The Resurrection Hypothesis: Arguments For and Against the
Resurrection of Jesus</HEAD>
The Resurrection Hypothesis: Arguments For and Against the
Resurrection of Jesus
by Justin Taylor
INTRODUCTION
Jesus is back in the news and, as one new book's title suggests,
he is "under fire." Scholarly books and articles have been written about
the historical Jesus for years. They were, however, in full display only
"in the rarefied and theologically correct atmosphere of seminaries and
universities." [1] However, publicity from the Jesus Seminar, a forum of
biblical scholars that has been meeting since 1985 to vote on the
authentic sayings of Jesus, has purposely brought the issue to the public
through the mainstream media. This past Easter, Time, Newsweek,
and U.S.
News & World Report all featured Jesus on their cover. In response to
all of the attention, the evangelical Christianity Today recently
entitled a cover story, "Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?"[2]
To illustrate the excitement and controversy that this has
aroused, consider that on January 10, 1994 Time had a short,
two-paged
article on recent scholarship concerning the historical Jesus--[3] they
received an overwhelming 240 letters on the story alone. In fact, so
many books and articles are being written these days that it caused a
scholar to mention in the endnote of a recent book that, "In a period of
two weeks, between the time I submitted this chapter to the editors and
the time I received their suggestions back, I found three new books on
Jesus that I was unaware of when I wrote the chapter. By the time this
chapter is published, probably ten more books will have appeared."[4] Even
the Internet has gotten into the action: In response to popular
apologist Josh McDowell's defense of Christianity, Evidence That Demands
a Verdict,[5] an on-line refutation has been posted by skeptics entitled
The Jury is In: The Ruling on Josh McDowell's "Evidence."
Why all of the attention? Why the controversy? One of the major
reasons is that Christians have claimed for two thousand years now that
this man rose from the dead. It's one of the most incredible claims of
all time. Not only do they claim that he rose, but it has traditionally
been cited as the very center and foundation of the faith. Terry Miethe,
a Christian philosopher at Oxford, writes that, "'Did Jesus rise from the
dead?' is the most important question regarding the claims of the
Christian faith" (emphasis in original). [6] The apostle Paul wrote in his
first letter to the Corinthians the following famous passage:
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so
is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses
about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the
dead. . . .And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you
are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:14-17, NIV)
Others, however, have disagreed. Rudolf Bultmann, the "father of
demythologizing," once said that "if the bones of the dead Jesus were
discovered tomorrow in a Palestinian tomb, all the essentials of
Christianity would remain unchanged."[7] This statement is open for debate,
as will be examined later in this paper.
It may be helpful at this point to say what the resurrection, by
definition, is not. It is not a resuscitation, as we find every
day in hospitals and heroic news stories. When Christians refer to the
resurrection, they are saying that Jesus was dead, and that he came back
to life, never to die again. This is quite different from the biblical
story of Lazarus, who was raised from the dead but then went on to die
again, as it is quite different from the Old Testament's story of Elijah,
who was translated up to heaven without dying. Jesus, it is claimed,
both died and was raised immortal.
If this is true, then Jesus deserved the obedience and reverence
that he commanded. If it is not, if it is just a hoax, legend, or myth,
then it should be placed along with the countless other religious stories
of our timein the history books as amusing or fascinating, but not into
the heart.
And so it is that I will examine the resurrection: its arguments
and its significance. I will seek answers to some of the following
questions: Is the resurrection story possible to investigate
historically? What are the arguments for it? Against it? Is a belief
in the resurrection imperative to being a Christian? What are the
different viewpoints of the resurrection among Catholic, Protestant, and
Liberal Christians?
The first section of this paper will deal with "The Case For the
Resurrection," examining the arguments that I feel best advance the
position that supporting a historical resurrection. The second section
will be "The Case Against the Resurrection," dealing with the arguments
that challenge or undermine the believer's position. The third section
will briefly deal evaluate and explore the significance of the
resurrection for different worldviews within the Christian faith. I will
then end with a personal evaluation of where I feel that the evidence
most persuasively points.
THE CASE FOR THE RESURRECTION
Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Professor of philosophy and
apologetics at Liberty University, and William Lane Craig, Visiting
Scholar at Talbolt School of Theology, have given two of the strongest
apologetics for the defense of the resurrection. I will draw heavily
upon their argumentation.
Habermas gives what he calls a "brief, nonexaustive list of the
minimal data"[8] needed to evaluate the resurrection hypothesis. He writes
that, "These facts can be supported individually, and most scholars (even
many skeptical ones) generally recognize them as historical."[9] They are
as follows:
1. Jesus died due to the rigors of crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. His disciples doubted and despaired because Jesus' death
challenged their hopes.
4. The tomb in which Jesus had been buried was discovered to be
empty just a few day later.
5. The disciples had real experiences that they believed were actual
appearances of the risen Jesus.
6. The disciples were transformed and were even willing to die for
the truth of these events.
7. The gospel message was the very center of preaching in the early
church.
8. The gospel was even proclaimed in Jerusalem, the city where Jesus
was buried.
9. The Christian church was firmly established by these disciples.
10. The primary day of worship was Sundaythe day Jesus was reported
to have risen.
11. James, Jesus' previously skeptical brother, was converted when he
believed he saw the resurrected Jesus.
12. Paul, a leader in the persecution of the church, was also
converted by a real experience which he believed to be the risen Jesus.[10]
Dr. Habermas asserts that any hypothesis must adequately deal
with the above. He goes on to say that these facts can be narrowed down
to four essentials, while still retaining the strength of the
apologetic: 1) Jesus died on the cross, 2) he appeared alive to his
followers, 3) the disciples' lives were transformed, and 4) Paul's was
converted by his experience with Jesus.
Dr. Craig takes only a slightly different approach. He writes,
"The case for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus seems to me to
rest upon the evidence for three great, independently established facts:
the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the
Christian faith."[11]
In developing the case for Christianity, I will therefore attempt
to utilize both of their arguments, by focusing on Jesus death, the empty
tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the disciples transformation in
building the Christian church.
Jesus died on the cross
The medical and historical evidence shows that Jesus did indeed
die due to his crucifixion. Even critics such as John Dominic Crossan,
co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, recognize this to be true. Several
centuries ago, however, Karl Venturini advanced what is commonly referred
to as the "Swoon Theory," which still survives in variations today. It
asserts that Jesus never really diedthat he passed out or fainted on the
cross, only later to be revived and resuscitated, appearing to his
disciples, who believed that he had "risen from the dead." Though held
by few today, it still survives in popular setting, and has even
resurfaced in the popular book The Passover Plot.[12] My argument
will be
that Jesus surviving a crucifixion was medically impossibly, that the
swoon theory itself is implausible, and that extrabiblical sources
confirm his death.
