 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are you a good person? Click here to take the quiz and win a prize! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To find out why we believe Jesus rose from the dead click here |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST BY MIKE SACKMARY NOVEMBER 2002 CONTENTS
A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF CRUCIFIXION HYPOTHESES AND FIVE FACTORS REGARDING THE RESURRECTION THE PERSISTENCE OF CHRISTIANITY APPENDIX A Photograph of a Herodian-era tomb APPENDIX B Summary Chart of the Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus
INTRODUCTION Belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. The Bible contains statements which undeniably make the assertion that Jesus rose from the dead. Some of these are Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, John 20:1-18, and 1 Cor. 15:1-11. The Bible also contains statements of prophecy which foretold of the resurrection of the Messiah.1 There is no doubt that an intellectually honest investigation into the biblical text, and the various historical records will lead the investigator to one of two major hypotheses. These are: a) that Jesus rose from the dead or b) that He did not. If the Resurrection did in fact occur then it logically follows that the event proved Jesus is the Messiah. If the Resurrection did not happen then the faith of millions of Christians is disastrously misplaced. Proponents of both conclusions cannot absolutely prove their case with empirical data. Rather, hypotheses which include consideration of all available data must inevitably reach a point of resting upon the preponderance of the evidence. Such is the nature of the debate regarding the Resurrection. Armed with an awareness of their presuppositions, scholars of integrity seek to find an explanation which best fits the available evidence. In the end, each person must decide what they believe. The truth is that the biblical account is either accurate, or it is not. Reaching one of these two conclusions, and being able to defend one’s position on the matter, is required if one is to engage in honest debate. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the evidence, arguments and conclusions regarding the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. PRESUPPOSITIONS The Pharisees, who believed in resurrection of the dead, refused to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. This phenomenon reflects human nature. When someone believes in something they also typically believe that the thing must happen in certain way. For the majority of the Pharisees, the Resurrection of Jesus posed a serious problem. If they admitted that He rose, then they also had to admit that He was Messiah. This would mean that their assumptions and rules were incorrect. If they denied that Jesus rose, then they would be guilty of eliminating from consideration much of the significant data. The problem of the Pharisees has been inherited by scholars ever since. Even in the twenty first century, investigators face the same issue. This is why it is important that scholars state their presuppositions. In so doing, they can at least make an effort to not prejudice the data. The author of this paper holds that Jesus actually died on the cross. The cause of death was the physical damage inflicted by the torture of crucifixion. After His death, Jesus resurrected Himself from the dead. He then appeared to many people. Over a period of some forty days Jesus talked, walked and ate with people. This author further assumes that the names of the four gospels reflect the identities of their human authors, through whom God worked to produce the scriptures. It is assumed that Matthew, Mark and John were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ acts before and after His Resurrection. This author’s presuppositions were formed gradually as the result of many years of inquiry into the possibility of the existence of supernatural beings and events. The presuppositions are stated here because scientific method demands that anything which may affect one’s consideration of the data must be stated. A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF CRUCIFIXION Before discussing Resurrection, one must inquire into the possibility that Jesus did not die on the cross. This is because of the fact that if the death did not occur, neither did the Resurrection. Evidence in this matter comes from two types of sources. The first source is medical knowledge regarding the processes which the human body undergoes during crucifixion. The second source is the biblical text, which provides details particular to Jesus’ crucifixion. The biblical source will be examined first. Robert H. Gundry, in his excellent work Soma in Biblical Theology establishes the fact that the terminology used in the New Testament refers to an actual physical death of Jesus.2 The reports of His death are then followed by accounts of an actual physical resurrection. The Greek terminology used also makes it clear that Jesus’ resurrected body bore the marks of His torture and execution. Rudolf Bultmann holds that the word soma refers to the “whole person”, not just the body.3 The debate over the intended use and meaning of soma and other terms has resulted in a clear division among scholars. However it seems clear that the correct conclusion is that the word was used to refer to the physical body. The biblical accounts of the crucifixion give details