April 2, 2021 (Steven O’Reilly) – This article is the next installment of “historicity” articles presented on this blog, Roma Locuta Est. The first dealt with the historicity of the Crucifixion Darkness (see The Historicity of the Crucifixion Darkness), the second with the historicity of the Resurrection in consideration of the testimony of the Roman guards at the tomb (see The Historicity of the Resurrection: The Guards at the Tomb on the Third Day), and third, more generally, the historicity of miracles by examining the case of Julian the Apostate’s failed attempt to rebuild the Jewish Temple (see The Historicity of Miracles: The case of Julian the Apostate and a lesson for our time).
The Historicity of the Resurrection
In this article, I will lay out a brief case for the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then deal in Part II with some of the general objections I have confronted over the years in various Internet ‘debates’ with skeptics. The proposition presented and defended in this article is that:
Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried, and on the Third Day rose again.
It is established from secular histories, the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters that Jesus existed, and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. The crucifixion in all likelihood occurred on Friday, April 3, 33 A.D., which would put the Resurrection on Sunday April 5th of the year 33 A.D.
As to the authorship of the Christian sources, the Church fathers were unanimous as to the authorship of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letter which we reference below. Given the early Christians put high stock in the apostolicity of a document, it is improbable these documents would have been received as such had there been doubts about their apostolic authorship. That this is the case is clear from the fact the early Church did at various points question certain documents, such as in regard to 2nd Peter for a time, but this was never a question with the aforementioned documents. This indicates there was never any doubt about their authorship. Furthermore, there are no dissenting voices from this assessment in the ancient historical record, not even from heretics, and certainly not from secular or non-Christian sources. Aside from the above sources that attribute the authorship of these works, there is also in some cases internal evidence as well. John’s gospel bears internal evidence it was written by that Apostle (see John 21:24). There is also internal evidence that Acts of the Apostles was written by a disciple of Paul (see Acts of the Apostles 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1; 28:16), i.e., Luke (see here and here). Scholars in turn also recognize that the author of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Gospel of Luke are one and the same person.
It is not the intent here to go into depth as to the dating of the Gospels. That may be the topic of a future article. The unanimous consent of early writers gives us Matthew as the first Gospel. There are reasons to believe the Gospel of Mark was written, possibly, during the reign of Emperor Claudius, circa 42 A.D. As Luke used Mark as a source, and as Luke’s gospel predates the Acts of the Apostles, which shows no knowledge of Paul’s martyrdom, we can reasonably conclude both were written before Paul’s death (c. 67 AD). Regardless, all theories recognize that Luke used Matthew as a source, and therefore, it follows that Matthew was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.) and possibly before 42 A.D. Paul’s letters are generally dated as follows: First Thessalonians (c. 50 AD), Galatians (c. 53 AD), 1 Corinthians (c. 53-54 AD), 2 Corinthians (c, 55-56), Philippians (c. 55 AD), Philemon (c. 57-59 AD), Romans (c. 57 AD), Ephesians (c. 62), Colossians (c. 62 AD), Second Thessalonians (c. 49-51 AD), First Timothy (62-64 AD), Second Timothy (62-64 AD ) and Titus (62-64 AD) [See here].
In all, the Gospel accounts involve approximately 20 eyewitnesses, while Paul speaks of another 500 (see 1 Cor. 15:6). It might also be noted that in the case of Mark, some have speculated he is the naked youth mentioned only in his Gospel (see Mark 14:51-52), which if true, would mean Mark was an eyewitness to certain events as well. With regard to Paul, he had met and talked with at least some of the apostles, such as Peter and James (see Galatians 1:18-20, Acts 15:1-4), and with his traveling companion Luke likely met other witnesses in Jerusalem as well. But also, in addition, Paul saw the Lord as well (see Acts 9:1-6, 1 Cor. 15:8).
In sum, we have access to ancient documents that were authored either by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and or by those with access to eyewitnesses (Matthew, John, Mark, Luke, Paul). Five separate accounts testify to the fact of the empty tomb and Resurrection. Two of them by eyewitness (Matthew and John), one of them written by a companion of Peter (i.e., Mark), and the other a companion of Paul (i.e., Luke); and another by Paul himself. Thus, in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline letters we have authors with excellent access to the information, and who are in a position to know the information they report is true.