In the March 21, 1986 publication of the Journal of the American
Medical Association,[13] William D. Edwards, MD; Wesley J. Gabel, Mdiv;
and
Floyd E. Hosmer, MS, AMI conducted an exhaustive study on the nature of
Jesus' crucifixions. What follows is taken from their report and from
the biblical narratives themselves.[14]
Jesus was awake the entire night before his trial in the Garden
of Gethsemane with his disciples. He was probably arrested soon after
midnight, and tried before Caiphas and the Sanhedrin around 1 A.M. He
was beaten, spat upon, and found guilty of blasphemy. He was then forced
to walk a distance of 2.5 miles to Judea's procurator, Pontius Pilate.
At this point, Jesus was given over to be flogged. Flogging legally
preceded all Roman executions.[15] The most common form of flogging
involved
a flagrum, which was a shorter sized whip. It contained sharp sheep
bones and lead balls supported at varying lengths by leather thongs.
According to JAMA's report, the flogging usually resulted in "quivering
ribbons of bleeding flesh." Circulatory shock almost surely followed.
The severity of flogging usually depended on the extent of the crime.
Jesus, claiming to be the "messiah," most surely received the highest
degree of punishment. JAMA writes that Jesus most likely became
afflicted with hematidrosis, a condition that renders the skin very
tender to the touch. Combining this with the crown of thorns pressed
into his forehead, a blow across the head with a wooden staff, lack of
food, sleep and water, mental abuse, massive blood loss, and preshock it
seems quite certain to conclude that he was in horrific shape before he
even made his way to the cross.
On the way there, however, he also had to carry the patibulum
(the crossbar of the cross) to Calvary. Archaeological evidence
demonstrates that it usually weighed between 75 and 125 lbs.[16] The three
iron spikes, tapered to a point, were usually 5 to 7 inches long,[17] and
were driven into his wrists and feet. The weight of the victim's body
pulled him downward. To breathe, therefore, he was forced to use his
legs and pierced feet to push his body upward, scraping his beaten back
against the wood of the cross. To ensure death, a spear 5 to 6 feet long
was used to pierce Jesus' chest cavity, through the pericardium and into
his heart.
The final measure used to ensure death is referred to as
crucifragrium, the breaking of the victim's lower legs, in order to
prevent the pushing upward to breathe. A breakthrough archaeological
discovery in 1968 north of Jerusalem by V. Tzaferis confirms this. The
site was Giv at ha-Mitvar, Ras el-Masaref. In Tomb #1 a
first-century
crucifixion victim named Yohanon was discovered with broken shins, while
his heel bones were transfixed by a large iron nail.[18] The Roman
authorities, however, were so sure that Jesus was dead that they did not
even bother to break his shins, relying instead on the effective spear
thrust.
JAMA concluded their investigation in this way:
Clearly, the weight of the historical and medical evidence indicates
that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and
supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right
ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the
pericardium and heart and thereby ensured death. Accordingly,
interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the
cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge. (emphasis
added)
Liberal theologian David F. Strauss, himself no believer in the
resurrection, wrote the following devastating critique of the swoon
theory in the nineteenth century:
It is impossible that a being
who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and
ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and
indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have
given to the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death
and the grave, and the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the
bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have
weakened the impression which he had made upon them in life and in death,
at the most could have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have
elevated their reverence into worship.[20]
Finally, the New Testament is not the only place where we find
confirmation that Jesus was indeed crucified. Among the Christian
sources outside of the NT recording his death are Ignatius, Clement of
Rome, and Justin Martyr.[21] Non-Christians references include Tacitus,
Lucian of Samosata, Thallus, the Talmud, and a disputed passage in
Josephus among others.[22] Therefore, sources in and out of the Bible
confirm that Jesus did die due to the rigors of crucifixion.
The tomb was empty
Perhaps one of the strongest pieces of circumstantial evidence
for the resurrection is the claim that the tomb of Jesus was discovered
empty by women three days after he was buried. A great number of
critical scholars accept the historicity of the empty tomb.[23] The
resurrection, it is argued, offers the only viable explanation.
Craig argues that the historical reliability of the burial story
supports the empty tomb.[24] The story of Jesus' burial is considered to be
one of the most accurate of the New Testament.[25] The reason for its
acceptance rests upon the use of the main character, Joseph of
Arimathea. He is listed as a member of the Sanhedrin, the seventy-one
member Jewish ruling council that was very well known. If the story is
legendary, it is difficult to understand why or how Joseph could possibly
have been listed within the ranks of such a prominent group. If it is
true, however, a serious problem arises for the skeptic, for this
obviously entails that the Jews and the Christians both knew where the
tomb was, and that Jesus was indeed buried there. It then becomes
impossible to believe that the gospel message could have been preached in
Jerusalem while Jesus remained dead in the tomb.
A second line of evidence is that the empty tomb story is quite
old and lacks legendary development. First, the phrase "first day of the
week," used in the story of the empty tomb, is quite old. Jesus and his
followers spoke Aramaic, and the Gospels were recorded in Greek.
However, this phrase is extremely ackward when rendered in the Greek
texts, but flows quite smoothly in the original Aramaic, suggesting its
earliness. The importance of this is magnified when we remember that
Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:4 that the early Christians referred to
the Easter event as occurring "on the third day." Secondly, it appears
as if Mark (probably the first gospel written) employs the use of old
source in relating his version of the empty tomb. This can be seen by
noticing that Mark never refers to the high priest, Caiaphas, by name,
presupposing and assuming that everyone already knew who the priest was
at that time. Since we know that Caiaphas held his office from A.D.
18-37, this source, it is argue, must date to within seven years of the
resurrection, which is extremely early in antiquity. Thirdly, the story
is quite simple and does not emphasize strong theological images as
characterized by legendary developments. In contrast, for example, the
Gospel of Peter, a late apocryphal book, has a floating cross that speaks
to the crowd as loud voices ring out from the heaven above!
A third line of argumentation focuses on the fact that the
gospels record that it was a group of women who discovered the tomb to be
empty. Women in first-century Judaism where considered to be second
class citizens and were not allowed to participate as witnesses in any
court proceedings; their opinion was thought to be almost worthless. It
is once again very hard to imagine why the gospel writes would have
chosen women to be the first discoverers of the empty tomb. In fact,
Mary Magdalene, who is included by all four of the gospels as having
found the tomb empty, was even reported to have been possessed by demons
(Lk 8:2)! Their story would certainly have been strengthened had one of
the disciples discovered it first. It appears, however, as if they were
simply reporting the story as it actually happened.
