Читать книгу Jesus Before Constantine - Doug E. Taylor - Страница 10

Why Me?

Some topics are, well, just difficult to address. Religion is one of those broad categories where we see division and disagreement over what was, what is, and what is to come. My education and background, however, position me to be able to tackle the question of whether or not multiple Christianities existed before Constantine and the councils of the fourth century. The implications for the answer are very real and depending on how one answers determines whether or not we rightly or wrongly included or excluded certain beliefs related to what constituted the earliest Christianity. Again, why me, and what qualifies me to tackle this subject?

First, let’s address the elephant in the room: my education. I hold three masters degrees from seminary and a PhD in theology and apologetics. While completing my doctorate I picked up a cognate in church history, with particular interest in the earliest church. The degrees are good, but there has to be more than just academic study.

Second, when my wife and I first met, she was a third-generation Jehovah’s Witness. To say her family and I had some tense conversations over right belief would be an understatement. Some I handled well, and some not so much. The point here is that I have practical experience conversing with members of groups that would not be considered as following orthodox Christianity.

Finally, I worked for over a decade with Valvoline, and was involved in helping lead and manage the environmental, health, and safety for the Instant Oil Change side of the business. It was during my time at Valvoline that I was trained in the use of root cause analysis, a tool that looked to why undesirable conditions or events happened when there was already an established standard for how work was to be accomplished. Stated differently, the business had a management system that expressed how to “do work” while at the same time avoiding injuries, spills, and other operational disruptions. When an undesired event happened, like an injury, root cause analysis would enable us to examine our systems and determine if we had a gap that allowed the undesired event, or if someone deviated from the established system. This type of analysis is exactly what I intend to bring to the discussion of whether or not there were multiple Christianities prior to Constantine and the fourth-century councils.

Why Does This Matter?

The purpose of this text is to examine materials from AD 30–250, predominately from Christian sources but also including select non-Christian material in an effort to determine whether it was through the use of positive apologetics that the church grew. In recent history there have been claims that there were actually many different groups that taught very different things that were considered to be Christian. One such different teaching was that Jesus was just a man, but not God in any sense. Another held that Jesus was fully God but lacked any actual physical body. Yet a third suggested, depending on which source document is read, that there existed anywhere from two to nine deities. The question that deserves answering is whether or not these different groups would have been considered Christian by the earliest church.

From the very beginning of his text How Jesus Became God, Bart Ehrman states that the early church believed Jesus to be God, but since the late eighteenth century, historians have figured out that this is simply not correct.1 The difficulty with such a statement is that the claim has been made, but Ehrman did not identify where or how the church was wrong for so long.

Much work has already been done by Gary Habermas in establishing the minimal facts for both the resurrection and the deity of Christ. In a review of Debating Christian Theism, of Habermas’s minimal facts Angus Menuge states, “Habermas’s ‘minimal facts’ approach is not without its critics (some say it concedes too much to tendentious principles of biblical criticism), but it does explain why, over time, one skeptical alternative after another to the historical fact of the resurrection has been abandoned, leaving critics with shrinking cover to hide from Christ’s claim on their life.”2

Habermas cites what he believes to be the most important minimal facts related to the resurrection as being Jesus’ death by crucifixion; that the disciples had experiences they believed to be appearances of the risen Jesus; that the disciples were transformed based on those experiences; there was very early preaching of the reported resurrection event in Jerusalem—the same location as the crucifixion of Jesus; the conversion of Paul; and the conversion of James, the half-brother of Jesus.3 The significance of this listing is that if all of Christianity hinges upon the resurrection then by way of the resurrection the deity and death aspects of the apologetic method are affirmed. Given Menuge’s comments about the strength of Habermas’s argumentation it would appear reasonable to expect to find these same strong arguments in the post-apostolic writings of the church.

Authors have on a large scale seemingly conflated Christianity such that what Christianity does or is supposed to do is understood to be what it is. Stated differently, one may think Christianity is supposed to be charitable, therefore being charitable makes it Christian—at least in the minds of some. Not unlike any other time in history personal biases have influenced how Christianity is understood today. This work is not intended to identify what Christianity does, rather what it was that constituted the most basic necessary belief in order to be considered Christian in the earliest church.

