McDowell's facts in favor of the resurrection:
- The empty tomb.
- The burial.
- The guard.
- The disciples.
- The post-resurrection appearances.
- The enemies of Christ gave no refutation of the resurrection.
William Lane Craig's apologetic rests upon three "great, independently established facts" (1994, p. 272): the empty tomb, Jesus' appearances after his death, and the origin of the Christian faith.
If these three facts can be established and no plausible natural explanation can account for them, then one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data.
The Contemporary Debate on the Resurrection
But if Jesus is not a liar or a lunatic, so the argument goes, then he must be Lord. McDowell concludes thus, "The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord" (1972, p. 107).
"Facts to be Reckoned With"
McDowell claims there are several historical facts which speak in favor of the resurrection, including:
- The empty tomb.
- The burial.
- The guard.
- The disciples.
- The post-resurrection appearances.
- The enemies of Christ gave no refutation of the resurrection.
According to McDowell, these alleged facts "make it very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead" (1981, p. 64).
William Lane Craig
Philosopher of religion William Lane Craig has developed a much more convincing apologetic for the resurrection. His apologetic rests upon three "great, independently established facts" (1994, p. 272): the empty tomb, Jesus' appearances after his death, and the origin of the Christian faith. Craig argues, "If these three facts can be established and no plausible natural explanation can account for them, then one is justified in inferring Jesus' resurrection as the most plausible explanation of the data" (Ibid.)
The Empty Tomb
According to Craig, eight lines of evidence support a historical empty tomb tradition:
- The historical reliability of the story of Jesus' burial supports the empty tomb.
- Paul's testimony implies the fact of the empty tomb.
- The empty tomb story is part of Mark's source material and is therefore very old.
- The phrase "The first day of the week" is very ancient.
- The story is simple and lacks legendary development.
- The tomb was probably discovered by women.
- The disciples could not have preached the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty.
- The earliest Jewish propaganda against the Christians presupposes the empty tomb.
But if this is the case, Craig asks, then what is the best explanation for the empty tomb? Craig argues that the conspiracy theory (the idea that the disciples stole the body), the apparent death theory (Jesus did not die on the cross), and the wrong tomb theory (the women went to the wrong tomb) are untenable in light of the historical evidence. Thus, the resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb.
The Resurrection Appearances
Craig approaches the resurrection appearances the same way he treats the empty tomb. That is to say, first he points to several alleged facts in support of the empty tomb, and then he argues that a material resurrection is the best explanation for these alleged facts. First, Craig offers three main lines of evidence for the resurrection appearances (Ibid., p. 281):
- Paul's testimony proves the disciples saw appearances of Jesus.
- The Gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances are historically reliable.
- The resurrection appearances were physical, bodily appearances.
Craig argues that if one denies that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, then one would have to believe that the appearances were hallucinations. However, he argues, the hallucination theory has several flaws. First, "the theory cannot account for the physicality of the appearances" (p. 287). Second, the number and various circumstances of the appearances suggest that the eyewitnesses were not hallucinating. Third, hallucinations would not have led to the belief that Jesus had been raised from the dead. And finally, the hallucination theory fails to explain away the empty tomb. Thus Craig rejects the hallucination theory.
The Origin of the Christian Faith
According to Craig, "Even the most skeptical NT scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead (Ibid., p. 288). However, if one denies the resurrection, then one must choose from three possibilities: that the disciples came to believe in Jesus' resurrection because of the influence of Christianity, pagan religions, or Jewish beliefs. Obviously, belief in the resurrection could not come from Christian influences because there was no Christianity yet. But according to Craig, neither can it be explained as the result of pagan influences on the disciples (Ibid., 289-90). First, he argues that the parallels between dying and rising savior gods in pagan religions are mere seasonal symbols. And second, there is little historical evidence of such cults in first-century Palestine.
This leaves Jewish influences. Although the Jews did believe in resurrection, Craig suggests at least two differences between the Christian understanding of the resurrection, and the Jewish understanding of the resurrection. First, he says, "in Jewish thought the resurrection always occurred after the end of the world" (Ibid., p. 290). Second, the Jews always thought of resurrection as an event that happened to all of the righteous, not just an isolated individual.
Therefore, so the argument goes, since the origin of the disciples' belief cannot be explained in terms of Christian, pagan, or Jewish influences, Craig concludes that it must have been caused by the resurrection itself (Ibid., p. 293).
Page 9
Go to Page 10
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