The fourth piece of evidence is that the earliest polemics
concerning the empty tomb actually presuppose it. For example, Matthew
28:11-15 tells of the guards' report that the tomb was empty, and v.15
states that, ". . .this story has been widely circulated among the Jews
to this very day." Now, if this statement is inaccurate, then surely it
would have outraged the Jewish leaders. They would have responded in
outrage that they had said nothing of the kind; however, there is no
record of such a dispute. In fact, the Toledoth Jeshu, a compilation of
5th century Jewish writings, acknowledges that the tomb was indeed empty
and proceeds to try to explain it away. Dr. Paul Maier, professor of
ancient history, calls this "positive evidence from a hostile source, the
strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, if a source admits a
fact that is decidedly not in its favor, the fact is genuine."
Fifth, there is no record of veneration at the site of Jesus'
tomb. Edwin Yamauchi points out that no less than fifty tombs of holy
men or prophets were preserved or enshrined during the time of Jesus in
Palestine. However, there is absolutely no trace of any veneration
occurring at Jesus' tomb, which is difficult to explain when we recall
the incredible reverence and respect that the disciples gave to Jesus.
Finally, the resurrection of Jesus could not have been preached
in Jerusalem with an occupied tomb. The resurrection, Paul Althaus
writes, could not have been preached there "for a single day, a single
hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for
all concerned."
Before concluding with our discussion of the empty tomb, I feel
it necessary to briefly address two popular naturalistic hypotheses.
They are that the body was stolen or that the women went to the wrong
tomb. As Habermas and Moreland write, these theories "have almost always
been rejected by serious scholars in the last two centuries." To assert
that the disciples stole the body fails to deal with the full scope of
the evidence, ignoring the morality, ethics, cowardice, and fear of the
disciples. It should also be mentioned that eleven of the twelve
disciples died a martyr's death for their belief. It is equally
implausible to suggest that the Jewish authorities, Roman authorities, or
grave robbers anonymous stole the body. First of all, there is no
evidence of such. Secondly, there is no motivation; these authorities
wanted Jesus' body to remain in the grave! Grave robbers steal what's on
the body, not the body itself.
The wrong tomb theory, first
proposed by Kirsopp Lake in 1907, has also been refuted. If the women
went to the wrong tomb, then the disciples at least should have found the
right one. And if both groups could not find the correct tomb, then the
authorities would have wasted no time in exposing this error. This
theory also ignores the historical reliability of the burial story, which
demonstrates that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb was well known.
The post-resurrection appearances
It is not widely disputed today that the disciples did indeed
have real experiences which they believed to have been the risen Jesus
Christ. The eminent scholar Wolfhart Pannenberg notes that, "Few
scholars, even few rather critical scholars, doubt that there had been
visionary appearances." The pressing issue, however, is whether or not
he did come back to life to appear to his disciples, or whether they were
hallucinations of the mind or other phenomena. The skeptical New
Testament critic of the University of Chicago Norman Perrin admitted to
arriving at this conclusion: "The more we study the tradition with
regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon
which they are based." We will examine the strands of evidence that
build the case for Jesus' post-mortem appearances.
One of Paul's letters contains an important passage that Jewish
scholar Pinchas Lapide calls "a statement of eyewitnesses." The early
mention of the appearances is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (NASB):
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he
was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the
Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After
that he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of
whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then he appeared to
James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as it were to one
untimely born, he appeared to me also.
What is so significant about this passage? There are four lines
of evidence to indicate that it was an early and reliable tradition that
was given to Paul.
First, the passage is written as a sort of stylized formula, easy
for memorization. The words "delivered" (paradidomi) and "received"
(paralambano) signify technical rabbinical terms indicating the imparting
of sacred oral tradition, meaning that Paul was given this early creedal
formula. The three fold use of and that along with the presence of
non-Pauline words and Aramaic terminology indicate its early origin.
Secondly, Paul received the creed from none other than the
disciples themselves. In 1 Corinthians 15:5,7 Paul indicated that he
stayed with Peter and James, who are included in the appearance lists,
for fifteen days in Jerusalem, only three years after his own
conversion. This appears to be the most likely time for him to receive
this statement. As Cambridge University scholar C.H. Dodd writes, "we
may presume that they did not spend all the time talking about the
weather."
Thirdly, this passage originated very early. Gerald O'Collins
has written that he is unaware of any scholar who argues that Paul
received this passage after the A.D. 40's. The majority of scholars,
however, date it to within two to eight years of the resurrection, based
upon the internal testimony demonstrated above.
Fourthly, Paul makes the statement that although some of the
witnesses to the appearances had died, many of the "500 brethren" were
still alive. This seems to be a direct and specific invitation for
cross-examination. Had the appearances been a fabrication, it would be
difficult to understand Paul's motivation here, for surely his readers
and audience would want to know who these people were and where they
could be found.
These four points, taken together, form a strong cumulative case
for the argument that the reports of the appearances were quite early,
reliable, and from the disciples themselves. But could they have simply
been hallucination for a group of followers who desperately longed to
have their "Lord" back with them again? There are several reasons why
this explanation fails.
First of all, this hypothesis simply ignores the evidence for the
empty tomb or for the physicality of the body (see below) as described in
the gospel narratives. C. Behan McCullagh, in a book entitled Justifying
Historical Descriptions, writes that one of the criteria that a historian
must use when testing a historical hypothesis is the following: "The
hypothesis must have a greater explanatory scope than rival hypotheses."
Using this rule as a measuring rod, the hallucination hypothesis falls
short.
A second criticism that deals with the biblical reports
themselves is provided by C.S. Lewis, who writes that, "Any theory of
hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is any invention [rather
than fact], it is the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man)
that on three separate occasion this hallucination was not immediately
recognized as Jesus (Lk 24:13-31; John 20:15; 21:4)." Surely the
disciples would have recognized Jesus in their own hallucinations!
Thirdly, hallucinations are not collective or contagious like the
common cold. They are isolated events happening to individuals and not
groups. Psychologists also insist that hallucinations are rare, yet the
narratives describe the appearances as occurring to many different people
at different times and locations.