about the intensity of Jesus; suffering. The night before His crucifixion, Jesus sweated blood.4 In the hours immediately prior to His crucifixion, Jesus was tortured. He was beaten, spit upon, made to wear a crown of thorns. Nails were driven into His hands and feet. Finally, His cross was lifted into a vertical position. Later, a Roman soldier pierced His side, bringing forth a flow of blood and water. Jesus then died.5 The soldiers did not break Jesus legs. This was customarily done to hasten the death of the victim. But, in Jesus’ case He was already dead.6 In order to establish a hypothesis of whether Jesus really died or simply passed out, it is helpful to subject the data to analysis on the basis of current medical knowledge. First, consider the report of Jesus’ sweating blood. This condition, properly known as hematidrosis, occurs when the human body is under extreme psychological stress. The process that results in this condition is initiated when the brain releases chemicals which cause the blood capillaries in the sweat glands to break. This releases blood into the sweat, so that both fluids (blood and sweat) exit the body simultaneously through the sweat glands. A secondary effect of hematidrosis is that the skin becomes fragile. This fragility of the epidermis would have made the beatings more painful than normal. So, by the time Jesus was crucified He was already exhibiting the effects of physical and psychological stress. Many people would die from this kind of flogging.7 The Roman crucifixion process itself is well documented.8 First, the condemned person was typically beaten and flogged. Adding insult to injury the Romans would make the victim carry the crossbeam, the horizontal part of the cross, from the place of the flogging to the site of their crucifixion. The two pieces of the cross were assembled. The victim was nailed to the cross. Nails were driven through each wrist. The feet were crossed one on top of the other. Then a single nail was driven through both feet. These nails were approximately the size and shape of nine inch long railroad spikes. Sometimes ropes were used to help bind the person’s arms to the lateral beam. There is no way to know if ropes were used in the case of Jesus. The accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion come from the four gospels, none of which mention the use of ropes. This seemingly minor point has been used by some to claim that Jesus’ body weight was supported by ropes which were used to bind His arms to the crossbeam. The argument goes thusly, if the victim’s arms were supported by ropes, it is possible that He simply passed out, and survived the crucifixion. Whether ropes were used or not, the next step in the process was the lifting of the cross to a vertical position. The victim’s body weight caused tearing of flesh and stretching of the arms This was sometimes accompanied by dislocation of the shoulders. The victim was literally in excruciating pain. The word excruciating can be translated as “out of the cross”. The fact that a new word was invented to describe the agony of crucifixion is perhaps the useful in comprehending the situation of the victim. Romans were efficient torturers. The intent was not for the victim to die from the pain of flogged skin and pierced hands and feet. Rather, the mode of death was asphyxiation. This happened slowly. As the arms stretched, the chest was forced into the inhaled position. In order to exhale the victim had to push themselves upward with hands and feet. It took a long time to die this way. Often the Romans would break the legs of the victim, hastening the onset of death. In the biblical text it is reported that Jesus died after only six hours.9 This was an extraordinarily short time, as evidenced by the surprise of the Romans that Jesus was already dead. The biblical record, viewed in the light of medical and historical knowledge, provides a clear picture of the death of Jesus. But is there any way that He could have survived crucifixion? Some scholars have proposed the “swoon theory”.10 This theory is based on the idea that Jesus swooned and was only thought to be dead. The theory further holds that Jesus either got out of the tomb by Himself, or He had assistance. In order for this theory to be valid it must explain how the Roman soldiers and the Pharisees were fooled. The Romans were expert killers and torturers. It seems to be beyond the pale of legitimate scientific inquiry to assume that these professional soldiers did not recognize death when they saw it. Their supervisor, a Centurion, was present at the crucifixion.11 There is a high level of probability that the Centurion’s boss expected him to run an efficient operation. It therefore makes sense to suppose that the Centurion had a vested interest in making absolutely sure that those who were crucified were indeed killed. Jesus was not the only person crucified on Calvary that day. Two other men, both criminals were also executed. The Bible contains brief reports of the interaction between Jesus and the other two men.12 In light of the data the next question to ask is this: what is the probability that of the three men crucified only Jesus survived? Could the High Priest, who wanted Jesus dead, have been fooled? Certainly it is possible that the Romans and the Pharisees were all mistaken. But is this possibility able to withstand further investigation? In order for Jesus to have survived crucifixion, three factors would have had to be