The resurrection is the miracle upon which Christianity stands or falls. If it can be proven that Jesus physically rose from the dead, then Christianity is true. If it can be proven that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead (or, at least, that He PROBABLY didn't), then Christianity is false. In this essay, I will critique various attempts at alternate theories, and then I will give evidence for the resurrection.
Swoon Theory
According to the swoon theory, Jesus never died on the cross. Rather, when he drank the wine, He passed out. He was unconscious when they buried him, and he regained consciousness by the time Easter came around. While this theory was popular in the 19th century, it has fallen out of favor for the following reasons:
� After being whipped and crucified, Jesus would have been in horrible physical condition and barely alive. This Jesus would never have inspired the apostles to believe that He is the glorious savior who conquered death and then go die for Him.
� Crucifixion kills its victims by asphyxiation; while they're hanging there, they can't breathe. By trying to fake death by passing out, Jesus would've killed Himself.
� When the soldier thrust his lance into Jesus' side, blood and water came out. According to modern science, this description is accurate; the lance probably pierced Jesus' heart. The water would've come from the pericardium, the sac that surrounds the heart, and the blood would've come from the right side of the heart.
� Who moved the stone? A half-dead Jesus couldn't have done it from inside the tomb, neither the Jews nor the Romans would want to do it, and it's highly unlikely that His disciples could've overcome the Roman guards (Matthew 28:13).
Hallucination Theory
According to the hallucination theory, Jesus never actually rose from the dead; rather, the apostles had hallucinations of the risen Christ and thought that He rose from the dead. To properly refute this theory, we must know something about hallucinations: since they come from the mind, they cannot contain any new ideas that the person did not already have. With this in mind, let's take a look at the evidence against this theory.
� The Jews had no concept of a dying, much less rising Messiah, but that's exactly what they believed Jesus to be. Since they would not have had this idea, it could not have come from a hallucination.
� Under Jewish law, anyone who was crucified was considered condemned by God, so the apostles would have believed that Jesus was cursed by God. Again, we see that the concept of the resurrection could not have come from the apostles' minds.
� There were many different resurrection appearances at many different times and places; Paul even speaks of Jesus appearing to 500 people at once (1 Corinthians 15:6-8). It is impossible that they were ALL hallucinating.
� What about the empty tomb? If Jesus' body was still there, the Jews and Romans could have easily produced it and put an end to Christianity, but they didn't.
� Even if my reasons why a hallucination is impossible are wrong, they still pose a problem: would a hallucination really inspire eleven people to die for a cause? Doesn't it make more sense that, if they did hallucinate, they would've eventually realized that they were only hallucinating? If not, then they were almost definitely insane, and insane people don't normally have much success in creating major world religions.
� If the apostles lied, then how were skeptics like Paul converted?
Conspiracy Theory
According to the conspiracy theory, the apostles knew that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, but they said He did anyway. Rather than being its own theory, the conspiracy theory is an umbrella term for all the possible explanations that involve some sort of lying by the apostles. It can include both the swoon theory (if they knew that Jesus didn't really die) and the hallucination theory (if they realized that it was only a hallucination)
� No Christian in history has ever been recorded as saying that Christianity was a hoax. Under torture, some of them rejected Jesus and worshipped Caesar, but NOBODY ever said that Christianity was a hoax. Not even the apostles, who would've created this conspiracy, confessed that they had lied.
� There was no motive for the apostles to have lied. Not only did they never confess that it was all a conspiracy, but they all (except for John) were tortured and killed for their beliefs. If it were all a hoax, they would at least have rejected Jesus and worshipped Caesar, but none of the apostles did.
� Who moved the stone? It's highly unlikely that Jesus' disciples could've overcome the guards at the tomb (Matthew 28:13).
� As I said in my critique of the hallucination theory, a Jew would never have believed that Jesus was the Messiah without really good proof, so why would the apostles lie about it? Not only does it not make sense coming from Jews, but it also doesn't make sense given the place they started preaching: Jerusalem, the heart of Jewish culture.
� If the apostles lied, then how were skeptics like Paul converted?
The only other major alternate hypothesis is the myth theory, which is refuted by showing that only the resurrection can adequately explain four crucial facts: Jesus' burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus to His disciples, and the origin of the belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection.