By returning to the period of the early church it will be possible to identify exactly what it was that the earliest followers of Jesus believed made them uniquely Christian, and that there were understood lines of demarcation between those who were Christian and those who merely claimed the title but followed a different gospel. More specifically, this text demonstrates the early church grew through the use of a positive apologetic. Because defensive apologetics only focuses on why a particular position is incorrect, it does not “fill the void” once its task is done. Defensive apologetics may reveal error in thought or belief, and it may lead one to theism, but defensive apologetics does not get someone from theism to the God of Christianity. It is the role of positive apologetics to establish the credibility of Christianity, in significant part by affirming the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Here we find apologetics leading from simple theism to the God of Christianity.

Three key arguments will be addressed. First, a distinction needs to be made between the root cause for the spread of Christianity and causal factors associated with this spread. Second, by looking to positive apologetics one finds justification for belief in and commendation of Christianity. Finally, when examining gnostic and what some consider to be heretical texts it will be demonstrated that each system of belief incorporated a significant change to one or more aspects of the deity, death, and resurrection reports as they related to Jesus.

What Are the Limits of This Work?

I will evaluate the growth of the church from a terminus a quo of AD 30 and terminus ad quem of AD 250. The terminus a quo allows for an early Letter to the Galatians (AD 49). In looking to the first two chapters of Galatians we find that Paul had converted to Christianity, then over seventeen years had made two trips to Jerusalem, both of which had occurred prior to the penning of the letter. Subtracting seventeen years would place Paul’s conversion at AD 32,4 necessitating a crucifixion dating of AD 30. The terminus ad quem has been selected to ensure a long enough period following the apostles yet early enough to avoid the influence of Constantine on the growth and polity of the church.

With the desire to build the strongest case possible for my argument, I will only include those seven texts of the Pauline corpus that are accepted by critical scholars (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) as authentic as well as those speeches and sermon summaries accepted from Acts. This is not to suggest a lack of value for the balance of the material now known as the New Testament; rather the intent is to build an inductive argument for the thesis using only those sources generally accepted by all scholars, inclusive of those who would question or challenge our beliefs. Additionally, because the Jewish Scriptures were in use at the same time as the accepted Pauline corpus those will be admitted where appropriate.

No anonymous or pseudo works will be included in this research with respect to Christian writings. By establishing this threshold it will prevent the use of sources known to be Christian yet with uncertainty in relation to the author.5 It is recognized that such inclusion by known authors is not a viable threshold with respect to gnostic texts and as such a select number of works included in The Nag Hammadi were included and examined as appropriate.

Because of the volume of work already completed by Gary Habermas, the minimal facts for the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus will be accepted as a very early teaching within the church without attempting to demonstrate the validity of the belief or teaching of the specific elements. Additionally, there will be no attempt to prove the historicity of Jesus as an individual.

Epistemology (Determining Belief vs. Opinion)

Methodology

The primary approach used was an evidential methodology. If evidence is objective in nature, then it should be available to all present and open to investigation by all others. Believing the early church taught the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, a case will be made from the accepted Pauline corpus establishing a baseline for early teaching. The baseline will become known as the standard, policy, or administrative control (SPAC). If Momigliano’s rule that the historian searches for the original versus the derivative sources is to be applied here, then by identifying the original SPAC will enable the bifurcation of original versus derivative with respect to early Christian beliefs regarding what it was that made them what they were.6

Some may object that history is a “lesser” science and as such not reliable as a witness. Yet we rarely if ever see such a challenge to the use of history in any other field except metaphysics and the existence of God. Hegel stated the role of original history to be the penning of eyewitness testimony by those eyewitnesses, whereas critical reflective history emphasizes research focused on determining the truthfulness and credibility of particular historical sources.7 Thus a distinction is made between the event itself as being history and the record of that event as history. History is unable to be recreated as though it were operating in the field of one of the hard sciences. Relevant extant sources may therefore constitute evidence in relation to the research even though the historical element cannot be recreated. Almost as a cautionary statement Hegel said, “What the historian puts into their mouths is no supposititious system of ideas, but an uncorrupted transcript of their intellectual and moral habitudes.”8 The evidential methodology will therefore be grounded in what exists and not travel down a speculative path.

