Five factors that would affect the reliability and strength of this evidence:
- the extent to which the author's purpose may have influenced his reliability
- the consistency of the accounts
- whether the accounts are based on eyewitness testimony
- the known reliability (or unreliability) of the eyewitnesses
- the extent to which the event is confirmed by independent testimony
The Resurrection story was shaped by the theological aims of the evangelists.
He divides the resurrection accounts into two parts: what happened at the tomb after Jesus' death, and what happened after the discovery of the empty tomb. The accounts are nonetheless very different and hard to reconcile.
There were no eyewitnesses to the event of the resurrection itself. Christians therefore must infer the resurrection based on two facts: the appearances of the risen Jesus, and the empty tomb. There are two kinds of appearances: those known from hearsay testimony, and Paul's testimony.
3 reasons for questioning the historical accuracy of that tradition:
1. the alleged eyewitnesses to the empty tomb are unknown.
2. there were no contemporaneous eyewitness accounts.
3. the empty tomb tradition may be late, especially since Paul and the other early writers of the New Testament fail to mention it.
The Contemporary Debate on the Resurrection
Secular Objections to the Resurrection
Michael Martin
By far one of the greatest critiques of the resurrection by an atheist or agnostic philosopher comes from Michael Martin, professor of philosophy at Boston University and author of Atheism: A Philosophical Justification and The Case Against Christianity. It would be well, then, for us to examine his arguments concerning the resurrection in extenso.
Martin notes that there is evidence from the New Testament and other historical sources that needs to be considered in assessing whether Jesus rose from the dead (76-77). Martin states that there are five factors that would affect the reliability and strength of this evidence:
- the extent to which the author's purpose may have influenced his reliability
- the consistency of the accounts
- whether the accounts are based on eyewitness testimony
- the known reliability (or unreliability) of the eyewitnesses
- the extent to which the event is confirmed by independent testimony
According to Martin, each of these five factors undermines the weight of the New Testament evidence in favor of the resurrection.
The Purposes of the Gospel Writers
First, Martin cites the fact that "many biblical scholars have argued that the Resurrection story was shaped by the theological aims of the evangelists" (Ibid., p. 77). He seems to think this somehow makes the New Testament writers unreliable. It is difficult enough, he says, to determine the reliability of documents that are intended to be accurate. The suggestion seems to be that it is even more difficult to determine the reliability of documents with known biases. Therefore, in order "to overcome our initial suspicion they must meet strict historical standards" (Ibid.).
The Inconsistency of the Resurrection Story
Next, Martin notes the differences in the New Testament accounts of the resurrection. He divides the resurrection accounts into two parts: what happened at the tomb after Jesus' death, and what happened after the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the former, he concludes that the accounts "are either inconsistent or can only be made consistent with the aid of implausible interpretations" (p. 81). Concerning the latter, while admitting the accounts may not be contradictory, he argues that the accounts are nonetheless very different and hard to reconcile (Ibid.).
The Lack of Eyewitnesses
Martin's third source of doubt about the resurrection is the fact that there were no eyewitnesses to the event of the resurrection itself. He notes that Christians therefore must infer the resurrection based on two facts: the appearances of the risen Jesus, and the empty tomb. With respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus, Martin notes there are two kinds of appearances: those known from hearsay testimony, and Paul's testimony. Martin dismisses Paul's sighting of the risen Jesus because it lacks historical details, and because Paul may not have believed in a material resurrection.
With respect to the empty tomb, Martin offers three reasons for questioning the historical accuracy of that tradition. First, he claims that the alleged eyewitnesses to the empty tomb are unknown. Moreover, he writes, "there were no contemporaneous eyewitness accounts" (Ibid., p. 82). And finally, he suggests that the empty tomb tradition may be late, especially since Paul and the other early writers of the New Testament fail to mention it.
The Reliability of the Eyewitnesses, the Reports, and the Scribes
Martin claims we have no good reasons to believe that the eyewitnesses, the reporters, or the scribes, were reliable. The eyewitnesses were unreliable, he implies, because they were Jesus' followers and disciples. The reporters may or may not have been reliable, but as long as we don't know anything about them, that is enough for Martin to dismiss them entirely.
Lack of Independent Confirmation
Finally, Martin considers the lack of independent confirmation of the resurrection to be a major reason for rejecting it, especially considering its "high prior improbability" (Ibid., p. 84). It is important to understand what Martin means when he refers to "independent confirmation." He is not only referring to confirmation outside of the New Testament, but confirmation within the New Testament yet outside of the gospels. Thus, he argues that the Pauline and other epistles "provide no independent support for the empty tomb stories" (p. 85). "Moreover," he writes, "the Resurrection is not confirmed by Jewish or pagan sources" (Ibid.).
Page 11
Go to Page 12
These files, and many more are available at the Secular Web: http://www.infidels.org/. For more information send mail to [email protected]
- Go back to The Rock Temple
NOVO's Library