The empty tomb was first witnessed by the Roman guards (Matthew 28:4, 11-14). Magdalene and the “other Mary (the mother of James),” Salome, and other women observed the empty tomb, and then witnessed the risen Lord. There is no reason to repeat all the Gospel testimony in detail to the reader for whom it is already well known. It suffices to recall that Gospels attest that Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, and was buried (see Mt 27:11-66; Mk 15; Luke 23; and John 18:28-40, 19:1-42) and rose again on the Third Day (see Mt 28; Mk 16; Luke 24; and John 20 and 21). Cleopas and his traveling companion saw the Lord on the way to Emmaus (see Luke 24:13-53), and then the Lord was seen by Peter and the the other apostles (cf 1 Cor. 15:5), and later by as many as 500.
The essential facts are also found in the Acts of the Apostles (e.g., Acts 2:23). Similarly, Paul reports in his epistles the key facts, namely that Jesus Christ was condemned by the authorities (1 Cor. 2:8; 1 Thess. 2:14-16), suffered (e.g. Romans 15:3), was crucified (e.g., 1 Cor. 2:2, 2 Cor. 13:4, Galatians 2:20, Galatians 3:1, Ephesians 2:8), died and was buried (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3-4, 2 Cor. 13:4) and rose again on the Third Day (1 Cor. 15:4).
The above sources and testimony are the closest to the events, both in terms of the witnesses, and in time. These early Christian, well-sourced document provide powerful testimony to the truth of the Resurrection.
Credibility of the Sources
The key testimony above is based on sources and eyewitness accounts (i.e., the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the epistles) closest, as said, in time to the events in question, and are, therefore, strong evidence. Further below, we will provide additional comments on the credibility of these sources. First, I would simply point out that there are secular, and non-Christian sources that corroborate some of the key points found in this early Christian testimony of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.
First, the early Jewish counter-apologetic argument (i.e., ‘the disciples stole the body’) to the Resurrection points to the truth of the testimony above as it explicitly admits an element of the Christian testimony, i.e., that the tomb was in fact empty on the morning of the Third Day. But it also implicitly admits other elements as well, e.g., that Christ was crucified, died, and was buried, and said by Christians to have risen from the dead (i.e., why else the need to claim ‘the disciples stole the body’?). I discussed the import of this account of the Jewish authorities and the Roman Guard in relation to the empty tomb in a previous article in detail (see The Historicity of the Resurrection: The Guards at the Tomb on the Third Day as well as addressed various objections in The Historicity of the Resurrection: The Guards at the Tomb on the Third Day – Part II).
Second, the Roman historian Tacitus (56 AD-120 AD), in his Annals of Imperial Rome, wrote that “Christ” was executed under Pontius Pilate.
“But neither human resource, nor imperial munificence, nor appeasement of the gods, eliminated sinister suspicions that the fire has been instigated. To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated scapegoats – and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of this temporary setback, the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judaea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital.” (Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, p. 365)
Tacitus, too, admits key facts of the Christian testimony, such as that Christ was executed under Pontius Pilate. Obviously, by his expressions, we may readily surmise Tacitus was certainly no Christian. Yet, though not explicitly stated, given what he does affirm, surely he was at least aware that the Christians claimed Christ had risen from the dead, and this might even be implied in his statement that “in spite of this temporary setback” (i.e., Christ’s death), “the deadly superstition had broken out afresh.”
Third, the Roman historian Suetonius (69 AD – 122 AD) wrote of Christ and or Christians in two places in his work, The Twelve Caesars. He mentions Christians being punished during the reign of Nero: “Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous belief” (The Twelve Caesars, Nero 16, see p. 221). In his chapter on the Emperor Claudius, Suetonius writes: “Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from the city” (The Twelve Caesars, Claudius 25, see p. 202) [NB: “Chrestus” here is understood to refer to Christus, or Christ (see Suetonius)]. The mention by Suetonius of the Jews being expelled from Rome is consistent with Acts 18:2 wherein a reference to this fact is made: “And finding a certain Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with Priscilla his wife, (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome,) he came to them.”
Fourth, the Jewish historian Josephus (37 AD – 100 AD) wrote that Jesus, called the “Christ’,” was executed under Pontius Pilate, and that the disciples reported that Jesus had risen from the dead.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII)
Even acknowledging the controversy over the Testimonium Flavianum, it is admitted by the majority of scholars that the statement Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate belongs to original. Further, there is no reason to doubt “those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day” is genuine, as this much (1) cannot be said to be admission of belief by Josephus of personal belief in the Resurrection; (2) this report would be well enough known to Josephus in his time; and (3) his knowledge of “James, the brother of Christ” elsewhere in the Antiquities clearly suggests some knowledge of both James and Christ, and thus the claims surrounding him, such as His Resurrection.