Bart Ehrman suggests historians appeal to evidence, preferring physical evidence, surviving products that “can be traced back with relative certainty back to the person,” and other kinds of evidence that are not from the person but about the person.9 Of importance here is Ehrman’s appeal to a relative certainty and not a requirement for mathematical or absolute certainty. Habermas stated that the focus of historians is on both the event and how that event has been recorded and interpreted.10

Root Cause Analysis

Through establishing a SPAC it will be possible to introduce a secondary methodological tool also evidential in nature: root cause analysis. Greater detail will be provided later, but here it suffices to state that root cause analysis is a systematic approach that attempts to identify why undesired or unintended events happened as compared to what was anticipated or expected. More specifically, I use the ABS root cause analysis methodology in assessing selected writings that either ran concurrently to or immediately following Paul and deviated from the established SPAC. Because it is anticipated that one will be able to clearly identify what it is that made Christianity the very thing it is, it is also believed that one can identify writings from the period in review that offered a change or variation to the Pauline teaching specifically as it relates to the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. By utilizing a non-theological tool to assess the writings of individuals who opposed Christianity or sought to offer a different version, the specific point(s) of deviation should be objectively identifiable without having to rely on theological presuppositions. Additionally, because using root cause methodology for assessing gaps or failures focuses on evidence rather than speculation and is commonly used by major corporations and government agencies in the United States,11 the objectivity of the system has been well established in the secular community. No known works prior to this have sought to evaluate the differences in Christian teachings during this time span through the use of root cause analysis.

It is important for now to note that the use of root cause analysis is not merely “a business tool.” Rather it is a method for investigating historical conditions and events related to why virtually any undesired event happened. Speculation may be avoided but is not always completely preventable, and this method does address the inclusion of speculation in the course of an investigation. When speculation enters the investigation, the conclusions become more tentative. Because this research seeks to investigate historical events, ranges of plausibility are to be preferred in assessing offered root causes and interpretation of data rather than mathematical probabilities.

Equally important is that root cause analysis is designed to determine why a deviation or failure occurred and cannot be used as a tool to affirm why something happened correctly—a positive outcome—according to the established expectation. As such the role of root cause analysis in this research will be to aid in demonstrating not only objectivity with respect to the research, but also to assist in building a cogent argument that increases the plausibility of any offered conclusions.

Rationale

This work will employ both inductive and abductive approaches of argumentation, building from specific points of evidence to the best possible inferred conclusion. David Hume expressed concern over the use of the inductive method, and that concern must be addressed if the approach and conclusions are to be considered valid. The two issues associated with the Humean problem of induction in particular are with the concept of generalizing about the properties of a group of objects and presupposing that future events will happen as in the past. This work focuses on establishing a SPAC based on one specific individual rather than a collective and second, because of the definition used in determining what will constitute “evidence,” future events are not admissible for consideration. As a result, the problem of induction is avoided by focusing the research on the evidence.

Evidence is necessary for establishing matters of truth. In American jurisprudence, evidence broadly speaking is understood as testimony, physical objects, and documents materially relevant to the case at hand that are capable of demonstrating a fact without inference or presumption.12 The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines evidence as information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true, while Webster’s considers evidence to be an outward sign or indicator of something that furnishes proof. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy moves a step further by stating that evidence is that which increases or decreases the probability of a proposition.

Frederick Ferré notes the following regarding the nature of evidence:

Suffice it to say that while the general function of evidence is to count for or against the reasonableness of giving some degree of assent to a possible belief, its specific nature is field-dependent and thus relative to the logical character of the sort of beliefs at issue. Evidence is either logically relevant, that is, or it is not evidence (within that field of thought) at all. In practice, furthermore, what makes some datum or other evidence is not some absolute characteristic inherent in it, but, rather, the considered judgment of those who work and think in the field that it needs to be taken into account in the weighing of their beliefs. Thus evidence becomes evidence, I submit, by a kind of ruling made—often not without debate and never incorrigibly—by those most intimately concerned. Evidence is provisionally granted its evidential status by being acknowledged as properly pertinent to the resolution of the issue at hand; it is ruled in order by those seized of a question; it is admitted into court, as it were, by those most interested in reaching a fair verdict.13