Fourthly, the hallucination hypothesis does not explain the
physicality of the appearances. Jn 20:24-28 reports Thomas actually
touching the nail marks in Jesus' hands and touching his side. Jesus
says in Luke 24:38: "Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and
bones, as you see I have," and then proceeds to eat a piece of broiled
fish (v.43).
Finally, hallucinations are simply projections of the mind.
Therefore, an idea foreign to one's worldview cannot originate by
itself. As Craig and Jeremias have pointed out, the Jewish conception of
the "resurrection" was a collective resurrection of all the people at the
end of the world. This idea that one person would be raised in the
middle of history was not something recognizable to the Jewish mind.
The disciples and the origin of Christianity
There are a number of facts about the disciples that can be
agreed upon by the believer and the skeptic. First, these men could
almost unanimously be considered cowards during the time of Jesus'
ministry. One would expect that they would be portrayed as fearless
warriors defending the Christ, but instead we find a group of doubters
who deny him and hide from their adversaries. However, something
happened that transformed these men into bold proclaimers of
Christianity. There also needs to be an explanation for the origin of
the Christian faith in and of itself.
Eleven of the twelve disciples died deaths of martyrdom, which
seems to be powerful evidence against a conspiracy theory. Peter,
Andrew, James son of Alphaeus, Philip, Simon, and Bartholomew were all
crucified. Matthew and James son of Zebedee were all killed by the
sword. Thaddaeus was killed by arrows, and Thomas was killed by a spear
thrust. If the story was a concoction, then it seems reasonable that at
least one of these men would have let the cat out of the bag. As Pascal
wrote:
The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition
is difficult. . . .
The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it
out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus' death
and conspiring to say that he had risen from the dead. This means
attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly
susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of
them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more
because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all
have been lost. Follow that out.
Perhaps the most significant martyr was James, the brother of Jesus. The
gospel narratives tell us that he was opposed to Jesus during his
ministry (imagine your brother claiming to be the Son of God!).
According to Josephus, however, he ended up giving his life for his
faith. The resurrection answers the question "Why?"
There also needs to be an explanation for the origin of the early
church. Most scholars agree that it is a historical fact that the gospel
message was preached in Jerusalem shortly following the crucifixion. One
of the reasons for this assessment is that the book of Acts reveals that
there was a seven week delay before the message was proclaimed. As Dr.
J.P. Moreland argues, this admission in Acts 1-12 would be
counterproductive as an apologetic with no motivation if fabricated.
What could have caused such a rapid shift for these orthodox
Jews? For, as Moreland continues, the Christian church changed some of
the key social structures of Judaism, including 1) the importance of
sacrifices, 2) the emphasis on the law, 3) keeping the Sabbath holy, 4)
non-Trinitarian monotheism, and 5) the expectation of a political messiah
who would liberate the Jews. Christianity radically altered the Judaic
religion. The followers, once again, were orthodox Jews, and the
historical situation needs an answer for this abrupt change.
As we have seen, Christianity and Judaism had markedly different
views on sacred tradition. The most surprising, however, may be the
different ideas of the resurrection. As was mentioned earlier, the
Jewish mind held no concept of a suffering, dying, and rising messiah in
the middle of history. The belief was in a general resurrection that
would occur at the end of the ages, where the body would be crudely
reanimated. Clearly, the idea of Jesus' rising and exaltation were
foreign to Judaic tradition.
A common objection is that the entire scenario was derived for
pagan legends or secular literature. This theory has been rejected by
the majority of scholars. First of all, first-century Judaism was not a
myth-friendly environment. It is hard to imagine a distant legend
creeping into Jerusalem to overtake the historical facts of Jesus'
ministry and death. Secondly, the parallels between the gospels and the
legends are often quite dubious. The rising legends stories are
allegorical, not historical in nature. They mostly feature mythical
personages who represent the "dying" and "rising" seasons. Finally,
there is no persuasive evidence for any of these legend stories can be
dated before the time of Jesus.
Peter Kreeft writes that the myth theory has two layers. It
states that the first layer is the historical Jesus, who was just an
ordinary, good man who certainly did not rise from the dead. The second,
mythological layer has what we find today in the gospels, the "Christ of
faith" who claimed to be the Son of God and who supposedly rose from the
dead. The problem with thus, however, is that there is absolutely no
evidence for this first layer!
Finally, noted historian A.N. Sherwin-White provides powerful
evidence that the gospels are not legendary. He writes that historians of
Roman and Greek times repeatedly and accurately reconstruct history from
documents centuries removed from the actual event. Using the writings of
Herodotus as a case example, he writes that it takes usually at least two
full generations for the hard historical facts (see Kreeft above) to be
wiped out. In the case of the gospels, there is simply not enough time
for this legend theory to develop.
In fact, startling new manuscript is continuing to affirm the
above conclusion. On Christmas Eve of 1994, The Times of London shocked
the world when it proclaimed on the front page the claim of biblical
scholar Carsten Peter Thiede. Three tiny scrap of papyrus, found in the
Magdalen College, Oxford library, contain inscriptions from the
twenty-sixth chapter of Matthew, which are now being dated to 60 A.D.!
For an extended treatment of the subject, see the book, Eyewitness To
Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the
Gospels. The implications of this are obvious: if true, this means
that we now have a copy of Matthew dating to 60. This means that Matthew
was written before this date, and that Mark was written even earlier than
that. Again, combining this was the fact that first-century Judaism was
a memorization is just one more nail in the legendary hypothesis.
THE CASE AGAINST THE RESURRECTION
Formulating a case against the resurrection entails a different format
than does the case for the resurrection. Scholars and skeptics who do
not believe in the resurrection often have quite different reasons for
this belief. Therefore, the case that I will lay out will not have the
systematic, progressive appearance of the preceding section. The
objective, however, is for the separate arguments to form a cumulative
effect in denying the historicity of the resurrection.