present. First, He must necessarily have been able to breathe during His time on the cross. Second, He must have been able to breathe after being taken down and wrapped for burial. These two factors are equally easy to accept or dismiss, depending upon one’s point of view. The third factor is the most difficult. In order for Jesus to have survived the crucifixion, He must at some point have been removed from the tomb. This could have happened under His own power, or with assistance. The photograph in Appendix A shows the image of a tomb. This tomb dates from the era of King Herod Antipas. This is likely very similar to the tomb in which Jesus’ body was placed. The most notable aspect of the tomb’s construction is the large round stone door which was used to seal the tomb. This stone is immediately to the left of the opening. The stone sits in a channel. The channel is an aid for the movement of the stone. A conservative estimate would put the weight of the stone at eight hundred pounds. It is with a high level of confidence that a low level of probability can be assigned to the idea that a weakened Jesus moved this stone. So, how does the “swoon theory” account for the movement of the stone? One alternative suggests that Jesus had help. The other option is that He moved the stone by Himself. The tomb was sealed. Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb. The location of the tomb was known, at the very least, by the soldiers. It is also extremely likely that the Jewish High Priest made sure Jesus was placed in the tomb. How could anyone, from either inside or outside the tomb move the stone without being seen? The traditional explanation is that the Roman guards were bribed to say that they fell asleep on duty. During their alleged sleep someone came and stole Jesus’ body. This story falls apart on so many levels that it hardly seems to merit attention. But as it is a data point, it must be considered. The main issue is this, why would any Roman soldier claim to have been sleeping on duty? Such an offense almost always led to punishment. What possible reward could have induced these soldiers to suffer for a dead Jew? A Jew which either they or their fellow soldiers had just crucified? The “swoon theory” does not provide an adequate explanation of the data. It attempts to explain the survival mode of the victim of a crucifixion. It also attempts to explain the fact that the tomb was empty. However both of these attempt at explanation fail to achieve a higher level of probability than the competing hypothesis. The hypothesis that Jesus died on the cross enjoys a higher level of probability. In summary, it seems that the hypothesis which best accounts for the biblical, medical and historical evidence is that Jesus did die on the cross. Having considered the questions of Jesus’ death, the question of the Resurrection may now be considered. HYPOTHESES AND FACTORS REGARDING THE RESURRECTION Debates upon this subject fall into two major groups. The first group is composed of writers who address only the evidence that well suits their theory. The second group is more rational. It is the ideas of this group that will be considered here. Scholars on both sides have conducted reasonable evaluations of the evidence. They have reached one of two conclusions. Either the dead Jesus was raised to life, or He was not. It must be noted that all hypothesis fail at the same point. None can recreate the historical events. There are no video tapes or photographs to aid in the examination of the issues. This limitation forces each scholar into either accepting or denying the possibility that supernatural events do happen. For supernaturalists, the trap to avoid is the assumption that questions raised by the narratives can be dismissed out of hand. For anti-supernaturalists the trap to be avoided is the assumption that there must be a natural explanation for every event. Both camps can benefit from listening carefully to the arguments of the other side. Any honest theory regarding the Resurrection, must be able to account for five essential claims. One, the involvement of Joseph of Arimethea in the burial. Two, the empty tomb. Three, the appearances of Jesus after His crucifixion. Four, the fact that eleven of the surviving apostles claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. Five, the differences in the accounts of Mark, Luke, John, Matthew and Paul. The opposing viewpoints for each of these five claims will be examined in turn. Joseph of Arimethea Joseph is a figure shrouded in legend. What is known from the Bible is that he is not the same person as Joseph, the husband of Mary. The Irish hold that Joseph of Arimethea left Palestine after the burial of Jesus and traveled to Britain. He supposedly took a piece of the cross with him and planted it somewhere in Britain. Such legends may be fun to think about, but they hardly constitute good evidence for the actions of Joseph. This is the supposed origin of the blackthorn bushes. This story helps underscore the fact that much of the stories about Joseph bear the mark of legendary development. For purposes of this paper, only the biblical account will be considered. This is because all the other accounts of Joseph are almost certainly legends. The Bible states that Joseph of Arimethea took the body of Jesus for burial.13 This detail is important because it establishes a critical fact. The location of Jesus’ tomb was known. The Pharisees, High Priest and Roman guards