Thomas Kelly notes the following:

Reflection on examples such as these naturally suggest that evidence consists paradigmatically of physical objects, or perhaps, physical objects arranged in certain ways. For presumably, physical objects are the sort of thing which one might place in a plastic bag, dig up from the ground, send to a laboratory, or discover among the belongings of an individual of historical interest. . . . Empiricists in the vein of Russel think of evidence as sense data. . . . Quine held that evidence consisted of the stimulation of one’s sensory receptors. . . . Evidence is that which makes a difference to what one is justified in believing or what is reasonable to believe. . . . Thus, the skeptic about our knowledge of the external world maintains that one’s evidence does not favor one’s ordinary, commonsense views about one’s surroundings over the various skeptical alternatives. . . . Insofar as one is rational, one is disposed to respond appropriately to one’s evidence: at any given time, one’s views accurately reflect the character of one’s evidence at that time, and one’s views manifest a characteristic sensitivity or responsiveness to change in one’s evidence through time.14

The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy frames evidence as follows:

Evidence is information bearing on the truth or falsity of a proposition. . . . One has knowledge only when one has a true belief based on very strong evidence. . . . Conclusive evidence is so strong as to rule out all possibility of error. The discussions of skepticism show clearly that we lack conclusive evidence for our beliefs about the external world, about the past, about other minds, and about nearly any other topic. Thus, a person’s perceptual experiences provide only inconclusive evidence for beliefs about the external world since such experiences can be deceptive or hallucinatory. Inconclusive, or prima facie, evidence can always be defeated or overridden by subsequently acquired evidence, as, e.g., when testimonial evidence in favor of a proposition is overridden by the evidence provided by subsequent experiences.15

From an empiricist viewpoint evidence is presented as being objective in nature and known through one or more of the five senses. The skeptic’s position of our knowledge not favoring one’s ordinary and commonsense views about our surroundings over various alternatives fails to convince. If, as suggested by the skeptic, there is no reason to favor the commonsense views, then one is at a loss for explaining why such a person when driving a vehicle stops when the traffic light turns red or chooses to use an umbrella when it rains.

Evidence will be defined in this work as a condition or event, objective in nature, knowable by those present, open to investigation by all others, whereby when rightly interpreted, corresponds to reality. Using this definition, evidence may be either a noun or a verb, is not limited to a single person, is not subjective, and requires interpretation for correct understanding.16 One cannot avoid the reality that there are what would be known as evidences for events that have happened in history or conditions which exist. This arguably is the very basis upon which forensic science was established.17 As such the definition used here is a softer form of evidentialism, allowing for the existence of paradoxes and belief in other areas of life where such belief does not meet the established standard for inclusion in this research.

Of importance here is not to claim future events as being evidential. John Hick proposed that eschatology could be used as part of an evidential argument.

The appeal to evidence as a means of verifying the truth of Christianity has been made to the past (history) as well as to present experience either internally (as in mysticism) or externally (in nature). But some have also appealed to the future as a source of evidence for the possible truth of Christianity. Such was the suggestion of John Hick in his eschatological verification.18

In denying the use of what may be in the future and appealing only to that which exists now or in the past, an evidential method avoids challenges that the structure is logically fallacious by way of introducing statements that may be interpreted as appealing to a hypothesis contrary to fact.

A significant benefit to the use of an evidential method is that it has the ability to become a positive apologetic that focuses on individual points building from the data to the conclusion. A pitfall that may be avoided by the use of evidential methods is that it may prevent movement toward polemical arguments and instead focuses on the data and subsequent conclusion.

Not everyone would agree with the use of an evidential method. John Frame, in responding to Habermas’s preference of an evidential apologetic method, makes a point of indicating that there is difficulty in using the evidential method in trying to reason with unbelievers and points to Romans 1 for support that unbelievers suppress the truth and exchange the truth for a lie.19 What cannot be missed is that Frame’s very argument supports the offered definition for evidence. More specifically, if evidence rightly interpreted corresponds to reality, then to know and be able to suppress truth indicates that one has epistemic access to evidence.

