Being that Easter Sunday is only a day away I felt it appropriate to take a moment and discuss the topic of the resurrection of Jesus. I recently was having a discussion with a fellow student at Florida Atlantic University and he asked me “What if God does exist? What would make Christianity any different than any other religion?” I suggested to him that Christianity gives us a way of testing it to see if it is really true. The Apostle Paul, the writer of the majority of the documents in the N.T. suggests that if Jesus has not been raised from the dead or faith is futile. I went on to suggest to the student I was speaking with that Christianity makes huge claims with huge implications if it is true. I ended our conversation by suggesting he really investigate the historicity of the resurrection.
Scholars such as N.T. Wright, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. J.P Moreland, and Michael Licona have dedicated much of their academic careers to studying the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. They have written numerous books and articles about the resurrection and its surrounding details. Usually in their presentations or articles these men will pick a few of the historically established details such as the empty tomb, the crucifixion, the post-mortem appearances, etc. to build a case for the resurrection of Jesus. They will also go on to show how no current naturalistic explanations can account for all of the historically established details. However I will take a slightly different approach in this blog for the sake of length and for the sake of emphasizing something that I would like for everyone to consider this Easter Sunday.
I believe one of the most convincing facts of the resurrection is the way that it affected the lives of those who claimed to have witness the risen Jesus. Even the evidence that can be examined on this one topic alone is extensive, such as how Paul who was a persecutor of the early Christians became a Christian himself after Jesus appeared to him. One can also look at the life of James, the brother of Jesus, who was a skeptic of Jesus during his ministry but became a Christian as well when Jesus appeared to him. These two men had dramatic experiences that changed their lives significantly and one must be able to account for this. However, for the sake of this blog I would like to focus on the affect the post-mortem appearances of Jesus had on the Twelve Disciples.
Eleven of the Twelve Disciples were martyred for their belief in a risen savior. Now one may say “People die for their beliefs every day, especially religious beliefs.” And in a post 9-11 world we in America now know just how true this is. However, it is important that we do not overlook a significant difference between the people who die in the name of their religion today as opposed to the disciples who died back then. A Muslim who hijacks a plane and flies it into the side of a building truly believes that he is doing the right thing and that he will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. This Muslim has no way of being certain that this is what is going to happen but he believes it is what will happen. Even a Christian today who is martyred believes he or she has the hope of an afterlife because of their belief in Jesus as the Christ and his resurrection, but even the Christian cannot be 100% certain that they are right. Yet I suggest to you that the disciples were in a very different situation.
The earliest Christians were not claiming that they simply had faith that they would go to heaven if they died, they were claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and that they saw him after the fact! It was this claim that they were being killed for. The disciples not only BELIEVED that Jesus rose from the dead they were in a position to KNOW whether or not Jesus had been raised from the dead. This leaves us with two options:
1. The disciples knew that Jesus had been killed but did not want to admit that he was dead, so they made up a story about him being raised from the dead. They were so committed to their lie that they even died for it knowing that they had no hope in that which they were giving their lives for. Notice this explanation still does is not sufficient for the transformation in the lives of Paul and James, but for the sake of this blog this is one option.
2. That the disciples really did see Jesus from the dead, therefore were willing to give their lives because they knew they had a hope in a risen savior.
As I mentioned above, this is by no means the extent of the argument for the resurrection but I think it is a significant part of it that we should all wrestle with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Good stuff, man. Keep posting!
ReplyDeleteHere is a third option:
ReplyDeleteIn a grief-stricken state, one or more of the disciples had some sort of halucinatory experience that they interpreted as Jesus' return from the dead. As the story was told and retold over forty years, it eventually evolved into the appearance stories that were recorded by Matthew, Luke, and John.
I know you did not intend to cover all aspects pertaining to this, but I can not resist.
ReplyDeleteEveryone must've known where Jesus was buried, so the body would not have been hard to reproduce, if necessary. This would have destroyed the growing talk of a Risen Christ across the land, which seemed to be a threat to both Jewish and Roman leaders at the time. Because the tomb was empty, all the world since has had to deal with that blatant miracle in one way or another.
