Is there Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Assertions

Believing Jesus rose from the dead is just that: a belief, nothing more.

Jesus actually survived the cross, and resting in the cool of the tomb revived him.

The story of the resurrection was added later by religious leaders to increase their power.

We know there was no resurrection because people just don’t rise from the dead.

When the Apostles ‘saw’ the risen Jesus it was a hallucination, it was not real.

Questions

In this modern age, how can you believe Jesus actually rose from the dead?

I am part of the modern world, how can I accept that a man died and rose again?

The Resurrection

When it comes to the resurrection, I have benefitted from the teachings of Sean McDowell, who says there have been 2 basic approaches to defending the Resurrection. He puts forth first the work of his Father Josh McDowell. This approach is to make a case for the accuracy of the New Testament, making arguments that the words in the Greek New Testaments (both the United Bible Society’s and the Nestle-Aland, the books used for English translations of the New Testament) are nearly 99% accurate to the autographs (the manuscripts that the original authors wrote and signed personally). These arguments show that there are historical evidences that the individual New Testament books were written within the first century, thus making it possible the writers were actually familiar with the events described. And Finally arguments from what was written and the lives of the Apostles that they were repeating eyewitness accounts and not creating lies and myths. Therefore the gospel narratives of Jesus dying on the Cross and Being raised from the dead are reliable accounts by eyewitnesses to the facts. Books that do this include Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh and Sean McDowell. Another would be I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Questioning the Bible: 11 major challenges to the Bible’s Authority by Jonathan Morrow. From the perspective of a legal reporter there is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. J. Werner Wallace brings in his cold case detective skills (his work as a detective has earned many Nightline interviews) with his Cold Case Christianity. To name a few.The second approach is called the minimal facts approach which was created by the resurrection scholar Gary Habermas. For several centuries New Testament scholars dismissed the New Testament as reliable (my in depth speculation here). Three major things have changed in recent decades, first archeological discoveries have provided extra-Biblical support for people and places listed in the Bible. Eric Metaxas wrote in Newsweek “in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."” https://www.newsweek.com/archaeology-proving-bible-opinion-1634339. (the whole article is good.) Second, many copies or ‘manuscripts’ of the New Testament have been found meaning our current total is around 5800. That includes a portion of the Gospel of John called the Ryland’s manuscript dated around 125 CE. The Bodmer Papyri and the Chester Beaty papyri collections included the majority of the New Testament in one document as early as 250 CE. Thirdly in ‘What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography’ the scholar Richard Burridge “…demonstrated that the previously widespread view of the Gospels as unique compositions was false.”… “argued convincingly for an understanding of the Gospels as biographies”.(for more on this click here.) This allows New Testament scholars outside of evangelicalism to apply the principle of multiple attestation. (“tests of authenticity... One … of these is “multiple attestation”: a passage that appears in two or more independent sources is likely to be authentic.” Like in a police investigation 5 witness is better than 3 which is better than 1.) As an example John-Dominic Crossan (scholar in the skeptic Jesus Seminar): “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus… agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact.” John-Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (Harper One. 1995), 145. So back to Gary Habermas and the second approach. He has collected books, articles, and other scholarly work from primarily ‘liberal’ scholars, self identified atheists, agnostics, Jewish (i.e. not recognizing the New Testament as authoritative) and others. He is looking for the facts that garner 75% and even 90% acceptance among scholars. His current list of these facts include:

1. Jesus was Crucified

2. Later his tomb was found empty.

3. His followers, the Apostles, believed they saw the resurrected Jesus

4. Saul of Tarsus a.k.a Paul was originally antagonistic and persecuting Christians but changed to become the Apostle Paul of History.

5. James, son of Mary and Joseph, and therefore half brother of Jesus, was presented as mocking Jesus in the Gospels was later an important leader of the Church in Jerusalem and most likely author of the book of James.