Fifth, another ancient writer, Lucian (125 AD – after 180 AD), writing in his Death of a Peregrine wrote: “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,–the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”
Now, the above non-Christian sources were mentioned only to show that other sources did not doubt at least certain aspects of the Christian testimony in circulation. Thus from the aforementioned evidence, it is a matter of history, that it was accepted by the ancients that there was a real Jesus, and that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and was at least believed to have risen from the dead, and that those who believed in Christ came to be known as “Christians.”
And here the argument in defense of the historicity of the Resurrection might rest. But, having considered the non-Christian sources with regard to how they help support the credibility of Christian sources, let’s take a closer look at the credibility of the Christian sources and witnesses.
Matthew’s gospel, written in Aramaic, was intended first for the Jews, and was perhaps written within ten years of the Resurrection. Matthew’s Jewish audience, especially those living in Jerusalem, would be well aware of the truth or falsity of some of the surrounding details of his account, such as the Midday Darkness (see The Historicity of the Crucifixion Darkness), or even the account of the Resurrected Saints going into Jerusalem (Matthew 27: 53). Similarly, the other Gospels might be falsified if core facts put forward in them were known to be untrue or without basis in fact. For example, that Pilate had Jesus crucified would be a fact that would be known to Roman officials and the Jewish audience of Matthew’s gospel, and as would be the Midday Darkness “over the whole world” (Matthew 27: 45, Mark 15: 33, Luke 23:44-45). The point is, easily disprovable, mundane claims (whether Pilate crucified Jesus), and or fantastical claims (e.g., the Midday Darkness, or the Resurrected Saints) would not be included in Christian testimony unless they were in fact true because they would be otherwise easily falsified, and thus undermine the Christian testimony.
So, for example, soon after the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ, Peter addressed a large crowd in Jerusalem, citing scripture about the ‘sun being turned to darkness’ (cf Acts 2:20), and then reminding them they were aware, if not witnesses themselves, of various “miracles, wonders, and signs” done in their midst (cf Acts 2:22). Of that crowd, three thousand were said to have been baptized that day (cf Acts 2:41), something impossible if they knew the facts Peter had called to mind about “miracles, wonders and signs” and the “sun being turned to darkness”, and to which many of them had been witnesses, were untrue. This supports the credibility of Peter, and the Christian accounts found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
We might also recall in speaking of the 500 who had seen the risen Christ (cf 1 Cor. 15:1-6), Paul wrote: “Then he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep.” First Corinthians was written about 54 AD, about twenty years after the Resurrection. As Paul noted, many of these witnesses were still alive at the time. This is something Paul is not likely to have noted if it were not so, for otherwise he might fear being contradicted on the question of the Resurrection.
We might also observe the following. Many of the apostles suffered martyrdom, e.g., Peter, Paul, James, etc. Under the Roman process as it related to Christians (e.g., as described by Tacitus and Pliny the Younger), it appears one could save oneself by simply denying one is a Christian. Thus, certainly in the case of eyewitnesses, willingness to suffer martyrdom testifies to their personal truthfulness, and to the truth of what they claimed to have witnessed. In other words, while one may be willing to die for something one believes to be true, it is quite another thing entirely to willingly die for what one knows to be a lie.
With this in mind, let us take a look, for example, at the case of the apostle Peter. Peter was in a position to know, either first hand, and or through associates the whole story (i.e., including parts he did not personally witness) of how Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died and was buried, and rose again on the Third Day. That Peter was an eyewitness to the resurrection is affirmed by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Paul, and Peter (e.g., 1 Peter 5:1; 2:21-24; 1:3) – by six separate writers, inclusive of Peter. For example, Peter saw the resurrected Jesus one on one (Luke 24:34 and 1 Cor 15:5) and in various group settings per the four gospel accounts, and he also claimed it in his first epistle. That in mind, Peter was arrested following the Great Fire in Rome, when Nero began his persecution of Christians as scapegoats. Per Tacitus (The Annals of Imperial Rome, p. 365) and Pliny the Younger (see here), the Roman judicial process in cases regarding Christians seemed to be to release those who denied being Christian, while those who admitted it (i.e., “self-acknowledged Christians”) were convicted and punished by death. In Peter’s case, a denial of being a Christian would be tantamount to an admission he was not an eyewitness to the truth of the Resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15:17). Conversely, to acknowledge he — who was an eyewitness to the Resurrection — was Christian was to affirm that he was a witness to the Resurrection.