Now, one's personal belief in miracles is an entirely different issue altogether and we can leave that for another time :)
Actually, no one need have known where Jesus was buried or if he was buried at all. The most common Roman practice was to leave the body of the crucified criminal to rot on the cross as a warning to others. The next most common practice was to throw the body in an unidentified common grave for criminals. The discovery of the empty tomb is an element of the story that could have evolved over time. Paul does not mention it in 1 Cor. 15.
ReplyDeleteAs to producing the body, I don't really think that would have been consistent with Roman practice. When confronted with troublemakers, the Romans did not try to show them they were wrong. They nailed a bunch of them to crosses, sacked a couple towns, and shipped a bunch of citizens off into slavery. If Paul is any example, Jews weren't much for using persuasion on troublemakers either.
I also doubt that the Romans would have made much distinction between the early Christians and the various other messianic cults that were active in Palestine at the time of Jesus' death. It would taken some time for the Christians to get big enough to stand out enough for the Romans to focus on them specifically. It is hard to believe that Jesus' body would have still been indentifiable even if it could be located.
Hello Vinny,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I would like to thank you for taking the time to read and post on my blog. I would like to suggest that the explanation you gave, "one or more of the disciples had some sort of hallucinatory experience that they interpreted as Jesus' return from the dead" is not a sufficient explanation for the historical data. This explanation fails to account for the conversions of James and Paul, which we have documentation for prior to the writing of the gospels. Hallucinations also do not seem to be a good explanation because Jesus made several appearances to individuals, groups of people, skeptics, and even one who was persecuting his followers. Hallucinations cannot account for all of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, all of which are attested to prior to the writing of Matthew, Luke, and John.
As for your response to Dominick's post, I would have to suggest that once again important historical data is being overlooked. Mark, the earliest gospel, records that it was Joseph of Arimathea who buried Jesus. This is very significant evidence that Jesus was buried. Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin and therefore is not likely to be a fabrication by the author. The fact that Jesus was buried is actually one of the facts that the vast majority of scholars agree on. I'm not suggesting that just because the majority of scholars believe something that it makes it true, however I do believe that if one is going to go against the consensus of scholarship one must provided sufficient evidence.
The historical facts tell us that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimethea and that Jesus appeared to various individuals and groups of people, both followers and skeptics. Hallucinations do not explain the empty tomb and are not sufficient to explain the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. I would like to suggest to you that God raising Jesus from the dead is the best explanation of the historical facts.
Thanks again for taking the time to interact on my blog!
Scholarly consensus must be considered in context. Most classicists would agree that Plato wrote The Phaedo. However, if you asked a classicist whether it was possible that one of Plato’s students wrote the Phaedo rather than Plato himself, he would have to say yes. He would also have to admit that it was possible that some unknown philosopher living fifty after Plato wrote the Phaedo and attached Plato’s name to it in order to reach a wider audience. The evidence may point towards Plato, but it is too simply too sketchy to eliminate all the other possibilities.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there is also scholarly consensus that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address and there is very little chance that this is not so. We know exactly when and where the Gettysburg Address was made public. We can track Lincoln’s whereabouts in the days prior to its delivery. We have eyewitness accounts of Lincoln working on the speech. We have drafts of the speech written by Lincoln himself (at least I think we do). In other words, the evidence that Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address is so strong that it is almost inconceivable that anyone else other than him could have written it.
The point is that there may be scholarly consensus about an event even when it is subject to significant uncertainty due to the scarcity of evidence. This is particularly likely to be true about ancient events.