This section may also be slightly shorter than the previous one. This is
not to indicate a preference for either onethe simple fact of the matter
is that much more has been written in defense of the resurrection than
there has been against it. For instance, Bertrand Russell's famous
essay, Why I Am Not a Christian does not even mention the resurrection
once. Only recently have skeptics sought to provide a powerful case
against the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Paul believed in a "spiritual" appearance
Dan Barker, a former evangelical preacher, is an avowed atheist
and author of the popular Losing Faith in Faith. During a debate at the
University of Northern Iowa, on April 2, 1996, he presented a hypothesis
that he felt dealt with all of the historical "evidence." The view has
been summarized by Farrell Till, the editor of The Skeptical Review. The
following is the summarization:
"He focused our attention on the word buried, raised, and appeared
in Paul's text [1 Corinthians 15:1-8] and analyzed each as they were used
in the Greek text of the New Testament. The word thapto (bury) meant to
inter or bury and carried no necessary connotations of entombment, so
this would be entirely consistent with the known practice of taking the
bodies of crucifixion victims and burying them in a common grave. The
word translated rose or raised in English translations of this passage
was egeiro, which meant to "arouse" or "awaken." Barker noted that this
word that Paul used in referring to the resurrection in such passages as
2 Corinthians 5:15 and that it was the word used in Ephesians 5:14 where
Paul said, "Awake (egeiro), thou that sleepest and arise (anistemi) from
the dead." The latter word, which meant "arise" or "raise up," is the
word used in reference to resurrection, but egerio (awake) is the word
that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:4, 12 in speaking of Christ's arising.
Egeiro (awake) was used by Paul eleven other times in 1 Corinthians
15:15-52, as he spoke about the apostles being false witnesses if the
dead are not raised, faith being dead if the dead are not raised, and
seed and bodies being sown in corruption but raised in incorruption, etc.
. . .Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus. . .
. . .Part of Dan Barkers argument in the debate was an analysis of the
word "appear" to show that Paul and other New Testament writers had used
it in visionary senses. In Matthew 17:3, Moses and Elijah "appeared" at
the time of the transfiguration, and the Greek word here is the same one
that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 in listing the appearances that
Jesus made to Cephas, to the twelve, to the 500 brethren, to James, and
finally to Paul himself. There is nothing in the text of Matthew that
even remotely hints that Moses and Elijah had been bodily resurrected in
their appearances at the transfiguration. In Acts 16:9, "a vision
appeared [same word as in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8] to Paul in the night in
which a man from Macedonia stood praying for Paul to come there to help
them. Since the same word for "appear" was used in 1 Corinthians 15:8,
where Peter said, "And last of all, as to the child untimely born, he
appeared to me also," Barker argued that there is sufficient reason to
assume that the other appearances were like the appearance to Paul.
Barker then showed that the only records that exist of the appearances of
Jesus to Paul show clearly that this was just a vision that Paul had and
that he had actually not seen Jesus in the vision. . . .So if this was
the way that Paul "saw" Jesus, and since the same word for see or appear
(depending on translation) was used for all of the appearances that Paul
mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, why should we believe that Paul considered
these appearances any more than just the same kind of visionary
appearance that he had experienced on the road to Damascus?"
This amply illustrates the hypothesis argued by Barker in the
debate. He referred to this as "the evolution of a legend. The
evolution of a myth." There is strong agreement between the skeptic and
the apologist that the early creedal formula in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 is
the earliest recording mention of the resurrection. If, however, Paul
meant a "spiritual" vision and resurrection that this means that the
gospel accounts of the bodily resurrection and tangibility of the
evidence were later fabrications, therefore destroying the reliability of
the most sophisticated descriptions. This form of "evolution," as Barker
calls it, can also be seen in the argument against the empty tomb.
The empty tomb is legendary and contradictory
The apostle Paul, in the book of 1 Corinthians, tries to argue as
persuasively as possible that Jesus rose from the dead. He does not,
however, make so much as a reference to the empty tomb. Uta
Ranke-Heinemann, author of the book, Putting Away Childish Things: The
Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don't Need to
Believe to Have a Living Faith, spells out the issue clearly. Her
objection is similar to the one espoused below by Dan Barker. She
writes, "Paul, the great preacher of the resurrection, bases his faith on
something other than the empty tomb." She cites 1 Corinthians 15:35-50
as evidence that Paul's belief was in a "spiritual" resurrection, not a
bodily one in which Jesus left the grave:
But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of
body do they come?" You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life
unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a
bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or some grain. But God gives it a body as
he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. . . . So it is with
the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised
is imperishable. . . . It is sown a physical body, it is raised a
spiritual body. . . . I tell you this, brethren, flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the
imperishable.
Reinke-Heinemann calls this "proof that Jesus' empty tomb has no
significance for belief in the resurrection."
Another interesting fact is that the book of Mark carries no story of the
resurrection appearances. The New International Version admit after Mark
16:8 that, "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient
witnesses do not have Mark 26:9-20. Therefore, we can lay aside the most
important aspect of the apologist's circumstantial case." Therefore, it
is of great importance what the final thing that Mark recorded, for his
is the earliest account. His ending is surprising: "Trembling and
bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb They said nothing
to anyone, because they were afraid" (Mk 16:8). This suggests that the
earliest tradition, which Mark is recording, mentions the empty tomb, but
is mum on the issue of the appearances.
In conclusion to this section, therefore, we see that the two earliest
recorded apologists, Mark and Paul, both fail to make the same case for
the resurrection! Mark leaves out all of the appearances, Paul says
nothing about the empty tomb. Surely this is cause for great suspicion.
The resurrection stories are conflicting and contradictory
Mark 16:1-8, Matthew 28, Luke 24, and John 20 give us the accounts of the
women's visit to the tomb, in which it is reported that it was discovered
empty. The problem, however, is that these four stories contradict each
other and conflict. Bishop John Shelby Spong asks his readers: "Does it
bother the literal believer that the details in the gospels are as
contradictory about what happened after Jesus' death as they are about
what happened at the time of his birth?"
This certainly would cast doubt on the historical reliability of
these reports. Father Raymond E. Brown, one of the most highly respected
New Testament scholars of our day, has written a book entitled The
Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus. In his book, he
provides a chart entitled "The Variant Gospel Narratives of the Visit of
the Women to the Tomb." The following is a summarization of the
chart:
Mark 16:1-8 Matt 28 Lk 24
Jn 20
Sabbath was past Late on the Sabbath
Very
early Early
Time First day of week First day of
week First day of week First day of week
Sun risen Growing light
At first dawn Still dark
Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene Mary
Magdalene Mary Magdalene
Women Mary, mother of James Other Mary Mary,
Mother of James (note "we" in vs. 2)
Salome Johanna
Others
Bought aromatic oils
Had aromatic oils from
Purpose Friday
Came to anoint Came to see tomb Took
aromatic oils along
continued on next page
Earthquake
Angel descended
Visual Stone already rolled He rolled back the Stone
already rolled Stone already moved
Phenomena back
stone back away
Youth sitting He sat on stone
Two men standing (Later) two angels
inside on right
(outside) (inside)
sitting inside
Youth said: Angel
said: Men asked: (Later) angels asked:
Not to fear Not to
fear Why seek living Why do you weep?
among dead?
