Posted: February 28th, 2023

SHORT ARGUMENT: JESUS THE RESURRECTION AND THE WAY

Need help with SHORT ARGUMENT: JESUS THE RESURRECTION AND THE WAY ASSIGNMENT 

CHAPTER 7

Jesus’s Resurrection

In 458 BC the Greek poet Aeschylus’s Eumenides, which portrays the legendary trial of Orestes for the murder of his mother, was first performed. In a pivotal scene before the Areopagus, an ancient court on the outskirts of Athens, Apollo asserts:

Once the dust drinks down a man’s blood,

he is gone, once for all. No rising back,

no spell sung over the grave can sing him back—

not even Father [Zeus] can.

Just over 500 years later, an equally compelling scene unfolded before the Areopagus: the apostle Paul there proclaimed that Jesus of Nazareth had, in fact, been raised from the dead (Acts 17:31). Is Jesus’s resurrection fact or fiction?

If true, the resurrection of Jesus is the central event of human history. The truth and meaningfulness of the Christian faith rests on this event. As Paul says in 1 Cor 15:14, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty” (NET). For their part, opponents of Christianity for centuries have rejected the resurrection, dismissing it as a fabrication of the early church. Our task in this chapter, therefore, is to consider the historical evidence—this is a historical inquiry, after all—for the resurrection of Jesus. As we will see, Jesus’s resurrection is a well-attested historical event.

Curiously, many people dismiss Jesus’s resurrection out of hand, without even considering the evidence. Why? Because it is a miracle, and, they assume, miracles are impossible. As we saw in chapter 4, though, miracles are impossible only if God does not exist. But we established in chapter 3 that there are convincing reasons to think God does exist, which means miracles are possible and we cannot rationally write them off. And if God exists, and God chooses to intervene in history by performing some miracle, then there is no reason why that miracle cannot be the object of historical and scientific study—that is, there is no reason why a genuine miracle cannot be known from the standpoint of history.

Before turning to the historical evidence, it is interesting to realize that Jesus actually predicted his resurrection on several occasions (Matt 12:40; 16:21; Mark 8:31; John 2:19–22), thus casting the event in a theological frame. If Jesus claimed to have divine authority, and if he predicted that he would rise from the dead, and if he in fact did rise from the dead, then it seems we have genuine evidence of a miracle and historical verification of Jesus’s claims about himself.

Three Established Facts

What evidence is there that Jesus rose from the dead? There are three “minimal facts,” agreed upon by almost all biblical scholars (including many who deny the resurrection), which must be explained. Like a detective whose theory of a crime must account for all the relevant clues, we must insist on an explanation that adequately accommodates all three facts. These are the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus, and the disciples’ coming to believe in the resurrection. Each of these enjoys the support of several evidences which must be taken seriously. In light of the evidence that Jesus’s tomb was indeed empty, that Jesus did make multiple appearances following his death, and that the disciples’ faith cannot be accounted for apart from their coming to believe in the resurrection, these facts point to one explanation: God raised Jesus from the dead.

Since we cannot travel back in time, though, how can we possibly establish any historical facts? To begin with we can agree that the past is fixed—what has happened has happened, and nothing can change that. We may sometimes wish we could change the past, but because it is “mindindependent” we cannot. We may, of course, refuse to believe something has happened (e.g., that the San Antonio Spurs lost the 2013 NBA finals), but alas, we cannot thereby change history. As responsible historians, rather, we must consider the evidence left behind by history. Like detectives seeking to understand certain clues, we examine the historical evidence available to us, draw inferences from what this evidence suggests must have happened, and accept the explanation that best accounts for the evidence.

Three Minimal Facts:

1. The empty tomb
2. Jesus’s postmortem appearances
3. Disciples’ belief in the resurrection

The Empty Tomb

According to the canonical Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—Jesus was killed on a Roman cross and buried in a sealed and guarded tomb, and yet on Easter morning his tomb was found empty by several of his followers. That the tomb was found empty is scarcely in dispute—the question, rather, is why it was found empty. By itself an empty tomb, after all, does not immediately prove Jesus was raised from the dead—although an empty tomb is essential to the resurrection theory. Let us unpack the evidence for the empty tomb.
All four Gospels explicitly affirm that Jesus’s tomb was found empty (Matt 28:5–7; Mark 16:4–6; Luke 24:3–6; John 20:1–8). The first supporting evidence for the empty tomb account is that it is found in multiple, independent sources. Why does that matter? For a couple of reasons. First, historians consider an account more reliable if it is found in independent sources because this provides corroboration of the account. As the ancient historian Paul Maier explains, “Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable.” In addition to the four Gospels, the empty tomb is assumed in 1 Cor 15:3–8, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:29–32, and Paul’s sermon in Acts 13:36–37. Even if Matthew and Luke used Mark’s earlier Gospel as a common source (as seems possible, given their frequently identical wording), it’s likely both also drew from independent sources, as well.
Not only is our first fact widely corroborated, the earliest account that the tomb was found empty dates to within five years of Jesus’s death—again, astonishingly early! The claim of an empty tomb is contained in the pre-Pauline creed found in 1 Cor 15:3–7. As we emphasized in chapter 5, this creed dates to within five years of Jesus’s crucifixion.
The second supporting evidence for the fact of the empty tomb is that the Gospels tell us it was several of Jesus’s women followers who made the initial discovery (Matt 28:1; Mark 16:9; Luke 24:1; John 20:11). In today’s culture this seems inconsequential, but in first-century Jewish society the testimony of women was not well-regarded. The Talmud (a collection of traditional rabbinic teachings), for example, says, “Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women” (Sotah 19a). Or again: “Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer).… This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman” (Rosh Hashanah 1.8). The ancient Jewish historian Josephus likewise records, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.”
Given their low social status, why would the Gospel writers portray women as the first discoverers of a fact as momentous as the empty tomb? If the testimony of women was of no more account than that of criminals, then this portrayal threatens to undermine the credibility of that fact. If the early church had been attempting to save face by inventing a legend about Jesus, selecting women as the first to encounter the empty tomb would have been foolish given the availability of far more credible witnesses (e.g., Peter, Nicodemus, or perhaps one of the priests mentioned in Acts 6:7). Selecting women would seem calculated to convince no one! As if the testimony of women were not “embarrassing” enough, disciples are portrayed as not even believing the testimony of his resurrection (Mark 16:11; Luke 24:11). The presence of such “embarrassing facts” (i.e., claims or details that may be perceived as awkward or discomfiting to an author or, in this case, the church, because they “embarrass” one’s position) indicates truthfulness because they are unlikely to have been invented and included by the early church.
The third supporting evidence for the fact of the empty tomb is, ironically, the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection itself. In Matt 28:11–15 we read:
As they were on their way, some of the guards came into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. After the priests had assembled with the elders and agreed on a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money and told them, “Say this, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him while we were sleeping.’ If this reaches the governor’s ears, we will deal with him and keep you out of trouble.” They took the money and did as they were instructed, and this story has been spread among Jewish people to this day.

Empty Tomb—Supporting Evidence

1. Found in multiple, independent sources
2. Initially discovered by women followers
3. Presupposed in earliest Jewish polemic

No doubt Matthew responded to this story because it was being spread around Jerusalem (for if there were no empty tomb, it’s difficult to imagine a body-stealing story arising). Indeed, his response is pointless unless it was common knowledge in Jerusalem that Jesus’s tomb had been found empty. But focus on the Jewish leadership’s allegation: that the disciples stole Jesus’s body. If Jesus’s corpse had remained in the tomb, wouldn’t the authorities simply have produced the body, thereby squashing any resurrection rumors? Of all the imaginable charges (e.g., that the disciples were crazy or simply had gone to the wrong tomb), the priests tellingly chose one that presupposes the fact of the empty tomb. In light of these three supporting evidences, we regard the fact that Jesus’s tomb was found empty as well established. By itself, does this fact prove the resurrection theory? No, it does not—but it does mean that whatever theory we arrive at must be able to explain why the tomb was found empty.