Let’s take the supposed scholarly consensus about the conversion of the skeptics James and Paul. With Paul, we have his letters describing his enmity towards Christians and his subsequent embrace of the faith after a personal encounter with the risen Christ (although he gives us very little detail about that encounter). We also have the book of Acts describing Paul’s attacks on Christians followed by his conversion. With James, we have nothing like that kind of detail. We don’t have his description of his skepticism or the reason he chose to follow his brother. It is not unreasonable to assume that it happened after a post-resurrection appearance, but it is possible that he abandoned his skepticism during Jesus’ lifetime. It is also possible that it was family members other than James who were the skeptics because he is not identified as a skeptic by name in the gospels (at least I don’t think he is). The fact that there is scholarly consensus on both Paul and James doesn’t mean that the evidence for one isn't much stronger than the other.
As a quick aside, I am generally skeptical of Christian apologists who appeal to scholarly consensus because they never seem to have any qualms about ignoring it in fields like the biological sciences. That is a discussion for another day though.
In any case, let’s also not exaggerate the scope of the scholarly consensus. As I understand Habermas, the scholarly consensus is that Jesus was buried, not that he was buried by Joseph of Arimethea and not that he was buried in a known location. Scholars who believe that Jesus’ body might have been thrown into a common grave for criminals would be counted as part of Habermas’ consensus. Regarding the resurrection appearances, the scholarly consensus does not extend to all the appearances as described in the gospels. It includes scholars who believe that the appearances were visionary or hallucinatory and scholars who believe that the actual number of appearances might have been exaggerated over time. The consensus is that Christianity is founded upon a belief that the risen Christ appeared to his disciples, not that we know all the details of those appearances.
I don’t think it’s legitimate to claim scholarly consensus as the basis for your argument and then start adding facts upon which there is no scholarly consensus. If natural explanations satisfactorily account for all the agreed facts, you cannot dismiss those explanations simply by appealing to disputed facts.
I actually specifically said that scholarly consensus does not mean that something is true; it just simply means that sufficient evidence must be presented if one is to go against the consensus. In your example of Apologists going against the consensus of Biology, I would agree with you if they fail to present sufficient evidence for the contrary view. However, if sufficient evidence is presented then one must examine their claim carefully.
ReplyDeleteAlso, with Joseph of Arimathea I was using the Gospel of Mark as my source. I also mentioned that it is highly unlikely that Joseph of Arimathea is a fictional character being that the author claims he was a member of the Sanhedrin. I was not using Gary Habermas as my source. If you're looking for a well known apologist who carries the argument of Joseph of Arimathea further, Dr. William Lane Craig often speaks about this.
I would suggest my arguments still stand aside from consensus. I've given my reasons for the claims that I have made and I would suggest the evidence supports it. I've not simply cited Gary Habermas; I am actually using the primary source documents including the Gospel of Mark and 1 Corinthians. The only reason I even mentioned the consensus was just to make the point that it was not a farfetched idea.
I still say the actual evidence that was presented was not addressed. Even if I grant to you that we do not know many details about the conversion experience of James, we do still have the accounts of Paul’s conversion which must be dealt with. As for the number of appearances mentioned by Paul I would suggest there is reason to trust the account. Paul even mentions that many of the men who were in the group of the five hundred that saw Jesus were still alive, almost as if he were challenging the reader to go ask them for themselves. This again leaves us back where we started. If Jesus did not rise from the dead Paul as well as several of the Disciples of Jesus died for something that they knew was a lie.
Finally, in dealing with the idea of hallucinations one realizes that it is not sufficient to deal with the facts. It seems to fail to account for all of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. It also fails to account for the empty tomb, which is supported by the Gospel of Mark. The fact that women were the ones who found the empty tomb, in a society who did not look upon women’s testimony favorably, tells us this was probably really what happened. It would have added far more credibility in the Gospel writer’s day had he suggested that Peter or John found the empty tomb.
'Eleven of the Twelve Disciples were martyred for their belief in a risen savior.'
ReplyDeleteNo they weren't.
Not one Christian in history was ever charged with preaching a resurrection.
Paul, who was there, is clear in Galatians 6:12 that Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision.
And that Christians could avoid persecution for the cross (NB not resurrection) of Christ, by compromising on this issue.
