Jesus Before Constantine. Doug E. Taylor
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,