I. Jesus' Burial
Jesus' burial is a crucial fact because if His tomb was known, then the Jews could've just pointed to it and said, "Look, His tomb is here, and so is His body!" But they didn't. Jesus' burial is supported by four main points:
1) It's attested to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:4, which is part of what is generally accepted as an early Christian creed (verses 3-5).
2) The Gospels say that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, and it's unlikely that the evangelists would create a member of the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus.
3) The burial story in Mark's Gospel is simple and lacks any signs of legendary development.
4) No other competing burial story exists.
Let's take a look at the evidence supporting each one.
1) It's attested to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:4, which is part of what is generally accepted as an early Christian creed (verses 3-5).
"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." - 1 Corinthians 15:3-5
How do we know that it's a creed?
That this confession is an early Christian, pre-Pauline creed is recognized by virtually all critical scholars across a very wide theological spectrum. There are several indications that reveal this conclusion.
First, Paul's words "delivered" and "received" are technical terms for passing on tradition. As such, we have Paul's statement that this material was not his own, but received from another source.
Second, a number of the words in this creed are non-Pauline, again indicating another origin of this material. Jeremias, a leading authority on this issue, notes such non-Pauline phrases as (1) "for our sins" (v. 3); (2) "according to the scriptures"" (vv. 3-4); (3) "he has been raised" (v. 4); (4) "the third day" (v. 4); (5) "he was seen" (vv. 5-8); and (6) "the twelve" (v. 5) [Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 101-102].
Third, it is likely that the creed is organized in a stylized, parallel form, thereby providing a further indication of the oral and confessional nature of this material.
Fourth, there are indications that there may be a Semitic source, such as the use of the Aramaic "Cephas" for Peter (v. 5), hence pointing to an earlier source before Paul's Greek translation.
Fifth, other indications of ancient Hebrew narration include the triple usage of "and that" along with two references to the Scripture being fulfilled. (Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, pp. 153-154)
So, how did Paul get this creed? In his epistle to the Galatians, he says that three years after his conversion (probably in the mid-30's AD), he visited James and Peter in Jerusalem (1:18-19), and probably learned it then. This would date the creed to only a few years after Jesus' death, which is remarkably early!
2) The Gospels say that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, and it's unlikely that the evangelists would create a member of the Sanhedrin to bury Jesus.
Given the fact that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus (Mark 14:55, 64; 15:1), it's highly unlikely that the evangelists would have created a member of that same Sanhedrin to bury Him. The early Christians were hostile towards the Jewish leaders because they were responsible for Jesus' death, so it makes no sense that they would all of a sudden create a Jewish leader who was sympathetic towards Him. Why not have one of the apostles bury Jesus? That would certainly make more sense if they just made up the story.
3) The burial story in Mark's Gospel is simple and lacks any signs of legendary development.
The Markan account of Jesus' burial (generally considered the first by scholars) is very simple: Joseph asked for the body, Pilate gave it to him, and he buried Jesus. There are no angels, grand ceremonies, or other embellishments that one might expect if the story were made up. The only ones who saw the burial were two women, which is strange if Mark just made it up. A woman's testimony was worthless in those days, but Mark mentions them almost as if to say, "Look, these women saw the burial and know where the tomb is; go ask them and see for yourself." Why wouldn't he have the apostles all be at the tomb?
4) No other competing burial story exists.
If Mark's burial story is not what really happened, then what did happen? Why is there no evidence of another burial story? Why is there not one shred of evidence of what REALLY happened, or at least of another mythical story? The only possible explanations are that Jesus either wasn't buried or, as John Dominic Crossan says, He was thrown in a common criminal grave and eaten by dogs, in which case the evangelists would've made up a burial story worthy of their great leader. But, if you believe this, you run into the first three points (especially the second and third) and the problems they present. Since there is not one shred of evidence of a competing burial story, then Mark's account almost HAS to be historically accurate.
II. The Empty Tomb
The empty tomb goes hand-in-hand with Jesus' burial. Because the Jews knew where Jesus' tomb was, they could've easily produced His body and put a stop to Christianity, but they didn't. The only plausible explanation for this is that the tomb really was empty. The empty tomb is supported by five facts:
1) The Gospels say that the tomb was first found by women, whose testimony was worthless in Jewish culture.
2) The first Jewish response to the empty tomb was that the apostles stole the body (Matthew 28:13), which shows that the Jews couldn't produce Jesus' body.
3) The ancient Jews venerated the tombs of holy men, but nobody ever venerated Jesus' tomb with His body in it.
