Resurrection Article

Its my intention in this article to establish historicity for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Using a historical methodology and minimal facts, I think this can be proven as an actual event.


Fact one: The Crucifixion, Death, and Burial

Even among atheists and agnostics, scholars almost universaly agree that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by the Romans. There is small contention among a radical fringe that maintain that either a) Jesus was not the man on the cross, or b) Jesus did not actually die on the cross. I find these to be wild assertions, that aren’t backed by any evidence. In fact, there seems to be ample evidence that Jesus was in fact the man on the cross, and that he most certainly died on it.

The Romans were highly trained soldiers. It must be supposed that they would have realized if they had put the wrong person on the cross. Not only that, but the Pharisees or the crowd leading to Calvary surely would have caught the error. After all, a sign post stating his crime was carried ahead of Jesus, and then attached to his cross. It said, “THIS IS JESUS KING OF THE JEWS“. This would seem to be positive identification.

The Romans were also highly trained executioners. They had designed crucifixion for maximum torture and prolonged death. Often, victims would hang on the cross for days before they died. Studies have shown that when victims were nailed to the cross, the nails were pierced through the median nerves in the hands. This would have caused unbelievable pain. Soldiers in World War II were actually discharged for median nerve injuries, as the pain kept them from fighting. Simply put, the Romans were experts at execution. It’s a logical conclusion that Jesus would not have come down from the cross alive. These were soldiers doing a job they had probably done many times before. They also had a vested interest, as Roman soldiers were often punished for not doing a job correctly.

There is also another piece of often over-looked evidence from the Gospel of Mark. It interlocks the death and burial, and smacks of historical authenticity. It comes from Mark 15:42:

42 And now evening having come, seeing it was the preparation, that is, the fore-Sabbath,
43 Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counselor, who also himself was waiting for the reign of God, came, boldly entered in unto Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate wondered if he were already dead, and having called near the centurion, did question him if he were long dead,
45 and having known [it] from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.
46 And he, having brought fine linen, and having taken him down, wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre that had been hewn out of a rock, and he rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre,
47 and Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of Joses, were beholding where he is laid.
YLT
This is an amazing passage. The very small fringe of scholars who maintain Jesus din’t die cite his short time on the cross as evidence. We see here that even Pilate was astonished at how quick Jesus died. So astonished, that he even verifies with the centurion that Jesus has indeed died. He then grants the body to Joseph of Arimethia, which under the political circumstances in which Jesus was crucified, would have been perfectly reasonable. Often historians try to find underlying layers in documents that help determine accuracy of the account. I would want to say that this is one of those layers. In the first century, there would have been no positive motive on the writers part to include this passage. It seems it was included just as a statement of fact. Besides, Joseph of Arimethia was a Pharisee, and Pilate a Gentile. If this was inventive on the disciples’ part, they would not have portrayed either in a favorable light.

Fact Two: The empty tomb

The second minimal fact that scholars across the board agree on is the empty tomb. I will again appeal to the Gospels and Luke 24:

1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.
2 But they found the stone rolled away from the tomb.
3 Then they went in and did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it happened, as they were greatly perplexed about this, that behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
5 Then, as they were afraid and bowed their faces to the earth, they said to them, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee,
7 saying, 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.'"
8 And they remembered His words.
9 Then they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest.
10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles.
11 And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them.
12 But Peter arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen cloths lying by themselves; and he departed, marveling to himself at what had happened.
NKJV

We see again the underlying historical layers. It is almost certain, and attested in 1 Corinthians 15, that if any invention was present the women would not have been written as discovering the empty tomb. Also, the amazing words of the angels, “Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee”, Affirming that even the ones closest to Jesus had completely mis-understood him. Then, the women going back to tell Peter and the rest what they had seen. But yet, they still didn’t believe, as if they were idle tales. Peter then getting up and running to the tomb, stooping down to look in as if he were afraid, and seeing the linens lying on the stone. What a fascinating passage! There’s enormous detail here, the kind you would expect in a first hand historical account.

We can establish historicity of the empty tomb in another way: veneration. It’s widely attested that Jesus’ tomb was not venerated by his earliest followers. Throughout Jewish history, veneration was common at the tombs of influential figures. Therefore, we have to ask why Jesus’ tomb wasn’t venerated, and the answer to that is probably because it was known to be empty.

The empty tomb is also attested by Jesus’ enemies as well. Almost immediately, the Pharisees were circulating that the tomb was empty because the disciples had stolen the body. The Romans also claimed they had fallen asleep guarding the tomb and the disciples had snuck in and stolen the body. Of course, these are highly illogical claims, as we wouldn’t expect a rabble of eleven men to sneak past twelve to twenty Roman soldiers, roll away a stone, and take a body without waking a soul. It does remain solid indirect evidence for an empty tomb.

Fact Three: The Jerusalem Factor, The Apostles death, and James

The earliest books of the New Testament (Mark and Galatians) are generally agreed to have been written in the early to mid forties of the first century. Up to these first writings, the message was communicated orally. Its also generally agreed that oral tradition was quite important in early Judaism, and therefore was communicated with accuracy. I point to this because with the amount of attention early Christianity got, there must have been people alive when those first books were written. If Jesus hadn’t been crucified, if He hadn’t actually died, and if the tomb wasn’t empty you would have expected someone to just produce Him or His dead body and just end the controversy. Whether it be the Roman Authorities, or the Jewish Sanhedrin, they clearly weren’t able to refute lowly peasant fisherman’s accounts of what happened. If they would have just produced a body or showed He wasn’t on the cross, we wouldn’t even be talking about Christianity today.