Jesus’s Postmortem Appearances

It is unlikely, as we have seen, that the early church fabricated the empty-tomb reports. To suggest they lied about our second fact—namely, that following his death, Jesus made numerous appearances—would give a whole new meaning to the expression “go big or go home.” The fact is that on multiple occasions after his death and burial, Jesus appeared alive to different people. Imagine it! “Well,” you’re perhaps thinking, “Jesus was dead—they must have imagined it.” But does not such thinking reveal a biased assumption of naturalism? There are at least three telltale features of the appearance accounts that prompt scholars to regard the fact of Jesus’s postmortem appearances as authentic.
Paul reports in 1 Cor 15:5–8 not only that Jesus made numerous postmortem appearances to others, but that he personally saw the Lord Jesus alive after his death (cf. Acts 9:1–9). This is no less than a list of eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus. This “most important” report, Paul says, was entrusted to him—and in light of its extremely early date, he must have received it shortly after his conversion to Christianity. The contents of the report are compelling: in addition to appearing separately to Cephas (Peter), then the twelve disciples, then to James, then to all the apostles, and then to Paul, Jesus is said to have appeared to more than 500 people at one time. If this is a lie, its audacity is breathtaking! Yet in his next breath Paul notes that “most of them are still alive, but some have fallen asleep” (v. 6). Why include this detail? Surely because this group was available to corroborate his claim, which is our first supporting evidence of this fact. In short, Paul invited those skeptical of his claim to go and question the witnesses themselves. Paul could never have said this if his report were a fabrication, for in that case there would be no witnesses to interview.
In addition to Paul’s claims in 1 Corinthians 15, the Gospels report postmortem appearances of Jesus to several of his followers, thereby providing multiple, independent sources for this fact. We have already seen that historians consider an account more reliable if it is found in independent sources because this provides corroboration of the account. Interestingly, the Gospels include appearances that Paul did not mention—for example, to the two men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13–15), to the women at the empty tomb (independently attested in Matt 28:9–10 and John 20:11–17)—and vice versa (e.g., to the group of 500 people). However, we do find that some of the same appearances Paul listed are referred to in the Gospels: to Peter (Luke 24:34) and to the twelve disciples (Luke 24:36–43; John 20:19–20). Such independent corroboration provides strong evidence that many of Jesus’s followers did in fact experience appearances of Jesus alive after his death. Notice that these appearances were not vague, ghostlike apparitions (such as the wispy phantom of Creusa’s appearance to Aeneas, who tried in vain three times “to encircle her neck with my arms”). Jesus’s postmortem appearances, rather, were markedly physical in nature: in addition to being visible, Jesus walked and talked with people, touched people, and even ate meals with them.
A third piece of evidence that supports this fact is that Jesus appeared to unbelievers as well as to believers. Most of the people to whom Jesus appeared alive after his death were among his followers. James (the half brother of Jesus) and Paul (known then as Saul of Tarsus), however, were not followers of Jesus before his death. We know from John’s Gospel (7:1–5; cf. Mark 3:21, 31–32) that Jesus’s half-brothers did not believe him to be the Messiah, and by his own admission Paul ardently persecuted those who followed Jesus (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:5–6). That James and Paul were not believers when Jesus appeared to them is important for at least two reasons. First, it means neither of them, at the time of their respective experiences, was predisposed to believe Jesus to be the risen Christ. Quite the contrary, in fact. Yet incredibly James became a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:13–21; Gal 2:9), and Paul became a Christian missionary. This means, secondly, that we must ask what precipitated their changes of heart? This question becomes especially poignant when we recall that both men eventually were put to death for their faith in Jesus as the Christ. Surely their having seen the risen Lord is the only explanation for such dramatic conversions, and—not coincidentally—this is precisely the reason we find at the center of Paul’s own testimony.
Before turning to our third fact, perhaps it would be helpful to contrast the postmortem appearance accounts with legendary accounts. In its popular usage today, the word “legendary” means “awesome” or “impressive,” and is frequently used as a superlative. When historians use the word, however, it is to contrast a fictional, mythical, or otherwise distorted account from a historically reliable account. Recall our earlier example of the ever-growing fish from chapter 5. Is it possible that the postmortem appearance accounts found in the New Testament are similarly nonhistorical, being based on legend that (at some point) crept into the Christian tradition?
It seems not. As we have seen, the appearance accounts are not based on hearsay transmissions. Paul personally spoke with James, Peter, and John about their experiences. Paul recounted his own experience firsthand, and given his knowledge that many of the 500 witnesses were still alive, it seems reasonable to assume he had firsthand accounts from at least some of them, as well. Not only are these accounts based on firsthand experience; they date to within a few short years of Jesus’s crucifixion—remember: Paul received the creed of 1 Cor 15:3–7 and met with James and Peter in Jerusalem within five years of Jesus’s death. Why does that matter? It matters because, as William Lane Craig explains, “even the span of two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.” In short, five years is nowhere near sufficient time for the growth of enough legend to obscure the fact(s) of Jesus’s postmortem appearances. Add to this the presence of living witnesses—people who knew what did and did not actually happen—who would have prevented the spread of false legend, and we see there is no reason whatsoever to confuse the postmortem appearance accounts with legend.