6. That the creed Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-8 was a common church saying within 6 years of Jesus’ death on the cross. Click here how scholars came to this understanding. This creed established as early church teachings that Jesus ‘died for our sins’ and was ‘raised on the third day’. Also that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to “…more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive…” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭6‬ ‭ESV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/59/1co.15.6.ESV

7. That it was female followers of Jesus that discovered the Empty Tomb.

This becomes the basis of the minimal facts argument usually including facts 1-6 sometimes combining 4 and 5 and skipping 2. It turns out when you list out the naturalistic theories that try to explain the acknowledged events they fail to explain all the facts. See the video ‘did Jesus rise from the dead.’ The only theory that explains all the facts is the actually physical bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

To try to make this concise here is a case establishing the Resurrection and Inspiration of the Bible (that is not circular):

When we take the gospels and other historical documents we can establish certain historical facts.
Once we have the 7 facts mentioned above we have justified reason to have a theory that accounts for all the facts.
Naturalistic theories don’t account for all the facts.
The theory that does account for the facts is that after Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb he was raised from the dead and appeared to over 500 witnesses.
If Jesus is raised from the dead then his authority and words are from God.
Then based on this authority the Old Testament and the New Testament are the words of God (John 14:26; 16:13).

For several centuries the Bible was dismissed as reliable since it included miraculous events. On the home page I mentioned the idea that Miracles are impossible, this idea was powerfully presented by David Hume. Here is his argument, in a nutshell: Human experience confirms the certainty of the laws of nature. Since miracles violate the laws of nature, it would take an enormous amount of evidence to confirm any miracle. How much evidence? An impossibly large amount. Because such evidence does not exist, belief in miracles is therefore irrational. Hume supported his primary argument with four supporting claims: No miracle has been attested by a sufficient number of educated and rational witnesses. There is a human tendency to believe the spectacular. Most reports of miracles occur among ignorant and barbarous people. Claims of miracles occur in all religious traditions, thus nullifying one another. While this argument is circular, If I said ‘I have checked with all the educated and rational people I can find and none of them have ever met David Hume, therefore I can conclude that only ignorant and barbarous people would believe in David Hume.’ That would be unreasonable. The test of both the existence of David Hume and of miracles (both being non repeatable events fixed in space and time, like George Washington crossing the Delaware or Abraham Lincoln being assassinated) is found in an examination of the evidence. Evidence consisting usually of witness testimony, and remember in all of human history with billions of people there has only been one David Hume so the odds of any one person being him are also remote. Unfortunately imperfect logic aside his argument became a pillar among scholars including Biblical scholars. These scholars became conflicted, many still believed in the teachings of the Jesus but they ‘knew’ the Gospels also told stories of miracles. How could they separate the wonderful teachings of Jesus from the ‘obviously’ untrue miracle stories. Lacking any evidence to the contrary they concluded that the wonderful teachings of Jesus had been successfully passed down through the centuries. But because the Religious leaders desired power they added to the oral teachings miracle stories thus transforming the simple teacher Jesus into Jesus Christ Son of God, second person of the trinity! So the ‘Jesus of history’ became enveloped in the ‘Christ of faith’ enabling the power hungry church leaders to construct ‘established Religion’. The end result: scholars could pick out parables or teachings that they liked and dismiss the miraculous and anything else that made them uncomfortable. Today scholars look at the historical witness of the enemies of Christianity “Jesus was born and lived in Palestine… He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future.” This from the research of J. Werner Wallace at the following website: https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-there-any-evidence-for-jesus-outside-the-bible/. So we now know that the idea of Jesus as a miracle worker was not a later addition. Therefore this whole theory of a late creation of the Gospels (based on naturalistic assumptions about miracles) is not longer accepted as valid. (While gaining my masters degree this is the explanation that combined the evidence in the most sensible way. If you have any evidence to the contrary I am willing to be persuaded.)