Jesus not hear Jesus not
here Jesus not here
Conversation He is raised He is
raised He is raised (Later) Mary answered:
Tell disciples that he Tell disciples that
he As he told you while (Later Jesus gives
is going to Galilee is going to
Galilee still in Galilee Mary a message for
There you will see him There you will see
him for disciples)
Women fled Women went away quickly Women
left Mary ran to Peter
Reaction trembling; astonished with fear, great
joy & to Beloved Disciple
Told no one To tell
disciples Told Eleven & rest Told them that body
had been taken
Little commentary is needed on the above. If there a
outright contradictions in all four versions, then how can we know for
certain that this really happened? This is especially so, if (as
Evangelical Christians claim) that Bible was written by an omniscient and
omnipotent God. Dan Barker (see above and Appendix A) quotes Thomas
Paine, who wrote in his Age of Reason that,
"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted. First,
that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story
to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false;
secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves that the
whole cannot be true."
The purposes of the gospel writers
Bishop Spong, in his book Resurrection: Myth or Reality? uses
what he terms the "the method called midrash" to show that the
resurrection of Jesus need not be taken as a literalistic event. He goes
into his argument in great detail in his book, but I will attempt to
summarize the areas most relevant for our discussion.
First of all, Spong explains that the midrash is "the Jewish way
of saying that everything to be venerated in the present must somehow be
connected with a sacred moment in the past." The Jewish Encyclopedia
describes it as "the attempt to penetrate into the spirit of the text, to
examine the text from all sides, to derive interpretations not
immediately obvious, to illumine the future by appealing to the past."
Spong sees obvious parallels between the story of Jesus and the stories
of the Hebrew people in the Old Testament. For example, Exodus records
the parting of the Red Sea, signifying that the prophet (Moses) was to be
validated. Jesus, on the other hand, parted the heavens, when he walked
into the Jordan River to be baptized, thus indicating his calling by
God. Jesus and his family fleeing to Egypt was simply a summarization of
Israel's history. Zechariah and Elizabeth, being childless in their old
age, was simply a way of looking back to Abraham and Sarah. Who cannot
see the parallels between Zechariah speaking to Gabriel in the temple and
Daniel doing the same? Jesus feeding the five thousand looks just like
God providing the bread for Israel as they wandered confused in the
wilderness.
Spong argues that Westerners have the wrong question in mind when
they ask, "What really happened?" The Jewish mind, and the Midrashic
tradition, provides the answer for the question, "Why was it written?"
The above is just an introduction into Spong's reasoning, but he is not
alone in this line of thought. The great New Testament critic Norman
Perrin wrote,
For far too long we modern readers of the gospels have allowed our
attention to be diverted from the true intention of the gospel narrative
by constantly asking the question, "What actually happened?" instead of
asking the evangelical question, "What is it that the gospel writer is
challenging us to accept or deny by mean of this [narrative]?" . . .None
of the gospel writers is concerned to give us what we would call
historical information, they are evangelists, not historians.
Professor of philosophy Michael Martin of Boston University is another
scholar who espouses a similar view. He, in fact, carries this one step
further in his book The Case Against Christianity. Martin places much
emphasis on the fact that the gospel writers were had a theological bent,
and that they were writing with a specific purpose in mind. For him,
this requires the burden of proof to be raised for the defender of the
resurrection and for the document itself, to overcome the suspicion that
this raises.
In conclusion to this section, therefore, we have seen the arguments that
it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the historicity of an
event when the writers of it were "evangelists." Also, has Spong has
argued, the Western approach to the entire subject has begun on the wrong
foot, asking "What?" instead of "Why?".
Legendary development is common
Dr. Robert M. Price, a former fundamentalist, written a
persuasive book entitled, Beyond Born Again: Toward Evangelical
Maturity. He cogently argues that Christian apologists have ignored the
fact that legendary embellishment often characterize the stories of
religious figures. He then proceeds to give examples of this occurring.
Of interest is Sabbatai Sevi, who has been studied extensively by
researcher Gershom Scholem. Sabbatai Sevi was a Mediterranean Jew who
excited messianic thoughts in his follower in the 1660s. According to
Scholem, with days or weeks of his appearances, there were "sudden and
almost explosive surge[s] or miracle stories" concerning this "messiah."
Often, these stories were told by word of mouth throughout the public.
Price notes that a number of the miracle stories in the gospel accounts
are the result of "popular reportage (cf. Luke 1:65-66; 2:18, 38, 47;
4:14, 37; 5:15,26; 6:17-18; 7:17,22; 8:34-39,47; 9:43; 12:1; 18:43; 19:7,
37, 48)."
Price also cites the cases of Jehudah the Hasid, Simon Kimbangu,
and William Marrion Baranham as examples of other religious figures who's
lives were characterized by legendary development, which grew rather
quickly. Jehudah the Hasid lived in the 1200s, and was said to be a
magician, although he strongly opposed such things! African martyr
Kimbangu also was given the status of miracle worker, and "God of the
blacks" although he disavowed the title. Baranham was called by his
followers the returned Jesus Christ, or God incarnated, although his
protests to the contrary.
The above examples go to demonstrate that legends can, and do,
develop around religious leaders with strong followers. This could
certainly be the case with regards to Jesus of Nazareth. The very
earliest date that any Christian apologist would apply to the gospel
narratives is that of fifteen years after the crucifixion, with more
moderate advocates suggesting upwards of forty years. Surely if a legend
can develop within weeks or months of Savi's death, and within Baranham's
own lifetime, then surely a period of 15-40 years would be sufficient!
Therefore, we have strong historical parallels to suggest that the story,
like the others after it, are legendary.
The problem of miracles
The objection to the resurrection that has the longest historic
roots deals with the subject of miracles. The uniqueness of this
objection is that it does not deal specifically with the resurrection
itself, but rules out the resurrection by its worldview. Three of the
strongest objectors to the supernaturalistic worldview are Benedict De
Spinoza, David Hume, and more recently, Antony Flew.
Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677), a Jewish philosopher, argued in the
seventeenth century that "a miracle, whether in contravention to, or
beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity." His views, while complex, can be
broken down into the following premises: 1) Miracles violate natural
laws, 2) Natural laws are unchangeable and immutable, 3) Immutable laws
cannot be violated, 4) Therefore, miracles are, by a rule, impossible.
Spinoza also felt that all of the laws of nature flowed from the
perfection and necessity of God. Therefore, if a true miracle were to
occur, then nature would contradict the will of God, implicating that God
was in conflict with his own nature. For Spinoza, therefore, miracles
were simply impossible. The resurrection would be a miracle; thus, it
cannot be believed.