Find one named person in history who claimed to have seen Joseph of Arimathea.
ReplyDeleteOr even Arimathea.....
Resurrection Debate goes into all of this in some depth.
Do you think that Paul personally spoke with all five hundred people who witnessed that appearance to determine what they saw? Or is it more likely that someone told Paul about this appearance? After Paul had his experience on the road to Damascus, isn’t it likely that Paul would have been willing to believe in such an appearance without any verification?
ReplyDeleteAll 1 Cor. 15 tells us is that Paul saw something that he understood to be Jesus resurrected and that he believed that others had seen the same thing. It provides no details that point to a physical manifestation as opposed to a visionary or hallucinatory experience. The quantity of appearances is every bit as consistent with on as the other.
Just out of curiosity, why should the hallucination theory explain the empty tomb? I have heard this argument before and it strikes me as rather silly. The hallucination theory isn’t intended to explain the empty tomb. The hallucination theory explains the appearances. It’s like criticizing the theory of gravity because it doesn’t explain why dogs wag their tails. Different theories explain different things.
The Gospel of Mark does not qualify as a primary source document because its author does not place himself as an eyewitness to the events he describes. Moreover, Mark tells us absolutely nothing about how he came by the stories that he records or how many steps removed those stories are from the original eyewitnesses. Paul is the only one who relates what he saw personally.
Joseph of Arimathea certainly could be an actual historical character. The Roman practice was to leave the corpse of a crucified criminal on the cross to rot. It probably would have taken someone of some importance to get the Romans to allow a burial. However, the fact that some elements of the story are historical would not prove that all of them are. If there really was a pious member of the Sanhedrin who did not want a corpse to be hanging on a cross on the Sabbath, that does not give us any greater reason to believe that he put Jesus’ body in his own private grave rather than in a common grave for criminals. Nor does it provide any greater reason to believe that the women witnessed the burial or that Joseph would have told them where the body was.
As far as the women getting their first, that is entirely reasonable if Mark’s purpose is to explain why earlier accounts didn’t include the story of the empty tomb. On the other hand, it is possible that women had played some prominent role in the early resurrection experiences. That would not warrant the conclusion that Mark’s story accurately describes what that role was.
Vinny and Maths, well I think it is important for us to be looking to actually arrive to a conclusion and not simply look for the next argument. It is ok to disagree but let’s find the point we disagree on and lay out the evidence and we will each have to evaluate the evidence. This is in no way to discourage exchange on the blog, it is just an attempt to not go around in circles.
ReplyDeleteMaths,
You mentioned how not one Christian in history was ever charged with preaching the resurrection. Well, this may or may not be true, but it is actually missing the point all together. Christians were persecuted for being Christians. And the earliest Christians based their faith on the belief that Jesus actually rose from the dead. This is consistent with my point that the earliest disciples who died for this belief were either dying for something they knew was a lie or Jesus actually rose from the dead.
In response to your mention of Galatians 6:12, this is an earlier reference and not the type of persecution that I am referring to.
Now you asked me to find one named person in history who claimed to have seen Joseph of Arimathea. Even if there is no record of an eyewitness testimony of Joseph of Arimathea, it does not mean there is not good evidence that he was a real person. As I have already state in a previous post, it is not likely that Joseph of Arimathea is a fabrication. Mark’s, gospel, which is the earliest gospel, mentions Joseph and also says that he is a member of the Sanhedrin. It is not likely a fabricated person would be given such a title if it wasn’t true, being that it could have easily been falsified by those reading Mark’s gospel.
As for a named person in history that mentions Joseph of Arimathea, John the disciple of Jesus mentions him in his gospel account. Although John never identifies himself as the author, very early church fathers identify him as the author. Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 130-200), who was a disciple of Polycarp (ca. A.D. 70-160), states that Polycarp, a disciple of John, knew John as the author of that gospel. Just as a side note to help suggest that it is not too farfetched to consider John the author of the gospel named after him, I am a student at Florida Atlantic University, a public university, and my history professor for history of Christianity had no problems assuming that John was the author of the gospel of John.