That Peter died a martyr’s death is affirmed by John, the apostle, and by Clement, bishop of Rome, by Caius (per Eusebius), by Ireneaus and Tertullian, and other Church fathers. The key point to keep in mind here is that Peter was not dying for believing what someone else told him about Christ and the Resurrection. Rather, he was dying for what he himself affirmed he personally witnessed, as that was in fact the basis of his Christian faith. While someone might die for a truth he believes on the testimony of another, one is not likely to willingly die from something one knows to be a lie — as would have been the case if Peter had never really seen the risen Jesus as he claimed. Thus, Peter’s martyrdom (and that of the other apostles) lends significant weight and credibility to his (their) testimony in regard to Jesus Christ and the Resurrection. Something similar may be said of Paul who also died a martyr’s death in Rome, something that in all probability could have been avoided if he had denied his faith. And this faith came from what what he had learned from the apostles, and from his direct experience of the Lord.
Additional Proofs of the Historicity of the Resurrection
Although the proofs of the historicity and truth of the Resurrection above are sufficient, others less direct may be offered for consideration.
First, that Christianity persevered and grew in the face of the prejudice (see Suetonius and Tacitus), and the cruel and violent persecutions of the Romans under Nero and latter emperors is only in part explained by the credibility of the apostles as witnesses to the truth of the Resurrection. While longevity is not strictly a proof of the Divine foundation of a religion, it seems a necessary condition of one really so founded. Whereas many religions and sects have appeared on the stage of world history and ultimately disappeared; one would expect that a religion, truly founded by God, as claimed by Christianity, would persist despite the vicissitudes of history. Whether it be the miraculous growth of Christianity, beginning on the first Pentecost, or the Church persevering through many persecutions; if Jesus existed, and is God, one would expect the Church He founded, and against which He said the “Gates of Hell will not prevail” to continue to exist down to our own day, and indeed beyond. Which is to say, the continued existence of the Church is consistent with the accounts of its Divine foundation, and is itself a witness to the truth of the Resurrection.
Second, if God acted in the world in the time when Jesus walked the earth through miracles, signs and wonders, and powerfully so through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, one might expect — or at least not be surprised — that various public signs and miracles might continue in His Name to our own time, and be witnessed and recorded throughout history. Rev. Harrison, speaking of such points made by Arnold Lunn, wrote well:
“The fact that Catholic history has been constantly marked by many other well-attested miracles in the lives of holy men and women lends a certain a priori credibility to the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ miracles and his Resurrection. It would seem surprising, indeed, if a society which for over 2,000 years has produced a constant stream of miracles was not adorned at its foundation by events at least as wondrous.” (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9108dd.asp).
Indeed, from its founding by Jesus Christ, there has indeed been a constant stream of miracles, for example, the miracles documented and attributed to the saints (e.g., St. Francis Xavier). The history of the Church has been marked by great public signs and wonders, such as the appearance of the Chi Rho witnessed by Constantine and his army prior to the Battle of the Milvian bridge (312 AD), which in turn eventually led to the legalization of Christianity. Also, there was the great earthquake, the fireballs, and storm which thwarted Julian the Apostate’s plan to rebuild the Jewish Temple to falsify the words of Our Lord in hopes of disproving Christianity (see The Historicity of Miracles: The case of Julian the Apostate and a lesson for our time). There are the thousands of miracles of healing at the shrine at Lourdes, with a good number well documented by the medical bureau there. Closer to our own time is the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima in 1917, witnessed by over 70,000 people, some even miles away, inclusive of both believers and skeptics. We might also consider miraculous physical miracles and artifacts. These include, for example, the miraculous image on the tilma of Guadalupe (see The Image of Guadalupe), as well as the Shroud of Turin.
We have reviewed the credible testimony in favor of the Resurrection as found in the New Testament. We have reviewed both neutral and hostile non-Christian sources from ancient times which support key elements found in the Christian accounts. If we may take these early non-Christian sources together, these first skeptics at least accepted as true that (1) Jesus lived, (2) had prophesied his death and resurrection, (3) was crucified under Pontius Pilate, (4) suffered, died and was buried, and (5) his tomb, though guarded, was found empty on the Third Day. Unlike many modern day hyper-skeptics, none of these early non-Christian sources denied the existence of Jesus Christ. But in the case of the modern hyper-skeptics, their approach to the evidence is to reject it, or to attempt to explain it away. This approach of the hyper-skeptic is, essentially, anti-historical and non-evidentiary.