What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography Hardcover – October 15, 2018. by Richard A. Burridge The publication of Richard Burridge's What Are the Gospels? in 1992 inaugurated a transformation in Gospel studies by overturning the previous consensus about Gospel uniqueness. Burridge argued convincingly for an understanding of the Gospels as biographies, a ubiquitous genre in the Graeco-Roman world. To establish this claim, Burridge compared each of the four canonical Gospels to the many extant Graeco-Roman biographies. Drawing on insights from literary theory, he demonstrated that the previously widespread view of the Gospels as unique compositions was false. Burridge went on to discuss what a properly "biographical" perspective might mean for Gospel interpretation, which was amply demonstrated in the revised second edition reflecting on how his view had become the new consensus. This third, twenty-fifth anniversary edition not only celebrates the continuing influence of What Are the Gospels?, but also features a major new contribution in which Burridge analyzes recent debates and scholarship about the Gospels. Burridge both answers his critics and reflects upon the new directions now being taken by those who accept the biographical approach. This new edition also features as an appendix a significant article in which he tackles the related problem of the genre of Acts. A proven book with lasting staying power, What Are the Gospels? is not only still as relevant and instructive as it was when first published, but will also doubtlessly inspire new research and scholarship in the years ahead. “Richard Burridge set out to disprove the claim that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography. In the process, the data compelled him to change his mind and write What Are The Gospels? This is a watershed book, primarily responsible for moving the majority of New Testament scholarship to a place where it either regards the Gospels as Greco-Roman biographies or as being closely affiliated with that genre. For New Testament scholarship, it is one of the most important books of the twentieth century. This 25th Anniversary Edition contains more than one hundred new pages in which Burridge interacts with critics who have taken issue with his thesis and summarizes the findings of other scholars who have built upon his work, teasing out important implications of the Gospels being of a biographical genre.” -- Michael R. Licona, Associate Professor of Theology, Houston Baptist University This information was in the Amazon listing for the book. Prior to this scholarship the critical perspective on the Gospels is that they were a unique genre that was a creation of the writers. After this work secular critics would examine the Gospels in the same way they would study a biography of Alexander the Great. When that biography declares that Alexander essentially descended from heaven then started military campaigns, the scholar would ignore the supernatural claims but accept the rest as a historical record. Assumed to be accurate until proven otherwise (not as infallible “word of God” but as generally reliable information). With the New Testament documents being both in greater number and with less years between the autographs and the copies, the Gospels are the best attested ancient manuscripts. So while todays scholar still ignores the miraculous stories they do not dismiss the other parts of the New Testament, instead seeing them as ‘accurate until proven otherwise’.

Why do we claim that the 1 Corinthians 15 creed is from within 6 years of the Crucifixion? First Miriam-Webster defines a Creed as “a brief authoritative formula of religious belief”, in an culture with a significant percentage of illiterate believers creeds enabled all to learn the basics of the faith. Second the way Paul introduces the passage in 1 Cor 12 with the phrase “I delivered to you … what I received.” As a trained Pharisee Paul is using a formal phrase that indicates he is passing unaltered a message he was given. Most scholars today perceive that Paul is one of them, taught in the best schools by Gamaliel one of the best Jewish teachers of the century. Also 75% or more accept 1 Corinthians as actually written by Paul approximately 55 years CE. But Paul is not teaching the Corinthians this creed near 55 CE but when he first went to Corinth in 51-52 CE (a date we know because it was during the 1 year reign of a local leader we have archeological evidence for). So the real question is when did he first learn the creed? Most scholars accept Paul was on the road to Damascus 2-3 years after the crucifixion and in Gal 1:18 Paul adds 3 years before he went to Jerusalem. When he was in Jerusalem within 5-6 years of the crucifixion he spend 15 days with Cephas (Peter) and also met James. He must have learned the creed sometime between his encounter with Jesus and spending time with Peter because 14 years later when he met James (brother of Jesus), Cephas (Peter) and John, they approved of his existing training Gal 2:9. It is also likely that the creed was in use before he learned it within 6 years of the crucifixion. Some scholars beleive the creed was created within months of Jesus' sacrifice. This leads to the conclusion I stated in point 6. The most important point to learn from the early dating of the creed is that the resurrection was one of the earliest messages of the beleivers in Jesus.