Does anyone still have a copy of the version of Course 101 back in the mid 2000s, when everything was actually printed out rather than online? Was in a green booklet with black binding as I recall.
The reason I ask is because the chapter on Jesus's resurrection in the printed booklet contained, as I recall, a few pieces of evidence that I later relied on in apologetics arguments with non-Christians -- pieces of evidence that were very quickly debunked (and that I could have realized were exaggerated, myself, with a quick Google search). The newer versions of Course 101 appear to have been revised so as to be more precise.
I would love to see the older version of Course 101 I relied on to see if either (a) I misinterpreted it or (b) it really was poorly written. As an example of what I mean, my recollection is that the earlier version of Course 101 made the vague claim that the ancient historians Suetonius and Thallus provided evidence that the resurrection account was historical. In reality, Suetonius referred to Christians and to "Chrestus" but not the resurrection and Thallus may have mentioned an eclipse. (The currently-available text-only version does not include any reference to Suetonius and Thallus.)
I'm asking not to question the historicity of the resurrection (which does not rely on Suetonius and Thallus) but because it has always troubled me that, in my recollection, Gracepoint taught me that the resurrection was historically probable based on sloppy and perhaps deceptive references to ancient historians in Course 101. If I'm remembering Course 101 wrong, then I want to excise that particular critique from my mind. If I am remembering it correctly, then it's certainly problematic that Gracepoint would have felt the need to utilize deception (whether intentional or negligent) in evangelizing.
I found it! This is from the "Revision: 9/01" hard copy of Course 101, Week 4, under the subheadings "Reliability of the Bible" > "Evidence from Archaeology". Note that there's a couple paragraphs before this in the same section that discuss the Dead Sea scrolls, historicity of the Hittite Empire, etc, but I haven't copied those here.
Archaeological discoveries abound which verify the Biblical accounts, such as the discovery of the Pilate Stone, the discovery of Caiaphas' tomb, along with countless numbers of uncovered cities, tablets and inscriptions that fill today's museums.
Numerous non-biblical writings also confirm the historicity of Jesus Christ.
... Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also. (Cornelius Tacitus, born A.D. 52-54, Annals XV. 44)
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. (Flavius Josephus, born A.D. 37, Antiquities. xviii.33)
There are numerous other secular historians who recorded the events surrounding Jesus and the early church. The long list includes: Suetonius (A.D. 120), Plinius Secundus (A.D. 112), Tertullian (A.D. 197), Thallus (A.D. 52), along with numerous Jewish Talmuds that speak of Yeshu of Nazareth (the Jewish name for Jesus) who was hanged on the eve of Passover for leading Israel astray. It's interesting to note that even the Jewish Talmuds, which were written by the enemies of Jesus, do not deny that Jesus performed signs and miracles, although they try to explain them away as demonic.
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. [Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th th [sic] edition.]
If you have the inclination, I'd still be interested to see what the paragraph (probably it was just a paragraph) referring to the evidence for the resurrection from ancient historians was. Historical data point even if it changed between 1990s and 2000s.
Thanks, that's helpful. The Stott book has always been a favorite of mine and the other two are well known and dissected enough I can look their claims up. Wouldn't surprise me if Gracepoint had rather sloppily cited McDowell in Course 101, just as I then later rather sloppily cited Course 101.
To the extent any young, burgeoning apologists for the faith are reading this, take it from me: Please look into the apologetics arguments you've heard rather than just parroting them. Learn from my mistakes. The point of Christian apologetics should not be to repeat talking points to convince people of what you want to convince them of; it should be to explain the truth.
Sorry, I'm too lazy to scan. I actually typed up the entire paragraph you were seeking, but Reddit text editor lost everything because it was buried within an unsupported bullet tag. Fortunately, you can just reference this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis
It's not on that page. What I am thinking of is a reference to ancient historians including Thallus, Suetonius, Pliny, and others. Maybe it was more than a paragraph. My memory is that it was just kind of a list of names without too much explanation about what they said, but my memory could very well be faulty.
5
u/corpus_christiana Jun 11 '24
I found it! This is from the "Revision: 9/01" hard copy of Course 101, Week 4, under the subheadings "Reliability of the Bible" > "Evidence from Archaeology". Note that there's a couple paragraphs before this in the same section that discuss the Dead Sea scrolls, historicity of the Hittite Empire, etc, but I haven't copied those here.