Jesus’s Postmortem Appearances—Supporting Evidence

1. Many of the 500 were available to corroborate
2. Found in multiple, independent sources
3. Jesus appeared to unbelievers as well

The Disciples’ Belief in the Resurrection

For several years Jesus’s disciples faithfully followed him, believing, as Peter exclaimed to Jesus, that “You are the Messiah” (Mark 8:29; cf. John 1:41). They traveled extensively with Jesus, believed his teaching, and observed him performing miracles. They were his friends. Our third fact—that Jesus’s disciples came to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead—may therefore seem odd. These men were, after all, Jesus’s disciples—of course they of all people would believe in his resurrection—big surprise!
When we consider the full story of the disciples, however, we find it is something of a surprise, actually. Immediately following Judas’s betrayal and the arrest of Jesus, the disciples all “deserted him and ran away” (Matt 26:56; Mark 14:50). Peter, at least, followed furtively behind the arresting party (Mark 14:54), but when confronted altogether disowned Jesus (Mark 14:66–72; John 18:15–27). Following Jesus’s death, the fearful disciples hid out in a locked room (John 20:19). Although we must be careful not to read too much into this, it is somewhat surprising to find that seven of the disciples are off fishing in Galilee—after having seen the risen Lord (John 21)! No doubt the two disciples on the road to Emmaus vocalized the shared sentiment of Jesus’s followers when they lamented: “We were hoping that he was the one who was about to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). In the disciples’ minds, though, these hopes had been dashed on the rocks of Jesus’s death. And yet each of the disciples soon after came boldly to preach (e.g., Acts 2:32–36) that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Tellingly, they came to preach this despite tremendous risk to their own well-being, including threats, imprisonment, beatings, murder attempts, and in most cases, violent death. Their momentous change of mind is our first supporting evidence that the disciples did indeed come to believe in Jesus’s resurrection—for apart from believing in Jesus’s resurrection, the disciples’ belief in Jesus as the Messiah cannot be explained.

It is worth asking, though, why Jesus’s death on the cross was such a defeating event in the minds of the disciples. The death of an intimate friend is, of course, crippling—but something deeper is going on here: the disciples understood Jesus to be “the Messiah.” The concept of the Messiah is rich with meaning in Judeo-Christian thought, but in short the Messiah is the person specifically chosen by God to save his people. By the time of Jesus, the Jewish people long had anticipated the arrival of the Messiah—and over time their anticipation came to include certain moral, political, and religious expectations. Significant, though, is what we do not find amidst their expectations. As N. T. Wright explains: “Jewish beliefs about a coming Messiah, and about the deeds such a figure would be expected to accomplish, came in various shapes and sizes, but they did not include a shameful death which left the Roman empire celebrating its usual victory.” It was simply unthinkable that the Messiah would die (much less that he would die a shameful death on a Roman cross). This is why when Jesus foretold his impending suffering and death, Peter “took him aside and began to rebuke him, ‘Oh no, Lord! This will never happen to you!’ ” (Matt 16:22). Yet against all expectations Peter and the other disciples, after Jesus’s death, came once again to regard Jesus as the Messiah. That their change of heart simply cannot be explained apart from their believing they had seen the risen Jesus is strong supporting evidence that they firmly believed in the resurrection of Jesus.