4) Mark's empty tomb story is simple and lacks traces of legendary development.
5) The apostles could not have preached that Jesus rose from the dead if the tomb wasn't empty.
Let's take a closer look at each of these five points:
1) The Gospels say that the tomb was first found by women, whose testimony was worthless in Jewish culture.
Given this fact, it's odd that the Gospels say women were the first to discover the empty tomb. If the evangelists just made the story up, why did they not have the apostles discover it? Why would they embarrass the apostles by having them cower in Jerusalem while the women boldly go to Jesus' tomb?
2) The first Jewish response to the empty tomb was that the apostles stole the body (Matthew 28:13), which shows that the Jews couldn't produce Jesus' body.
If the tomb wasn't really empty, then why would the Jews make up the story about the guards falling asleep? I will concede that this might be a Christian fabrication to trick people into believing in Christianity, but I think it's unlikely. Matthew's Gospel was written about 30-40 years after Jesus' death, and there were still people around who could've corrected this fallacy. Given this, it's improbable that Matthew would've just made this story up, knowing that the Jews could easily correct it. Also, it's doubtful that a story like this would just pop up years after Jesus' death, even though nobody knew about it when He actually died. Nobody would believe it, and I doubt the apostles were that stupid.
3) The ancient Jews venerated the tombs of holy men, but nobody ever venerated Jesus' tomb with His body in it.
Given this, it's unlikely that Jesus' tomb would not have been empty. The remains of holy men were what gave the tombs their significance, and to presume that the early Christians completely abandoned this practice and never went to see Jesus' tomb and body (assuming it was still there) is absurd. The most plausible explanation for this is that Jesus' tomb really was empty.
4) Mark's empty tomb story is simple and lacks traces of legendary development.
Like the burial story, Mark's empty tomb story has no theological flourishes accompanying it. The resurrection itself is not described, there is no mention of Jesus' glory and triumph over sin and death, no angels, not even a description of the risen Christ.
A comparison of Mark's account with those in later apocryphal Gospels like the Gospel of Peter underlines the simplicity of the Markan story. The Gospel of Peter inserts between Jesus' being sealed in the tomb and the visit of Mary Magdalene early Sunday morning an account of the resurrection itself. In this account, the tomb is not only surrounded by Roman guards but also by the Jewish Pharisees and elders, as well as a multitude from the surrounding countryside. Suddenly, in the there rings out a loud voice in heave, and two men descend from heaven to the tomb. The stone over the door rolls back by itself, and they go into the tomb. Then three men come out of the tomb, two of them holding up the third man. The heads of the two men reach up to the clouds, but the head of the third man reaches up beyond the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice from heaven asks, "Have you preached to them that sleep?" And the cross answers, "Yes."
This is how legends look: they are colored by theological and other developments. By contrast, Mark's account of the discovery of the empty tomb is a simple, straightforward report of what happened. (William lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" Michael J. Wilkins, J. P. Moreland (editors), Jesus Under Fire, pp.150-151)
One has to ask, if the Mark made up his empty tomb story, why was it so simple? Why not have there also and describe the resurrection itself and have more glory and symbolism? As with the burial account, the simplicity of the empty tomb story points to its historicity.
5) The apostles could not have preached that Jesus rose from the dead if the tomb wasn't empty.
After Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles preached right there in Jerusalem where Jesus died and was buried. Were the Jews so stupid as to merely accept the apostles' word and not go check to see if Jesus' tomb really was empty? Even if you accept that none of those who converted did this, you must agree that those who were against Christianity (especially the Jewish leaders) did. As is shown by the burial and the guards, the location of the tomb was known, so the Jews could've went there, produced the body, and ended Christianity once and for all.
The most reasonable explanation of these five facts is that Jesus' tomb really was empty. But this poses a question: WHY was it empty? As I have shown, none of the alternate theories can adequately explain the empty tomb, so the resurrection is the only adequate explanation.
III. The Postmortem Appearances
The bible never gives an account of the resurrection itself; rather, it only gives accounts of appearances of the risen Christ. If these appearances never really happened, then we have no proof that the Resurrection ever happened, so the historicity of these appearances is important. Jesus' postmortem appearances are supported by three facts:
1) The resurrection appearances are included in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
2) The resurrection appearances in general are basically reliable.
3) Women were the first to see the resurrected Christ.
Let's see what evidence supports each of these three points:
1) The resurrection appearances are included in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5.