Its established early church tradition that all but one of the Apostles died a martyrs death. Peter was forced to watch his wife being crucified while he shouted “Remember the Lord”. He was then crucified upside down, because he didn’t think himself worthy of being crucified in the manner of Jesus. Now, why would a man, let alone countless others, die a horrible death for something that was a lie? A common argument to that is the example of the 9/11 highjackers, or suicide bombers dying for their cause. This argument doesn’t work though. The highjackers have been indoctrinated into religious extremism most likely from birth. Lets just be honest here, if you taught someone from birth that they were a dog, and they could only use the restroom outside, chances are they would not believe in their humanity, and be hiking their legs at every tree. It wasn’t like that for the disciples, they were Jews brought up in a very strong Jewish tradition. That’s why they couldn’t wrap their heads around the way Jesus was to die. To buck Jewish tradition couldn’t have been easy for them, even to the point of them all running away in despair when the authorities came for Jesus. Yet forty days later, we see them openly declaring that they had seen a risen Jesus, and He was truly the Messiah. Truthfully, this had to also be embarrassing to them. Jewish Messiahs did not die on crosses, it was a sign of shame and criminality. So, here we have men defying their whole religious upbringing and culture, proclaiming this resurrection in the face of embarassment and the constant threat of death, all after they had run at Jesus’ arrest. Even the most liberal scholars agree that the disciples saw something, they just don’t agree on what. To be perfectly honest, they are so mystified by it, that they use arguments like group hallucinations and non-physical apparitions. Let me just conclude this section with a question. If someone you loved, claiming to be God, came to you physically after you saw them die, would you deny that person to the man about to cut your head off?

That brings us to James, the brother of Jesus. It’s clear from the New Testament that James does not believe in the divinity of his own brother, Jesus. I can probably understand that. If my older brother one day decided to make claims to the effect of being the redemption of Isreal and the world, I certainly would have a hard time with that. James is a good example, because he seems to be a reasonable man. I think it was reasonable for him not believe Jesus’ claims all the way up to the cross. I can imagine he felt like Jesus was bringing bad attention to his family, and tearing it apart. I often wonder when Jesus says that He has come to divide families, if it was in the midst of some conflict of His own family, and He was experiencing it first hand. We would do good to remember Jesus was a man with real feelings, just like us. The funny thing about James is that after the ressurrection, he becomes the leader of the Christian movement. Why would James go from thinking his brother was a lunatic, to believing Jesus was the Son of God? He had to have seen something he couldn’t explain. The most reasonable explanation has to be that James saw the risen Jesus, and then, after putting everything together, believed. It is a historical fact recorded by Flavius Josephus that James had his head cut of by Herod for proclaiming this message. All he had to do was tell them it was a lie, but he didn’t. This is an astonishing turn of opinion.

Fact Four: Paul and 1 Corinthians 15


Here we have another astonishing turn around with Paul. Paul was a devout Jew who studied under the most prominent Pharisee of the first century, Rabbi Gamaliel. Paul, by his own admission, was a persecuter of the earliest Christians. He is said to have initiated the stoning of Stephan, and conducted numerous raids on Christians. On the road to round up more Christians, Paul claims to have seen and talked to the Risen Jesus. From that point on, of course, Paul becomes converted, and eventually this leads to his beheading at the hands of Nero. Its obvious to most scholars that Paul indeed experienced something. Again, as to what caused it happen, the debate rages on. Paul had nothing to gain from his conversion. He likely already had money, which he gave up (sorry prosperity preachers), and he was very prominent within his society. He just wouldn’t throw all that away for nothing.

First Corinthians is usually agreed to have been written by Paul about c.55AD. In the fifteenth chapter we have an early creed handed down to Paul:


3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
NKJV

We know that this a creed because Paul introduces it with “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received”. Rabbis in first century Judaism used these words to denote something of factual importance in which they have learned of. Paul asserts the resurrection, the fact that James saw the risen Jesus, to more than five hundred brethren, to which Paul implies can still be found to back up his story. He refers to Jesus with the title Christ, and establishes that He appeared to himself also. Notice in this creed that Paul does not mention the women first finding the empty tomb. I think this is significant in showing that the synoptic Gospels were actually earlier than 55AD. It would make perfect sense for Paul to omit the women due to the fact that he probably felt like it would hurt his case for the resurrection, as womens testimony at that time was usually considered invalid. Conservative scholars date this creed around c35AD, and there are some scholars who actually believe this creed came into being just months after death of Jesus.

Conclusion

I haven’t really stated any new arguments here, however, they remain minimal facts that almost all scholars agree on. It is a presupposition on my part to believe the testimony of the New Testament. When treated like any other historical document, and researched based on the criteria of dissimilarity, multiple attestation, coherence, and embarassment, the New Testament holds up quite well and doesn’t become a huge stretch to presuppose its accuracy. There are however, many more arguments to the reliability of the accounts and the resurrection, the above are just widely agreed on. I will save those for another day. It’s my conclusion that the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus actually did rise from the dead, and therefore backed up His claim as being the Son of God.