JesusofNazarethrosefromthetomb |
HISTORICAL EVALUATION
by Rick Gerhardt
Introduction
Beginning in the early 4th decade A.D., an unlikely group of people began a movement, a sort of Jewish cult noted for its humility, love, and fearlessness. This ragtag band of mostly uneducated folks was largely despised by its own people, the Jews, who were themselves a minor race conquered by—but allowed to persist within—the Roman Empire. The new cult itself was less tolerated by the government, primarily because its followers refused to pledge their ultimate allegiance to Caesar. Instead, they pledged their lives to—and frequently sacrificed them on behalf of—a man they called Messiah and Lord, a man that the Romans (at the request of the Jewish religious leaders) had publicly executed by the humiliating and excruciating method known as crucifixion. Of course, Rome at the time had many ways of exterminating disloyal citizens and troublemakers, and this particular movement of the lunatic fringe really stood no chance of surviving the combined wrath of its own countrymen and the Empire.
In the most unlikely turn of events in all human history, however, the Roman Empire is long dead, and it is this group of Jewish outcasts whose followers—who came to be called “Christians”—have persisted and thrived right up to our day. We now name our children after those earliest Christians, while we name our pets after the Roman rulers of that period (Caesar, Nero). The very dating system to which I referred a moment ago is testimony to the importance that Western civilization has placed on the life of this “Messiah,” the man called Jesus of Nazareth. Moreover, it is Christians who have explored and colonized new lands and—wherever they have gone—promoted literacy and established schools, universities, and hospitals. It was Christians who gave birth to modern science, who founded the nation that is currently the world’s most powerful and influential, and who successfully campaigned to abolish human slavery both there and in England.1 Given the extent to which this Christianity has changed the history of Western civilization, explaining its rise from such unpromising beginnings would seem to be one of the most valuable and intriguing of pursuits.
Central to the tenets of this movement was—and still is—the belief that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, as he (and ancient Jewish prophets) foretold.2 It was their personal belief that they had seen their Lord alive again after his death that was given as the reason the early Christians faced martyrdom so gladly. One such follower, the Apostle Paul, wrote to the early church at Corinth that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was the true historical event without which their new faith was worthless.3 For Paul—who himself claimed to have seen the risen Jesus and who eventually died for this belief—Christianity was based on that central fact. In this paper, I will—by examining the historical evidence—show that the best explanation for the rise of Christianity is that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead.
Historical facts regarding Jesus
I do not intend to argue that the New Testament, our primary source for information on this issue, is (as Christians believe) the inspired word of God, and thus to be accepted uncritically. If the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus were confirmed, then a reasonable, corollary conclusion of that confirmation might be that the New Testament is completely true. But to also begin with that as a premise would constitute the fallacy of arguing in a circle.
Instead, I will adopt a “minimal facts” approach,4 which uses only historically-established facts, those that are admitted to by virtually all researchers, including the harshest and most skeptical.”5 A list of such facts follows.
- Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
- He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
- Soon afterward, the disciples were discouraged, bereaved, and despondent, having lost hope.
- Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his internment.
- The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the risen Jesus.
- Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed, even being willing to die for this belief.
- The proclamation of the resurrection took place very early, at the beginning of church history.
- The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.
- The Gospel message centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus.
- Sunday became the primary day for gathering and worshipping.
- James, the brother of Jesus and a former skeptic, was converted when, he believed, he saw the risen Jesus.
- Just a few years later, Saul of Tarsus (Paul) became a Christian believer due to an experience that he believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.6
Naturalistic explanations
We can use these established facts as a test for the explanatory power of the various ideas about what really happened. That is, any explanation for the alleged resurrection and for the rise of Christianity can be examined to see whether it corresponds to and satisfactorily accounts for each of these facts. It should be obvious that each and every one of these facts fits perfectly with the Christian explanation. Jesus died, and remained in the tomb until the third day. He was raised from the dead, and really did appear to the disciples and others before ascending to heaven. On this view, the resurrection vindicated—even more than had his (alleged) healings and other miracles—his claims to being Messiah, God, and Lord. The question is: how well and completely do other hypotheses fit these facts?
One alternative explanation that has been offered is the hallucination theory—the idea that the disciples and others each had hallucinations that they took to be the risen Christ. When compared against the list of accepted facts, this theory fails to account for points 4, 11, and 12. That is, this idea doesn’t explain the empty tomb or the conversion of either James or Saul, two men with no emotional motivation to see a risen Jesus in whom they did not believe in the first place. The disciples were not expecting Jesus to rise, either before7 or even shortly after8 they first saw him. Moreover, the different people, times, and places involved in the circumstances surrounding these appearances argue strongly against the idea that all involved hallucinations. In addition, hallucinations do not usually account for life-long transformations of an entire group of people. Subjective visions do not explain the willingness of so many people to die for their belief in the risen Jesus. Other problems with this hypothesis could be demonstrated,9 but these are enough to show why scholars have abandoned it.10
Every other naturalistic theory likewise fails to account for all of these facts in the satisfactory way that the Christian explanation does. Such theories include the wrong tomb theory, the unknown tomb theory, the swoon theory,11 the Passover plot theory, the ideas that the body of Jesus was stolen by the disciples12 or by the authorities, and others. One of the most popular—at least in American university courses—is the theory that the resurrection was a legend that developed in the decades following Christ’s life. Despite its popularity, this theory fails to account for any of the twelve historical facts in the list, and further fails to account for the fact that belief in a bodily resurrection of Jesus can be traced to within two to five years of the crucifixion event.13 All of these naturalistic theories have been abandoned by serious historical scholars, even liberal ones.14
Conclusion
Obviously, that Jesus actually rose from the dead cannot be shrugged off as merely an unexpected conclusion of an academic exercise. Rather, it comes with several ramifications, some of them both important and personal. This is especially true since Jesus’ earthly message related his resurrection to the existence and activity of God. Indeed, a reasonable conclusion that flows from his resurrection is that it was God who raised him15 and that this raising represented God’s approval and vindication of Jesus’ overall teaching.16 Since a central part of what Jesus taught had to do with the “Kingdom of God,” including salvation and eternal life and how to obtain them, the conclusion that these teachings were approved by God has universal application, and demands the serious consideration of anyone seeking to understand the meaning of life. The power of resurrection that transformed Jesus’ early disciples and radically altered the course of human history continues to this day to change lives, to offer meaning, purpose, and life that is both abundant17 and eternal.18
1 These claims are merely a matter of historical record. The only one that is controversial today is that Christians founded modern science. This, too, is a matter of record, even though many present-day scientists (who themselves take a naturalistic approach) seem unaware of this. For more on these claims, see Thomas S. Torrance, Reality and Scientific Theology (Edinburgh, U.K.: Scottish Academic Press, 1985), and Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003).
2 Gary R. Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), viii.
4 In-depth development of this argument can be found in Gary. R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 143-170 and Habermas, Risen Jesus, 3-51.
7 Luke 24:11, 21-24; John 20:9, 19.
8 Matthew 28:17; Luke 24:37-39; John 20:25; 21:4.
9 Habermas, Risen Jesus, 10-12.
11 For researchers in this area, this theory has been refuted and debunked along with the other naturalistic theories. Nonetheless, this one remains central to the Islamic understanding of Jesus.
12 This idea was current in the first century, as recorded in Matthew 28:11-15.
13 Habermas, Historical Jesus, 148-157.
14 Habermas discusses this (on pp. 12-15 of The Risen Jesus) and provides a long list of scholars who acknowledge the failure of such theories (in endnotes 56-63, pp. 38-39).