certainly all knew where Jesus was laid to rest. The tomb is described as belonging to Joseph. Opponents of the Resurrection have not yet produced a competing burial story, nor have they established a valid theory to explain how the location of Jesus’ tomb might have been misunderstood.14 Therefore it is appropriate to state that the location of the tomb was not a secret. The Empty Tomb The Bible reports agree that women found tomb to be empty of the body of Jesus. The text also reports that some Jews circulated a story that the body had been stolen. There has been virtually no debate about the tomb itself being empty. The consensus among scholars is that the tomb was vacated at some point. The question is how. Was it by the resurrection of a dead Jesus or was it because Jesus had escaped death on the cross and had subsequently left the tomb? For writers such as Craig, Strobel, Barth, de Mornay, Tertullian, Ignatius and Clement, the empty tomb serves as one link in the chain which leads to belief in the Resurrection.15 For readers who may not have heard of Philippe de Mornay, he was a major leader of the Protestant Movement in France during the 16th century. The summary of their combined arguments is that if the apostles had invented the story they would not have appealed to the testimony of women. This would have been a shameful act on the part of the disciples. Their fellow Jews may have already held them in somewhat low regard. For the apostles to appeal to the testimony of women brought more disgrace. Would they have appealed to females’ testimony if they had not believed that the women were telling the truth? In addition to the account of women being the first to discover that the tomb was empty, there is the issue of the Roman guards. This issue has already been raised in this paper. If indeed the body had been stolen it would have had to occur with the approval of the Roman guards. It is therefore sufficient to note here that unless Jesus was really dead there would have been no reason for some Jews to create the story of the body being stolen.16 On the other side of the tomb debate stand such scholars as Ludemann, Machovec, Kant and Hume.17 None of them argue for an occupied tomb. Rather they argue that the women went to the wrong tomb. This explanation seems to be inadequate. Unless the presence of Joseph of Arimethea is somehow discounted, the location of the tomb was known. It makes little sense to believe that the Pharisees, who hated Jesus so much, would have paid no attention to the location of His burial site. After all, Jesus had claimed that He would rise from the dead. Would it not have been natural for the Pharisees to have made sure of the location of the tomb? Had the women been mistaken, and been at the wrong tomb, the Jewish authorities would likely have found the correct tomb and displayed Jesus’ corpse. There are other variations of the empty tomb theme. Perhaps one of the most notable was proposed by Gerd Ludemann.18 It is Ludemann’s claim that the empty tomb tradition was a later historical development. He proposes that the eleven surviving apostles, and Paul, were unaware of the tale of the empty tomb. Ludemann’s case is interesting but does not explain the fact that the empty tomb tradition does not bear the marks of being a later development. Indeed, the tomb tradition shows every mark of being a contemporary account which came into existence no later than the end of the first century AD. In summary, the debate over the empty tomb has resulted in extensive consideration of the data by both sides. At best both sides must declare a draw on this point. Wrong-tombers cannot explain the apparent laxity on the part of the Pharisees. Right-tombers cannot prove the emptiness of the tomb was the result of a dead man coming to life. Data pertaining to other elements of Jesus’ life must be examined. A logical place to continue is with the reported post-Resurrection appearances. The post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus The biblical texts provide multiple accounts of Jesus’ appearances. Acts 1:1-11 gives the time frame. The text states that these appearances occurred over some forty days. The chart in Appendix B provides a summary of these stories. The central data are these: Jesus ate, Jesus drank, Jesus spoke, people touched Him. None of these actions are achievable by a corpse. If the stories are true, then many people were in the presence of a living post-crucifixion Jesus. However, the key to evaluating the accounts is to examine the likelihood that the writers of the Bible were reporting actual events. Opponents of these stories maintain that the authors, and in some cases later editors, either made them up or received them by oral tradition. Further investigation will be helpful. A good place to begin is with the first century AD writers. The forty day period of time very likely allowed for Jesus’ opponents to investigate the reports of His Resurrection. There were groups which opposed the apostles’ stories of the post-Resurrection appearances. Some of these groups were opposed by Paul and Peter.19 Later writings by the early church fathers attest to the belief of the 1st to 5th century churches that Jesus was resurrected.20 As the church grew, so did the opposition. Early writers such as Marcion denied that Jesus was resurrected. Modern 20th and 21st century scholars have wrestled with this question of the post-Resurrection appearances. While some have followed the