As I have shown in the section on Jesus' burial, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is an early Christian creed that originates from a few years after Jesus' death. He mentions that Jesus appeared to Peter and then to the other apostles. These appearances are credible because Luke also mentions the appearance to Peter (Luke 24:34), and Luke and John mention various appearances to the apostles (Luke 24:36-43 and John 19:20-29). Then, in verse 6, Paul says that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at once, most of whom were still alive. Since most of the people were still alive, those reading Paul's letter could have found them and asked them, making this appearance particularly probable. If you say that the people in Paul's list were liars, then you have the conspiracy theory and all its problems.
2) The resurrection appearances in general are basically reliable.
The Gospels were written within a few decades of Jesus' life, so there was not enough time for legends to develop.
The writings of Herodotus enable us to test the tempo of myth-making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of oral tradition. Such a gap with regard to the Gospel traditions would land us in the second century, precisely when the apocryphal Gospels began to originate. (William lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" Michael J. Wilkins, J. P. Moreland (editors), Jesus Under Fire, pp.154)
Also, even if someone did try to make up resurrection stories, the apostles and other witnesses were still around, so they could've corrected them.
3) Women were the first to see the resurrected Christ.
Not only were women the first to find the empty tomb, but they were also the first to see the risen Christ. We see the same reasoning here that we did when I argued for the historicity of the empty tomb: The evangelists would not have made women the first to see the resurrected Christ. Paul probably omitted them from his list of witnesses because their testimony was considered worthless by Jews. If the evangelists merely made the stories up, why not have the apostles be the first witnesses?
Because of these three points, we can conclude that Jesus' followers probably had experiences of Him after He died. There are only two naturalistic hypotheses that I know of that try to explain the postmortem appearances, but, as I have shown, they both have serious problems.
IV. The Origin of the Belief in Jesus' Physical Resurrection
The apostles preached that Jesus physically rose from the dead, but, as I said in my critique of the hallucination hypothesis, they had no reason to believe so unless He really DID rise from the dead. This belief would have been absurd for a first-century Jew for two main reasons:
1) The Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising Messiah.
2) Under Jewish law, anyone who was crucified was considered condemned by God.
In addition to these two points, there's also a third reason why the apostles could not have made everything up.
3) The apostles died for their beliefs.
Let's examine these points in detail and see why they support Jesus' resurrection.
1) The Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising Messiah.
The first-century Jews believed that the Messiah would lead them to victory over their captors and restore the Davidic throne. Numerous other false messiahs had come and gone, but nobody had ever said that their "messiah" had risen from the dead. Not only was there no reason for the apostles to believe this (and if they didn't, you have the conspiracy theory and all its problems), but there was no reason for the Jews that converted to Christianity to believe it either. The only possible reason for them to believe this idea was that Jesus really DID rise from the dead.
2) Under Jewish law, anyone who was crucified was considered condemned by God.
Deuteronomy 21:23 says that "anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse," and the Jews extended this to include crucifixion. Given this, Jesus' apostles would've understood His death to be more than just a tragic end to their great leader's life; they would've understood it to be a sign that He was rejected by God. The questions, then, are how did the apostles overcome this obstacle in their own belief, and how did they convince other Jews to do the same? There's simply no reason why they would've preached that the crucified Jesus rose from the dead and was the Messiah unless it really happened!
3) The apostles died for their beliefs.
This may seem like a red herring. Lots of people die for their beliefs, but they can't all be right. The thing with the apostles, however, is that if Christianity were a hoax, they would have been the ones who knew it. They would have been the originators of the lie, but martyrs for other faiths don't have first-hand knowledge as to whether or not their beliefs were true. Why would the apostles have endured torture and death for something they knew was a lie?
In conclusion, the seeming absurdities of Jesus' resurrection to a first-century Jew and the persecution they endured make a strong case for the apostles' sincere belief in the resurrection. However, as I have shown, the naturalistic explanations for the facts have serious problems.
What does this all mean? What conclusions can we draw from these facts? As I have shown, the four facts of Jesus' burial, the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances, and the origin of the belief in the resurrection must be dealt with by any historical hypothesis that claims to explain the origins of Christianity. Which theory or theories can adequately explain the facts? Go ahead and look at the evidence. Re-read my presentation of the four facts, keeping in mind each of the five theories (swoon, hallucination, conspiracy, myth, and resurrection). Do any of them fall when compared to the facts? Which one can adequately explain them?
