:35-39.
25.) Keith Thompson, Historical Case for Paul’s Apostleship
No comments:
Post a Comment