David Hume (1711-1776) felt that he discovered the "final"
argument against the miraculous, that would be "useful as long as the
world endures." His essay "Of Miracles" is still very popular today.
Hume wrote that, "(1) A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and
as a (2) firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, (3)
a proof against miracles, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire
as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined." There may be
evidence for the miracle, but there is the universally recognized
observation that natural laws are immutabletherefore, both sides
practically cancel each other out. For Hume, any natural hypothesis is
more likely than saying that a miracle occurred.
Hume also believed that no "miraculous" events have been supported by
honest and educated men. Further, many of these "miraculous" events that
have been attested to have been among barbarous people who are prone to
believe anything. Therefore, "The Christian Religion. . .cannot be
believed by any reasonable person. . . . It's not that scientific laws
are necessarily universal, but they are uniform, with no credible
exception.
Antony G. N. Flew (1923- ) is the most persuasive advocate of the
position today. His article "Miracles" in The Encyclopedia of
Philosophy is one of his brightest. He contrasts natural events and
miracles, and uses this to show that miracles are scientifically
impossible. He writes that (1) natural events and laws are repeatable
and general by nature, whereas (2) miracles are unrepeatable and
particular by nature. Since, (3) for all practical purposes, the
evidence for natural events is always greater than that for the
unrepeatable, then (4) the evidence will always be greater that a natural
event occurred than it is for a miracle.
The implications for the above are obvious. If a miracle is
impossible by definition (Spinoza), if they are improbable (Hume), or
scientifically unbelievable (Flew) than Jesus could not have risen from
the dead.
Crossan and the Jesus Seminar
When the average laymen reads in Time, Newsweek, U.S. News &
World Report, or her local newspaper about historical research on Jesus'
life and resurrection, she is most likely reading about the Jesus
Seminar, a body of seventy-four scholars. This group votes annually on
the sayings of Jesus (see The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really
Say?). They are also said to have a book in the works concerning the
deeds of Jesus. This group has brought much controversy to the field,
and their findings are worth investigating.
John Dominic Crossan, who just recently retired from DePaul
University, is the co-founder of the Jesus Seminar. Crossan is perhaps
the best known author writing on the subject today; his clarity and
persuasiveness have brought his books to prominence on the popular as
well as the scholastic level. I will briefly summarize some of the major
findings in his The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
Peasant and his similar book on the popular level, Jesus: A
Revolutionary Biography.
Much of his work involves the hypothesis that the "historic Jesus was a
peasant Jewish cynic" (emphasis in original).Crossan insists the a
methodological study must be down in hopes of discovering the historic
Jesus. Before we look at how Crossan views the resurrection, it is
important to understand the way in which he approaches his study. He
sees three independent vectors that intersect: 1) cross-cultural
anthropologydrawing upon the work of scholars studying the ancient
Mediterranean, 2) Greco-Roman and Jewish history in the beginning of the
first century, focusing on the situation of the Jewish people, using
Josephus as his primary source, and 3) Literary textual analysis.
Crossan breaks this final category down with conclusions about the texts
used: a) There are gospels in and outside of the NT, b) the four
gospels are not total collections or random samplingsthey are deliberate
arrangements, with i) retention of original materials, ii) development
of that material, and iii) creation of new material; c) the differences
are due to deliberate theological interpretations of Jesus, and d) the
"continuing presence of the risen Jesus or the abiding empowerment of the
Spirit" gave the writers an unprecedented creative freedom.
He also tries to examine what he calls the earliest stratum of
tradition, which he dates from 30 to 60 C.E. He believes the Gospel of
Peter to contain within it the most primitive, or earliest, of all
traditions, giving us the original version of the crucifixion, burial,
and resurrection. This is labeled the "Cross Gospel," which is quite
different from the gospel versions that we find in Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John. (Crossan has written entire works on this facet of his
research alone; see endnote 76.)
Crossan agrees with the traditionalists that Jesus was indeed
crucified under Pontius Pilate. In fact, he says, it is taken
"absolutely for granted" based on the unlikelihood of this being an
invention, and of "two early and independent non-Christian witnesses" to
it: Josephus and Tacitus. He believes, however, that Jesus' first
followers knew almost nothing about the details of the crucifixion,
death, or burial. Crossan's investigation differs radically with
tradition, however, when he concludes that Jesus was probably eaten by
wild dogs. He lists at least two reasons: 1) there has only been one
tomb victim that has been foundif everyone was buried in a tomb, then
surely there would be more found by now, 2) the writings of Martin
Hengel have also persuade Crossan to reach this conclusion. Hengel's
work catalogs the writers of the Roman-Greco era dealing with this
subject.
Crossan sees three developments of the Passion. We first have
the historical passion, that is, what really happened. He insists that
"with regards to the body of Jesus, by Easter morning, those who cared
did not know where it was laid, and those who knew did not care."
Crossan does not believe that the authorities gave his followers
permission to bury him, for how could they both be against Jesus and for
him at the same time?
Secondly, we have the prophetic passion, where scribes searched
the scriptures after his death. Crossan believes that scribes searched
the scriptures following Jesus' death in hopes of finding passages
dealing with death being described as a victory rather than defeat and as
a beginning rather than an end. He analyzes various biblical passages
which lead him to conclude that the scribes noticed parallelism that they
could employ. For example, the Old Testament spoke of goats being used
as atonement; the exchanging of filthy clothes for a crown and a robe;
and for experiencing piercing and being spat at while suffering.
Finally, we have the narrative passion, which involved the placing of
prophecy fulfillments into the sequential, historical narratives that we
find today. As for the burial by Joseph of Arimathea, he was simply a
made-up person, who satisfied two essential characteristics in the
story: he was a friend of Jesus' (the powerless) and a friend of the
authorities (the powerful).
As for the stories of Jesus coming back to life, they were the continued
expression of the Kingdom of God being among them. They appearances and
narratives also served as "visualizations of authority." For example,
Paul, in his creedal statement of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (see "The
Post-resurrection appearances" above) is an attempt to assert that he was
an apostle, too. By equating his "appearance" with that of the other
"Twelve" he was trying to insist on his equality. Crossan also see this
"visualization of authority" in the case of the "beloved disciple," who
arrives at the tomb before Peter and is the first to believe. In fact,
he's even above Mary Magdalene, who has to see Jesus first, only then
does she believe. Her faith does not compare to the "beloved
disciple's." Of course, the main emphasis is that Jesus is the principle
authority. The biblical passages continually demonstrate, both before
and after his death, that the disciples felt that they everyday tasks
such as fishing and sailing could not be done without Jesus. This was
simply a symbolic way of driving this point home. For Crossan, "Easter
is not about the start of a new faith, but the continuation of an old
one."