Disciples’ Belief in Resurrection—Supporting Evidence

1. Disciples’ momentous change of mind: willing to preach resurrection
2. Disciples’ momentous change of mind: once again regard Jesus as Messiah

Explaining the Facts

These three facts—the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances of Jesus, and the disciples’ belief in Jesus’s resurrection—each enjoy strong support and are therefore historically well-established. Our task, like that of a detective, is to identify which theory best explains these facts. The best theory, of course, must explain all the facts, not just one or two of them. A detective who theorizes that I am the thief because (1) a witness spotted me in the vicinity and (2) footprints matching my shoes were found in the vault does have a theory of the crime, but not a good theory of the crime because he has ignored (3) the surveillance video of you running out of the bank, carrying sacks of cash. Like detectives, we must insist on a theory that can explain all three of our facts. Further, it must not only explain them; the best theory must make sense of the facts in a way that no competing theory can match. The theory that God miraculously raised Jesus from the dead obviously explains all three facts, but what about alternative explanations of the facts?

Naturalist Explanations

Over the course of history, alternative explanations for each of these three minimal facts have been offered. Space does not permit a full-scale appraisal of each, but a brief consideration of the most common naturalistic explanations of our three facts will prove instructive.
When it comes to the three minimal facts canvassed here, skeptics of the resurrection theory have typically appealed to five alternative explanations:

1. Jesus’s Disciples Stole the Body

This is, in fact, the explanation we encountered in the earliest Jewish polemic in Matt 28:11–15. If true, this would explain why Jesus’s tomb was found empty. For a handful of reasons, though, this suggestion is implausible: not only does it envision the disciples—most of whom were fishermen or tax collectors—subduing the Roman guards at the tomb, this explanation would also require that the disciples knowingly perpetuated a lie. Not only is there no positive reason to think this, there is every reason to doubt it: while someone may be willing to die for something he wholeheartedly believes, as we noted in the last chapter, no one willingly dies for something he knows to be a lie. In short, if the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus, they never would have come to believe in Jesus’s resurrection.

Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 109–120.

APOL 500

Short Argument: Jesus the Resurrection and the Way Assignment

Instructions

Overview

Some attacks that cast doubts on Christianity come from skepticism about the resurrection. In this short argument, you will be arguing for the resurrection of Jesus, but your defense argument will depend on the type of attack you are defending the resurrection against. Whichever direction you choose to take, it will be a topic and a line of defense that you will have occasion to use in the future.

Instructions

Use a paper format for this argument. There is no template used for this assignment. The paper should be 4-5 pages long. A current Turabian format title page, footnotes, and bibliography are required.

Be sure to begin by crafting a strong thesis for your argument. The methodologies from previous assignments in this course may be useful for you in this short argument.

Naturalist Explanations for the Resurrection of Christ (Gould p. 109-19 provides good material to start your defense of the resurrection as does Sweis, Chapters 37-39; Gould in Chapter 4 “Miracles” as well as Sweis, Chapters 33-35 may also provide useful lines of argument for establishing the possibility of the resurrection; Gould in Chapter 5 “The Reliability of the New Testament” and Sweis – Chapter 31 for the historicity of the resurrection based on the reliability of the New Testament). There is more material than you need for 3-5 pages. A well-crafted thesis will help you to know what material to choose.

Choose one of the following subtopics for your argument (there are five from which to choose). Be sure to choose a topic that can be addressed through a line of argument that is different than what you have already used in this or in previous courses.

1. Jesus’s Disciples Stole the Body (Gould p. 119-20)

2. The Jewish Leaders Stole the Body (Gould p. 120)

3. Jesus Was Not Actually Dead (Gould p. 120-21)

4. The Women Went to the Wrong Tomb (Gould p. 121)

5. The Appearances of Jesus Were Hallucinations (Gould p. 121-23)

The paper must have a proper introduction and conclusion.

1. The introduction (one paragraph, 3-5 sentences, no direct quotes or citable information) must be built around the thesis statement. This thesis statement provides unity to the overall presentation, so every word of the paper must be related to and supportive of the thesis statement.

2. The conclusion (also one paragraph, 3-5 sentences, no direct quotes or citable information) must summarize the main points presented that support your thesis. This is neither an outline of your paper nor a reiteration of the argument but rather a summary of how you supported your thesis.

Including both the introduction and conclusion but not the title and bibliography pages, the total length of the paper must be 4-5 pages in current Turabian format (including the main text only, not footnotes, front matter, or the bibliography). In the final submission, assertions should be supported by 3 resources (more are allowed). Scripture should be used when applicable but does not count as one of the countable bibliographic resources. Course textbooks should be used, be footnoted and be placed in the bibliography but they do not count towards the required 3 resources.

Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

Page 2 of 2