The last point you bring up was the issue of the place of Arimathea. We simply don’t know where it was located. Different scholars suggest different locations but no one knows for sure. While this is an important point you bring up, it is an argument from silence and it does not discredit the evidence that I have already mentioned.
Vinny,
Ok so in the attempt to make progress, are you agreeing that it is very likely that Jesus was actually buried based on the evidence of Joseph of Arimathea?
As for Paul not having talked to all 500 people of the group mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, you are right he probably didn’t talk to each of them. However, there are two points I would like to make about this: 1. We have Paul quoting a very early creed (1 Corinthians 15:3-5) which states two separate post-mortem appearances by Jesus. If you add Paul’s quoting this makes three separate post-mortem appearances by Jesus. 2. The fact that Paul mentions that many of the 500 were still alive is almost an invitation by Paul to investigate the issue further.
Now you mentioned that Paul is more likely to believe the other experiences he mentioned because of his own experience. I would agree with you on this point. But it is hard to explain why Paul had his experience in the first place. You have multiple appearances of Jesus at different times, locations, and different people from different backgrounds. Hallucinations simply don’t account for all the data.
Next you mentioned that 1Cor. 15 provides no details that point to a physical manifestation. Perhaps you are right, but being that Paul was a Jewish man would he feel the need to make it clear that it was a physical resurrection? Didn’t the Jewish people of Paul’s time associate resurrection with a bodily resurrection?
As for your question on why the hallucination theory should explain the empty tomb, I think you are misunderstanding the point. When people say the hallucination theory doesn’t explain the empty tomb, what people mean is that it is not the best explanation for all the data (empty tomb + post-mortem appearances + changed life of Paul + disciples willingly martyred due to a hope based on the resurrection of Jesus, etc.).
Now, your explanation of Mark’s possible motivation for having the women find the empty tomb is admittedly a good thought, but it doesn’t seem to fit the evidence. Dr. William Lane Craig, a scholar who has done extensive work on the resurrection, suggests that due to the language and grammar, it is clear that Mark got his entire passion narrative from an earlier source. This makes your suggestion less likely. The earlier the source of the passion narrative gets, the less likely it becomes that your suggestion is true.
Ok so in the attempt to make progress, are you agreeing that it is very likely that Jesus was actually buried based on the evidence of Joseph of Arimathea?I would actually say that 1 Cor. 15 is the best evidence for a burial. Since Paul would have known that the usual Roman practice was to leave the body on the cross, he would not have assumed a burial. That would lead me to believe that there was some early tradition of Jesus having been buried. However, I think that “likely” is a safer formulation than “very likely” because we just don’t have much information on the source of that tradition. I don’t think the story of Joseph of Arimathea actually increases the likelihood of a burial because this may simply have been an outgrowth of the same tradition that Paul knew.
ReplyDeleteAs for Paul not having talked to all 500 people of the group mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, you are right he probably didn’t talk to each of them. However, there are two points I would like to make about this: 1. We have Paul quoting a very early creed (1 Corinthians 15:3-5) which states two separate post-mortem appearances by Jesus. If you add Paul’s quoting this makes three separate post-mortem appearances by Jesus. 2. The fact that Paul mentions that many of the 500 were still alive is almost an invitation by Paul to investigate the issue further.
Now you mentioned that Paul is more likely to believe the other experiences he mentioned because of his own experience. I would agree with you on this point. But it is hard to explain why Paul had his experience in the first place. You have multiple appearances of Jesus at different times, locations, and different people from different backgrounds. Hallucinations simply don’t account for all the data. The only data in 1 Cor. 15 is Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to him and his statement that Jesus appeared to others. Nothing in this passage tells us that Paul knew any details about his own appearance or any of the others that would point to a physical encounter rather an apparition. He may well have understood these appearances to be physical, but he doesn’t tell us anything that points us in that direction.