tradition of Hume, 18th century, and Kant, who said that miracles can not happen, others have argued for a sort of “wild hallucination” type of theory. Ludemann has tried to distance himself from the latter group while still maintaining the concept of people seeing things that weren’t really there. As Ludemann would have it, the reports of the Resurrection appearances were the result of people having “visions”. Ludemann bases his theory on the presupposition that miracles, defined as the workings of God, are never a valid explanation for a supernatural event. While Ludemann is to be commended for stating his presupposition, it must be noted that the absence of a positive does not prove the existence of a negative. In other words, it is not logical to state that miracles cannot occur, simply on the basis of the fact that they cannot be initiated by human capabilities. Despite the volume of work and the tremendous intellects of the major anti-resurrection scholars, they all seem to proceed from the assumption that miracles cannot happen. Christian scholars do believe that miracles can happen. This is the key point in the debate over the post-Resurrection appearances. Because the events of history cannot be repeated it is impossible to demonstrate whether those who saw Jesus were having visions. To help gain more understanding, it is useful to evaluate the fifth claim of the historicity of the Resurrection, the beliefs of the eleven surviving apostles and Paul. The Eleven Apostles and Paul The eleven surviving apostles were well known for their belief in a risen Jesus. Not only the Bible but also the writings of the early church fathers point out this fact. The apostles started churches and spread the gospel. They were under persecution from the Jews at first, and then later from the Romans Their religion was one based on being a servant. This was completely contrary to human nature. James, the brother of Jesus founded the church at Pella. He was later executed. Peter either founded or helped found the church at Rome. He too was killed, according to Catholic tradition. These two men, and the other apostles, were clearly not seeking fame or fortune. They were driven by the goal to share the story of what Jesus had done and said. The beliefs and level of commitment, even to the death, of the apostles and Paul cannot be seriously called into question. According to the Bible, they clearly believed in what they were doing. So how do the skeptics account for the belief of the apostles? There are two main avenues of investigation. The first is that the original writings were later edited and so do not actually reflect the beliefs of the apostles. This view can be eliminated since the biblical texts do not show the earmarks of extensive tampering. The second avenue of inquiry is the strength of character of the apostles themselves. Here, skeptics begin with an assumption. Some assume the apostles were lying while others assume they were mistaken.21 None of the skeptics researched for this paper provided a reasonable explanation of a key problem. The problem is that the Bible records that the apostles believed Jesus was dead until He appeared to them. If the appearances had been the result of Ludemann’s ‘visions’ what would explain the apostles’ persistence in the face of persecution and impending death? Again the skeptics appeal to the concept that reports of the apostles’ belief is a later tradition. But again the biblical text regarding the apostles’ belief does not show signs of being a later tradition. The skeptics know this so they then must appeal to the differences in the gospel accounts of the Resurrection. Do the Reports Disagree with Each Other? The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John provide different details regarding the Resurrection. Matthew and John are reported as having been two of the original twelve apostles. The question which must be addressed is whether these accounts are contradictory. An appropriate place to begin the investigation is with the nature of the gospel narratives. It is clear that the four gospels were intended to emphasize different aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry. Each of evangelists wrote of a Jesus who had died and had been risen to life. One could make the argument that Mark ended his gospel at 16:8, leaving no post-Resurrection appearances. However, in Mark 16:6, he reports that “Jesus is risen”. Each of the evangelists, and Paul, wrote from different viewpoints, and for different audiences. So no one should be surprised that there are some differences in the narratives. Among the New Testament writers, Paul provides one of the more extensive summaries of the Resurrection, and its significance in 1 Corinthians 15. In considering the agreement among Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul on matters of theology, history and faith, one is led to wonder why there are differences in the accounts. It is not reasonable to ignore the differences. Neither is it reasonable to pose that the differences exist because the stories are fiction. Instead the logical course of action is to examine the differences. The chart in Appendix B provides a useful summary of the accounts. The author of this paper sees no reasonable basis for concluding that the minor differences in the accounts indicate a lack of accuracy. These stories have a central idea. That idea is that Jesus rose from the dead. The differences in the details may be viewed as