We have seen that the authors of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the epistles include those who were eyewitnesses, and or who had access to eyewitnesses to the events described in these historical documents. The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by apostles of Jesus Christ. Mark and Luke were followers of Peter and Paul. Thus, these documents were well sourced by individuals with either direct knowledge of the events about which they wrote, or with access to the accounts of others who did. There are at least 21 witnesses to the Resurrection over time, and at least an additional 500 who witnessed the risen Christ on one occasion alone. The credibility of this collective testimony is vouchsafed by the credibility of the sources, the multiplicity of witnesses, the martyrdoms of apostles like Peter and Paul in Rome, the presence of the Church in history since the times of Christ on earth, and the constant stream of miracles. In conclusion, the evidence and credibility of the sources and witnesses demonstrate the truth and historicity of the proposition that Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died and was buried and rose again on the third day.
Thus concludes this brief defense of the historicity of the Resurrection. We will consider various objections to the truth and historicity of the Resurrection, and reply to them in the upcoming Part II of this series. Click the link below.
Objections to the Arguments made above, and the Replies to those Objections
Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions. He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on Parler or Gab: @StevenOReilly).
- For ease of assembling the data, I pulled from prior research related to this discussion. Below the commentary I provide a sources section that gives links to articles on the New Advent site from which data was drawn.
Matthew: A number of the earliest sources stated the apostle Matthew was in fact an author of a gospel (e.g., Papias (per Eusebius), Tertullian, Ireneaus, Theophilus (per Jerome), Origen). Greek Matthew was quoted from the earliest in the Greek fathers and thus considered of apostolic origin, e.g.,: the Didache, Ignatius, Polycarp, Athenogoras, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Tatian(Diatesseron). Apostolic authorship is consistent with Matthean authorship. Internal evidence is consistent with this evidence. There is no contrary attribution.Mark: Papias, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian state it, and its apostolicity is implied in Justin Martyr and Tatian. There is no competing attribution. Mark as a follower and close associate of Peter (1 Peter 5:13) wrote down Peter’s account.Luke : Uncontested that Luke and Acts have same author. Internal evidence to Acts indicates he is a follower of St. Paul, and thus had access to Peter, Paul and James, and other eyewitnesses. Writers asserting Luke’s authorship include Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and by implication through Justin Martyr and Tatian. There is no competing attribution.John: Evidence within the gospel itself that John wrote it. In addition, “The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case and without the faintest indication of doubt named as the author of this Gospel. The earliest of the extant manuscripts, it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century, but the perfect unanimity of all the codices proves to every critic that the prototypes of these manuscripts, at a much earlier date, must have contained the same indications of authorship. Similar is the testimony of the Gospel translations, of which the Syrian, Coptic, and Old Latin extend back in their earliest forms to the second century.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm). Furthermore, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, and Ireneaus (as a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John, was in position to know) stated the apostle John was the author. Beside these, the gospel, if not named, was quoted by other writers as scripture – such as by Ignatius, Polycarp.Acts: Uncontested that GLuke and Acts have same author. Internal evidence (e.g., “we” passages) to Acts indicates he is a follower of St. Paul (Paul mentions Luke), thus had access to Peter, Paul and James, and other eyewitnesses. Luke’s position with Paul is testified to by Paul himself in one of his epistles. Ireneaus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen testify to Luke’s authorship of Acts, as did Eusebius. There is no doubt expressed in the early writings..1 Peter: Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Irenaeus are source regarding Peter’s authorship of First Peter. There is internal evidence as well, including mention of Mark (1 Peter 5:13) and that the authorship was said to be in ‘Babylon’, a code for Rome, where Peter is known to have died. The arguments for its authenticity are strong: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm). We have the evidence of Church fathers, no counter attribution, and certainly there was no doubt expressed about 1st Peter.Paul’s epistles, specifically First Corinthians: Indisputable.(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians).Clement, Letter to the Corinthians: Dionysius speak of the tradition of reading it at Corinth – well positioned to know from whom it came. Hegesippus, Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen also attests to the letter being from Clement. Eusebius also attests to the letter being penned by Clement.Information Sources for footnote 1:On Matthew: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htmOn First Peter: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htmOn First Corinthians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_CorinthiansOn Clement, First Letter to Corinthians: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
5 thoughts on “The Historicity of the Resurrection”
Thank you. May you and your family have a Blessed Easter!
Thanks, John. Same to you and yours!
Dear Sir, these historicity articles are fantastic.
God Bless you for all of your hard work compiling this information
VC, thank you very much, sir!
Have a Happy Easter!