I agree that Paul really believed that Jesus had appeared to 500 people and had really believed that many of those people were still alive. However, his belief in that story really doesn’t tell us anything more than that he considered his source for the story reliable. Many people are absolutely convinced that the Virgin Mary appeared at Lourdes and Fatima and they would challenge anyone to investigate the evidence for themselves. That really doesn’t make the case for the apparitions of Mary particularly convincing. By the same token, I don’t think we have sufficient basis to conclude that a modern historian would be the convinced by the evidence that convinced Paul and formed the basis for his proclamation to the Corinthians, particularly since Paul’s own experience would make him considerably less skeptical than the historian would be.
Next you mentioned that 1Cor. 15 provides no details that point to a physical manifestation. Perhaps you are right, but being that Paul was a Jewish man would he feel the need to make it clear that it was a physical resurrection? Didn’t the Jewish people of Paul’s time associate resurrection with a bodily resurrection? Doesn’t this argument cut both ways though? If Paul did not see the need to communicate any details in order to show that the resurrection was physical, doesn’t it also follow that he wouldn’t have needed any details himself in order to believe that is was physical? Wouldn’t he have interpreted a visionary or hallucinatory experience as being a physical experience simply because that was his understanding of resurrection? Wouldn’t all the apostles have done that?
However, the pagans did not have the Jewish understanding of physical resurrection. As Christianity became a gentile religion rather than a Jewish one, it would become necessary to add details to the appearance stories in order to make it clear that this was a physical resurrection rather than merely a spiritual one. In that light, Mark’s empty tomb story makes perfect sense as an initial attempt to communicate the physicality of the resurrection to a pagan audience. The Jewish Christians wouldn’t have needed such a story.
Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 15 illustrate this very problem? Paul is trying to explain the nature of the resurrection to an audience that is not primarily Jewish. 1 Cor. 12:2. It would have been the perfect point at which to mention the empty tomb and the other appearance details that demonstrate the physicality of the resurrection. Paul doesn’t do this though. A reasonable explanation for this is that these stories were not part of the tradition yet because Jewish Christians didn’t need them.
Now, your explanation of Mark’s possible motivation for having the women find the empty tomb is admittedly a good thought, but it doesn’t seem to fit the evidence. Dr. William Lane Craig, a scholar who has done extensive work on the resurrection, suggests that due to the language and grammar, it is clear that Mark got his entire passion narrative from an earlier source. This makes your suggestion less likely. The earlier the source of the passion narrative gets, the less likely it becomes that your suggestion is true.Dr. Craig is certainly a learned man and he is a terrific debater, but I don’t think his conclusion deserves any greater weight than that of any other scholar. I have heard him say that even if the evidence was going against his position, he would continue to believe because of the witness of the Holy Spirit in his heart. I don’t doubt that his hypothesis is a reasonable one, but I think he has a tendency to declare matters “clear” when in fact they are subject to considerable scholarly debate.
I also think that you may be incorrect about the reason for the persecution of early Christians. Nero persecuted the Christians because he needed someone to blame for the fire in Rome that he had started. He wouldn’t have cared what they believed. He just needed a scapegoat. Since both Paul and Peter may have died in this persecution, we can’t really say that they died for their belief in the resurrection even if they were willing to.
Since the pagan religions of Rome recognized a multitude of state gods, local gods, and family gods, there isn’t anything in Christian beliefs that would have bothered them. What bothered them was the fact that Christians wouldn’t participate in the sacrifices and worship that kept the pagan gods happy. Whenever anything went wrong that suggested the pagan gods had withheld their favor, the Christians made handy scapegoats.
Unless you have evidence that a believer was given the opportunity save himself by recanting his belief in the resurrection, you really don’t have conclusive proof that he was willing to die for that belief. The Nazi’s killed many Jews just because they were Jewish, but since the Jews were not given the opportunity to escape death by renouncing Judaism, you can’t conclude that they willingly died for it. I think there is some evidence of that Christians were given the opportunity to recant in later persecutions, but I don’t think that there is much evidence that this was true in the first century.