evidence of error. They may also be viewed as evidence that the accounts were written independently. If the four accounts were identical there would be no need for four accounts. The argument from the Christian perspective is that the differences serve to highlight the accounts as being factual. No one expects multiple individuals to have identical reports of an event. Why should the Resurrection narratives not have minor differences? To extend on non-biblical example: A professor gave a written examination to his class. Members of the class then reported “he gave us a test”. If asked individually, students would provide different details regarding the test. The difference in details would not negate the fact that the test had been given. If every student gave an identical statement regarding the event then their statements would be suspect. This is because it is highly improbable that multiple people remember the same event in precisely the same way. In summary, the position one takes in response to the differences in the reports is indicative of one’s presuppositions. Perhaps the best approach is to agree that the writers had a common point, they wanted to show a resurrected Jesus. On this they were unified. They died because of their stubborn refusal to abandon preaching the gospel. They also led many others down the same path. With all due respect to the great intellects possessed by some anti- Resurrectionists, it must be concluded that the data does not support their concept that the differences in the reports indicate the presence of errors. Until such time, if ever, the differences can be shown to nullify the assertions of the Bible it is reasonable to not use the differences as either a primary or secondary basis for one’s theology. CAN MIRACLES HAPPEN? This is the key question in the debate. Thus far this author has attempted to present a useful summary of the debate over the reported Resurrection of Jesus. Now it is time to ask if such an event, completely beyond the realm of natural occurrence, could actually happen. Debate on this issue takes many forms. These forms include philosophical, scientific, historical and literary form, to name just a few. At the very least, the skeptics and the Christians must agree that unexplained phenomena do take place. From this point the paths diverge, leading to disparate (different) conclusions. Anti-Resurrectionists go with the idea that there are no supernatural processes. Christians believe that God does supernatural things. Neither side’s view can be proven definitively by human methods. However, circumstantial evidence can be used, to show beyond reasonable doubt, that supernatural events do occur. One example was the escape of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt. The date of this event has been alternatively posited as either the 13th or 15th centuries BC. Few historians would claim that the event never happened. Of those who accept the Exodus as a historical fact, none have yet produced a compelling explanation which did not include supernatural intervention. This is just one of many examples where anti-supernaturalists have not been able to provide a reasonable explanation which accounts for the evidence. The bottom line is that if human reasoning comes to a point where it cannot account for an event, then the honest inquirer must allow for the possibility that miracles may indeed happen. THE PERSISTENCE OF CHRISTIANITY Debate over the Resurrection of Jesus arose because of the refusal of some to believe that any man could rise again. Others, particularly the Pharisees, believed in resurrection but refused Jesus as Messiah. Therefore they had to deny His Resurrection or admit that they were wrong. These people were among the first in a long tradition of anti-Resurrectionists. Arguments against Jesus’ Resurrection sit squarely upon the twin ideas that miracles don’t happen and that the Bible contains error. The arguments of the skeptics lose validity at this point because they depend upon human generated assumptions. The argument of the Christians, likewise, depends on assumptions. The chief assumption of Christians is that the biblical records of miracles are accurate. Neither the Christian nor the skeptic has an airtight case, according to empirical terms. Which sides’ arguments best fit the facts? The Bible only makes sense if a supernatural element is acknowledged. Further, the skeptics’ arguments do not account for the fact that no historical or archaeological evidence to date has disproved any portion of the Bible. Neither can the skeptic account for the rapid growth of Christianity. Christianity demands that pride be subdue and the Christian become a servant of others. There is no logical reason, aside from supernatural intervention, for the continuing increase in the number of Christians. Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism and Marxism prosper by appealing to man’s sense of pride. Their mode of operation is to gain the upper hand in a culture and strike down their opponents. Typically, when faced with a life or death choice, adherents of these systems tend to say whatever will secure their personal safety. The exception are the strict followers of Islam who will sometimes die for their beliefs. Only Christianity can claim large numbers of followers who will continue to trust God in the face of oppression and death. Why? Because Christians believe in a risen living Savior who ably meets all their needs and who will take them to heaven.21 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The choice of words in New Testament Greek make it clear that the terms used for the body of Jesus refer to His physical body. In addition to this point it is also known that Romans were practiced at the art of crucifixion. Also, the pre-crucifixion beatings and the crucifixion itself placed extreme stress on Jesus’ body and mind. No one ever came forward with His remains. From this data point we can conclude that His body was killed. The existence, or non-existence, of miracles must also be determined to the satisfaction of the inquirer. The key point is to define the criteria which should be used for determining when a supernatural explanation of an event is appropriate. Here the logical course is to accept the fact that the absence of a logical explanation of an event does not give license to conclude that miracles exist. Neither does it give license to conclude that they do not exist. At best the reasonable course of action is to conclude that miracles can happen. Form critical analysis of the text does not result in any theory which adequately (in the opinion of this author) explains the data. This same problem occurs with all forms of ‘higher textual criticism’. The best these forms of criticism can offer is the idea that there was some unknown source upon which the biblical narratives were based. This idea essentially rests on the base assumption that the biblical accounts cannot be accurate. The scholars which hold to this assumption seem to share a common trait of trusting their own intellect as the prime determiner of truth. It is the opinion of this writer that some allegedly Christian scholars suffer from holding their intellects in too high a regard. These scholars tend to fall into the anti-Resurrectionist camp. Scholars who make the case for the Resurrection of Jesus fall into a different line of thought. Their humility is reflected in their writings. Much like the apostles, these scholars hold that the teaching and direction of God are of primary importance. The competing theories must account for the five basic issues. These are the involvement of Joseph of Arimethea in the burial, the empty tomb, the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus, the claims of the apostles and the differences in the accounts of Mark, Luke, John, Matthew and Paul. After considering the evidence, and the many excellent theories from all sides, the conclusion seems inescapable. The argument which best fits all of the evidence is that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, appeared to many, and ascended into heaven. END NOTES 1. Psalm 16:10, Psalm 22:22. 2. Gundry, Robert H. Soma in Biblical Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1976 3. Ibid. 4. Luke 22:44. 5. Luke 22:63-65, 23: 1-49, John 19:17-37. 6. John 19:33-36. 7. Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. 8. Keller, Father Adrian. A Pocket Church History for Orthodox Christians. Austin: St. Hilarion, 1994. 9. Mark 15:24,34. 10. Craig, William Lane. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1989. 11. Matthew 27:54. 12. Matthew 27:44, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:39-43, John 19:18. 13. John 19:38-42, Luke 23:50-55, Mark 15:42-47, Matthew 27:57-66. 14. Copan, Paul and Ronald K. Trocelli. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Edited by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. 15. de Mornay, Philippe. A Woorke Concerning the Trewnesse of the Christian Religion. Translated by Sir Philip Sidney. New York: Scholar’s Reprints, 1976 (original 1587). Stanforth, Maxwell, Translator. Early Christian Writings, The Apostolic Fathers. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1968. 16. Matthew 28:11-15. 17. Copan, Paul and Ronald K. Trocelli. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. Craig, William Lane. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. New York: Edwin Mellen, 1989. Machovic, Milan. A Marxist Looks at Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. 18. Copan, Paul and Ronald K. Trocelli. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. 19. 1 Cor. 15, 2 Peter 2. 20. Keller, Father Adrian. A Pocket Church History for Orthodox Christians. Austin: St. Hilarion, 1994. Stanforth, Maxwell, Translator. Early Christian Writings, The Apostolic Fathers. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1968. 21.Barth, Karl. Credo: A Presentation of the Chief Problems with Respect to the Apostle’ s Creed. Translated by J. Strathern McNab. New York: Scribner’s, 1936. Bultmann, Rudolf. Primitive Christianity. Translated by R. H. Fuller. New York: Meridian Books, 1957.. Calvin, John. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke. Translated by A.W. Morrison and T.H.L. Parker Grand Rapids, 1972. 22.Lea. Thomas. The New Testament, Its Background & Message,. Nashville; Broadman, 1996. APPENDIX A Photograph of a Herodian-era tomb
This photograph was provided by Dr. Jim Wicker.
APPENDIX B Summary Chart of the Post-Resurrection Appearances of Jesus as Recorded in the Bible
|
|
|
|
[NewChurch Austin] [About God] [About the Bible] [About Us] [About You] [Shepherding] [Our Beliefs] [Events] [Awesome Links] [Politics] [Hebrew and Greek] [Recommended Businesses] [Free Speech] [Tough Questions] [Reading List] [Parables] [Sermons] |
|
|
|
This website is copyright 2002 and 2006 by NewChurchAustin. Articles and papers are copyright by their respective authors. |