A second challenge to the use of an evidential method may rest in the concept of rationalism where the intent is to express that reason is the epitome of authority when discussing religious matters. “More broadly, rationalism is any philosophical position affirming the ability of thinking, apart from sensory experience, to discover fundamental truths about the world or reality.”20 The challenge here is that one is not capable of thinking in a vacuum. Even if one were truly able to reach a position whereby they could think without any external sensory experience, thinking that is done in the present is influenced by both experiences and knowledge gained in the past. One can think rationally but one cannot think where that thinking is not in some way influenced by external stimuli.21

A possible objection that might be brought against giving primacy to an evidential method, à la Evans, is associated with a lack of objectivity.22 The difficulty here is that this challenge cuts in more than one direction. First, it is not possible to come to the table as an unbiased or disinterested party, regardless of the methodology one uses in assessing historical events. Second, biases are driven to a large degree by an individual’s worldview, meaning a person’s conclusions will likely be influenced by how they see the world. The bias challenge, however, fails to carry convincing weight. Berkhof notes, “Dr. Kuyper speaks as follows of the attempt to do this [prove the existence of God through evidence]: ‘The attempt to prove God’s existence is either useless or unsuccessful. It is useless if the searcher believes that God is a rewarder of those who seek Him. And it is unsuccessful if it is an attempt to force a person who does not have this pistis by means of argumentation to an acknowledgment in a logical sense.’”23

When speaking of evidence I am speaking to those points of data that are open to investigation and known widely. Such a move is not done to avoid difficulties and questions that remain regarding what will happen in the future, rather it is a deliberate move to look at what may be known and what pieces of information are open to investigation by any interested party now, regardless of whether or not they believe in the God of Christianity. The Holy Spirit may speak to a person internally and bear witness, but this is not necessarily open to investigation by others and therefore is not considered as evidence in this work. Moving beyond this, a crucial aspect to properly understanding an evidential method is in the right interpretation of the data. When examined in context the interpretation should yield the best plausible conclusion consistent with the data.

Defining Key Terms

To facilitate clear communication between the researcher and readers, it will be necessary to define certain strategic words used throughout the research.

1.Evidence will be defined as a condition or event objective in nature, knowable by those present, open to investigation by all others, whereby when rightly interpreted, corresponds to reality.

2.Miracle will be defined as a highly improbable event with no known naturalistic causes, which is charged with religious significance in relationship with Yahweh, the execution of which is for the benefit of his people.

3.Positive apologetic will be defined as the commending of Christianity as understood through the established SPAC, affirming the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

4.Defensive apologetic will be defined as a methodology or argument demonstrating why views not related to the established SPAC (the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus) are lacking, and thus are not to be included in this research. Examples of such defensive apologetics would include responses to charges that Christians were cannibals and atheists.

5.Root cause will be defined as a plausible “why” behind a condition or event obtaining rather than the anticipated or expected results identified in the SPAC.

6.SPAC will be defined as standards, policies, or administrative controls.24 A SPAC provides the boundaries within which a system is intended to function.

7.Contributing factor will be defined as a condition or event that is of interest, and could have some level of impact or influence within the system, but if that condition or event were removed, it does not mitigate or prevent the condition or event being investigated from obtaining or obtaining in the manner currently observed.

8.Causal factor will be defined as a condition or event that, if removed, mitigates or prevents the condition or event being investigated from obtaining or at least from obtaining in the manner currently observed.25

9.Worldview will be defined as the filter, beliefs, or methodological system through which one interprets data and arrives at meaning.

10.Minimal facts are those pieces of historical data that are accepted by most critical scholars qualified to speak on the subject (90–95%) whether they are Christian or not, as well as there being multiple attestation of those historical data.

Relevant Texts for Establishing the Research Basis

History

The argument put forth by Ehrman and those who would agree with his thinking would suggest, if taken at face value, that orthodoxy was a later development of the church, pointing to the beginning of the major councils in the fourth century. Historical study, however, would not appear to agree with such a claim. In his work Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Walter Bauer said, “Where there is heresy, orthodoxy must have preceded.”26 While Bauer made the statement that orthodoxy must have preceded, his thesis in the end suggested the exact opposite. What must be asked is if it is true that orthodoxy must have preceded heresy. It is safe to say, at a minimum, that it is not possible to have a Christianity that predates the Christ.