While this has only been a general look at some of Crossan's findings, it
should still be sufficient to show that there are historical grounds for
rejecting the resurrection. His writings have caused quite a stir in the
scholarly community, and he remains popular among the public, too. His
is an excellent case to use in conclusion, since many he uses some of the
previous arguments as well as posing new ones.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION
This is perhaps the most difficult section to write, and I will keep it
brief. From my observations, the significance of the resurrection has
always been assumed for the Christian. She has been taught that the
basis of her faith rests in the fact that Jesus rose from the dead.
Every evangelical writer and scholar also espouses this position.
However, there a new view has also come along which says that Jesus did
not have to rise for there to be a Christian faith. For this section, I
interviewed Christians who believe that it is necessary and consulted the
works of those who believe it is not.
Rev. Allen D. Call, minister at First United Methodist Church in
Sioux City, Iowa, told me his view on the resurrection of Jesus:
I think it's the basis of our faith. Christmas has no meaning apart
from the resurrection. the event of the birth has no significance apart
from the resurrection, because it's the resurrection that gives meaning
to the birth. If there was no rising from the dead, if Jesus wasn't who
he said he was, then the fact of his birth would be pointless. The
resurrection means new lifeout of the old something new comes. I've seen
that happen again and again in people's lives. They were headed in one
direction, and because of their contact with the Christ, they're lives
take a different turn and [they] go a different direction.
Father Marvin Boes, of St. Boniface in Sioux City gave a similar
interpretation:
To me, it's revealed.. . It's in Scripture, you can read it there,
and it's been a part of our teaching of our church all the time, so I
don't have any reason to question that. Another reason, the significance
of it, is, you know, St. Paul says "If Christ hasn't risen from the
deadwe're doomed" because we're meant to pass through death with fullness
of life, being raised with Him, and joining Himself to us in a very real
wayto bring us that capability. So I guess that's the basis for
believing it very strongly.
Grant Osborne, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
in Deerfield, Illinois, has contributed to the scholarly community's
investigation of the resurrection. He shared with me his views on the
subject:
German scholar Uta Ranke-Heinemann, who does not believe in the
resurrection, still believes that there is value in the person and the
study of him. She has written:
We don't know a lot about Jesus. But if we trace his steps, we
sense that he soughtand foundGod; that he wanted to reveal this God as
being close to every one of us; and that he wanted to make everyone
intimate both of this God and of his or her neighbor. Anyone who cares
to know also realizes that Jesus' voice is as much a living voice as
ever; his truth a living truth; and his God a living God, near to us all.
Crossan believes that the historical Jesus "proclaimed God's
radical justice, which is extremely critical of the structures of almost
any societyincluding ours." He sees the significance of Jesus without
the resurrection. For him, the social program of Jesus is vitally
important:
The ecstatic vision and social program sought to rebuild a society
upward from its grass roots, but on principles of religious and economic
egalitarianism, with free healing brought directly to the peasant homes
and free sharing of whatever they had in return. The deliberate
conjunction of magic and meal, miracle and table, free compassion an open
commensality, was a challenge launched not just on the level of Judaism'
strictest purity regulations, or even on that of the Mediterranean's
patriarchal combination of honor and shame, partronage and clientage, but
at the most basic level of civilization's eternal inclination to draw
lines, invoke boundaries, establish hierarchies, and maintain
discrimination. It did not invite a political revolution but envisaged a
social one at the imagination's most dangerous depths.
Now, it is left to a theologian or more experienced writer than myself to
gather a more representative sample of the divergent opinions regarding
the significance of Jesus and his resurrection. Hopefully, the above
will serve its purpose as simply introducing the different views and what
they mean for approaching a study of the historical Jesus.
PERSONAL EVALUATION
I think that it should first be noted that I believe total objectivity in
regards to the resurrection is simply impossible. Those who believe in
God, and have a theistic worldview, will be more easily persuaded by the
evidence than the anti-supernaturalist. For example, the theist has no
problem accepting the miraculous, whereas the anit-supernaturalist thinks
the idea absurd in an age of modernity and enlightenment. Also, when
people approach the subject, they often do so with their mind already
made up. The theist usually evaluates the evidence in hopes of proving
that the resurrection did indeed happen. The non-Christian or antitheist
often does precisely the oppositetrying to demonstrate why it is that the
resurrection did not take place; this is only natural.
Gerald O'Collins, S.J., writes in his book, What Are They Saying About
the Resurrection? about "models of the resurrection." He writes that
"We should acknowledge here the existence and value of multiple models:
the resurrection (1) as history, (2) as redemption, (3) as revelation,
(4) as grounding faith, (5) as a promise which grounds hope, and (6) as
initiating the kerygma. Throughout this paper, the arguments that I have
tried to present for and against the resurrection generally fall within
the category of "history." The complexity of the resurrection issue,
however, is that the spheres of "history" and "faith" overlap. In my
opinion, this is one of the many reasons that an completely objective,
historical analysis seems to be impossible.
For myself, however, the evidence seems quite compellingand the reasons
deal with both history and personal faith. Would the evidence be as
persuasive had I not grown up in a Christian home, and in a country where
many believe in the Bible and its God? I shall never know. This all
aside, I do feel that a reasonable historical evaluation of the
resurrection hypothesis can be done by the evaluator. Yes, we all bring
our own presuppositions and biases to the table, but it is difficult to
imagine many situations in life where this is not the case! Every
evaluation and judgment that we make is colored, in some degree, by our
personal worldview and past experiences. The resurrection investigation
is no different.
Quite naturally, therefore, this personal opinion has in all likelihood
shaped and influenced the writing of this paper. For instance, I do
believe that all of the objections mentioned in the "The Case Against the
Resurrection" can be answeredand it was a temptation to respond. While
lying aside all objectivity may be utterly impossible, I did try to give
a representative sample of the arguments that the defenders of
Christianity and the skeptics have found most persuasive. If, in doing
so, the reader has understood in some respect the complexity of the
issue, its implications, and its arguments, than this paper has served
its purpose.
ENDNOTES
Endnotes will be added soon
Richard N. Ostling, "Jesus Christ, Plain and Simple," Time, (January,
10 1994), pp. 32-33.
