Why I agree with an agnostic (with atheist leanings) concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ

by Ron Davis

I sat in my office reading the latest book by Bart Ehrman , a former evangelical turned agnostic with atheist leanings, and I kept thinking, “I agree with almost everything he is presenting in this book concerning the historical evidence for the existence of Christ.” The book was entitled, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth . The year was 2014, and I was preparing for a Ph.D level course on the Historical Jesus. I kept scratching my head wondering why had so much common ground with Ehrman on this subject. Then I realized, as a historian and scholar, he is laying the foundation for the obvious: Jesus Christ was a real man who walked on this earth, had a great following of people, was condemned to death, and died according to Roman crucifixion. 

Ehrman has rejected the teachings of Scripture as being reliable; God as being someone who has either so hidden himself from man that we can’t know him (his claim of agnosticism) or doesn’t exist at all (his atheist leanings); Jesus Christ as being nothing more than an apocalyptic prophet who died (no resurrection); and his followers somehow took his teachings, which had been turned into a forbidden religion, and swept the ancient world by claiming a miraculous bodily resurrection of Christ. Why would he make such an effort to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man who lived and died by Roman crucifixion? He claims to have no agenda but to look at the evidence, honor the past, and dispassionately show that “there was a Jesus of Nazareth” (p.7). While I take great issue with his claim to being “dispassionate” about the data, I do agree with his assessment: the evidence is so compelling that to deny the existence and death of Christ by Roman crucifixion is to do nothing less that ignore the data.

So…I strongly agree with Ehrman about his claims in this area. It is truly one of the best defenses of the existence of Christ I have ever read, and I encourage anyone to read this book. He is to be commended for his use of the data and the way in which it is offered to the reader. He ties the mythicists (those who claim Jesus never existed) in knots, and leaves little room to disagree with what is so obvious: Jesus lived…and he died. And he didn’t just die, he died by Roman crucifixion…and his followers thought he could possibly be the Messiah (p.164). I say to Ehrman: thank you for an excellent book.

However, what Ehrman writes next is amazing and perplexing at the same time. He claims the disciples lost hope in Christ as Messiah after his death, and…there is great evidence to support this claim. After all, they did lose hope and scatter. This is where Ehrman gets so interesting, he states: “But then something else happened. Some of them began to say that God had intervened and brought him back form the dead” (p.164). He goes on to call this “a story” that many of his “closest followers came to think that in fact he had been raised.” Ehrman portrays these events in this way because the evidence is clear: Jesus died, his disciples lost hope, and then they immediately (even before Paul started persecuting Christians according to Ehrman) began claiming a resurrection and that Jesus was truly the Messiah. What makes this account so perplexing by Ehrman is the idea that this story was fabricated in order to create a “suffering messiah’ upon which this “new religion” could be build upon (pp.171-173).

I would like to say, “nice try,” Dr. Ehrman, but the evidence, and even the impetus of such a claim, does not support these conclusions. Unless, of course, there is an a priori assumption driving the conclusions (and I argue there is - he clearly does not see Christ as the Son of God, the true Messiah, and his conclusions are a priori and not a posteriori) . There is no possible reason that is feasible enough to explain such an elaborate scheme by the followers of Christ who obviously thought his Kingdom had come to an end. As with most other Jews of the day, they did not understand the Kingdom of Messiah to be a spiritual Kingdom and not a political one. I do agree with Ehrman on one statement for sure: “But then something else happened.” I love this statement because it is so true, and it is not true because it is an intentional fabrication to give birth to a new religion. The “something else” he claims is best understood as the glorious resurrection of our Lord. No wonder Paul states, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). If the resurrection is true, then it is all true…and it is upon this teaching that we have our faith and hope and sustenance in living for Christ in this world!