This is in part why this work will build from the minimal facts argument. When we begin to look at source documents from groups that ultimately were not included in Scripture, debate centers on authenticity of the writings, the timing of the writings, and in many cases who the author actually was. Over the past century even most critical scholars have come to accept seven texts of the Christian New Testament as having authentically come from Paul. As such, the starting point for this book is different in that Bauer held the position that, “as we turn to our task, the New Testament seems to be both too unproductive and too much disputed to be able to serve as a point of departure. The majority of its anti-heretical writings cannot be arranged with confidence either chronologically or geographically; nor can the more precise circumstances of their origin be determined with sufficient precision.”27 Bauer desired to speak to the earliest Christianity, yet he appears to have not believed the source documents for Christianity to have been credible as a starting point.

James Dunn, in his two-volume work Christianity in the Making, suggested we cannot rightly use the term Christianity as something of a defining characteristic of beliefs until some eighty years following Luke penning Acts, suggesting that to use the term for the earlier church would run the risk of superimposing a modern mindset onto the data rather than letting the data reveal what constituted, and when, one was to be identified as a Christian.28 While caution is warranted, what has been missed is that a lack of total knowledge does not equate to an absence of any knowledge. According to Dunn’s thinking, he would have us believe Christianity as a clearly defined system of belief was not established until the latter half of the second century (ca. 160). However, if we consider the statement by Paul in Gal 1:6–9 we find there were others presenting different gospels from what Paul had already established. Dunn notes that in the immediate time following the reported resurrection event, multiple terms were used to describe followers of Jesus, and that the issue of identifying what it meant to be a Christian, if the term could rightly be used, gave indication of a multifaceted structure lacking in a single, overarching designator.29

Some have suggested that Christianity grew because of the existence of a common language. While a common language certainly would have made it easier to communicate the message, that common language did not make Christianity spread. Moreover, that same common language would have been available to all religious groups, so language may have contributed to the speed of growth, but it does not explain why people chose to become Christian.

Likewise, some have pointed to the pax Romana, or the peace of Rome, as the reason for the growth of Christianity. Again, this was a condition that was not unique to any one group, so it did not provide an advantage for any religious group’s growth. The same would hold true for arguments in favor of roads and improved shipping being the cause for Christianity’s spread. Stated differently, the existence of the roads or improved shipping does not cause people to share their newfound faith. Again, the roads and shipping were available to all, whether Jewish, Christian, gnostic, or other.

Notwithstanding, the truth claims of Christianity are bound up with the person and work of Jesus, who he was and what he did. What would make Christianity unique in an absolute sense, with no possible historical rival, would be for Jesus to be what is claimed for him—the one and only Son of God, God who has come in the flesh; and to have done what is affirmed for him—to have brought a salvation and relationship with God that no one other than the Son of God could have brought. There we pass from history to faith.

1. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 2. What is conspicuously absent in Ehrman’s work is any explanation on how the church was wrong for centuries, and then what specifically was it that surfaced from a historical perspective that justified dismissing that which the church had held to over the centuries. In short, no evidence was offered that would refute the reports of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, that he was an itinerant preacher who was reported to have done wondrous things labeled by many as miracles, that he died by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, that he was buried in a borrowed tomb, that there were reports of Jesus having been seen alive by many shortly following his death and burial, or that would explain the transformation of the disciples, as well as the conversion of the skeptic James and the enemy of the church, Saul.

2. Menuge, review Debating Christian Theism, 451–56.

3. Habermas, Philosophy of History, 49–50.

4. It is recognized and acknowledged that there are scholars who interpret this passage in Galatians such that there were only fourteen years in which both Jerusalem visits happened, believing the three years first mentioned were concurrent to the fourteen years that follows. If one concludes there were only fourteen years in which both visits occurred, then it would be possible for an AD 33 crucifixion date. Whether one opts for fourteen or seventeen years in the exegesis of the text does no damage to my proposal.

5. Making such a move will necessitate that valuable pieces of work such as The Epistle to Diognetus will not be considered as part of this research. Equally, by not allowing certain pseudo works, pieces where there may be disagreement as to whether an early father actually wrote a certain document will be exempted from this research in an attempt to avoid pieces that are more likely to draw the criticism that the research is speculative, having drawn conclusions from those speculations, and then gone further to build additional arguments presuming any speculations to be fact. It is important to note that the decision to not include such works is in keeping with the stated methodological approach of this research and should not be interpreted as meaning such works lack value for scholars researching this era but with a different focus.

6. Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 17. See also Momigliano, “Rules of the Game,” 39–45. If Momigliano’s “rules” are applied here and accepted as an accurate method to investigating historical claims, then it would appear to follow that if one was to desire to challenge the offered SPAC of this research, they would have to demonstrate that other materials, such as those of Marcion, Celsus, etc., were actually produced and circulated prior to the material examined here as being considered original.

7. Hegel, Philosophy of History, 1–7. The differentiation is made between the geschichte, or story, as compared to the historie, or what actually happened.

8. Hegel, Philosophy of History, 3.

9. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 39–40.

10. Habermas, Historical Jesus, 260.

11. Examples of root cause analysis being used by agencies in the United States include: a fatal accident investigation report where an isomerization unit explosion took place killing seventeen people in Texas City, Texas, in 2005 (http://www.csb.gov/bp-america-refinery-explosion/); Deepwater Horizon accident report, where an oil-drilling rig lost containment in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 (https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/sustainability/issue-reports/Deepwater_Horizon_Accident_Investigation_Report.pdf); US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board report following a release of methyl chloride on January 22, 2010, a release of oleum on January 23, 2010, and a release of phosgene on January 23, 2010, where the releases were linked to at least one death and possible exposures to others (http://www.csb.gov/assets/1/19/CSB%20Final%20Report.pdf).

12. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 595–600.

13. Ferré, “Brand Blanshard on Reason and Religious Belief,” 918.

14. Kelly, “Evidence.”

15. Audi, “Evidence.”

16. Taylor, “One from the Beginning,” 14. The idea behind the definition is that there are no such things as brute facts—facts require interpretation. The facts are individual points of data that must be understood in context. The challenge with those who would oppose the interpretation will require that one clearly delineate between an objection to the interpretation of the data versus an a priori rejection of the data.

17. Taylor, “Positive Case,” 1–2.

18. Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 92.

19. Frame, “Presuppositionalist’s Response,” 135.

20. Dierken and Brown, “Rationalism,” 484.

21. Francis Schaeffer said, “Postmodernism has been defined more simply as the belief that there is no bottom line, anywhere.” See Hankins, Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America, 174. Eckman states that “in postmodernism, the self-defines reality.” See Eckman, Truth about Worldviews, 10. In postmodernism it could be argued by someone that my immediate context determines meaning and that there is no such thing as shared knowledge, understanding, or truth. Text without context is meaningless, and if postmodernists collectively would appeal to the idea that there is no such thing as shared knowledge, understanding, or truth, the position is self-refuted since they would share a belief in the knowledge, understanding, or truth set forth by their claim.

22. Boa and Bowman, Faith Has Its Reasons, 463.

23. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 21. It is important to note here that Berkhof points back to his own translation of Dictaten Dogmatiek, de Deo I, 77.

24. Vanden Heuvel et al., Root Cause Analysis Handbook, xix.

25. Vanden Heuvel et al., Root Cause Analysis Handbook, 13.

26. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, xxii–xxiii. Bauer would reverse the order in his work, ultimately suggesting that heresy preceded orthodoxy when it came to Christianity.

27. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, xxv. While Bauer found the New Testament writings to be “too unproductive and too much disputed” to serve as a starting point, it is interesting that in his concluding chapter he makes use of select passages from Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians (all texts that will be used to establish a SPAC) in his research. He additionally makes use of 1 Timothy, Colossians, and 1 Peter. See pp. 233–35.

28. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 6. Later in this same volume Dunn would make the argument that the resurrection event was crucial in defining how the earliest believers understood Jesus as a person and in God’s involvement with humanity. In 23.4a he points to Rom 1:4 and 1 Cor 15:20–23 as the beginning of a new era with respect to God’s dealing with humanity, and goes on to affirm in 23.4c how he understands Paul as holding the belief that sonship for Jesus was not of an adoptionistic nature, rather this was a pointer to the exaltation of Jesus.

29. Dunn, Christianity in the Making, 15–16.