With the preliminaries out of the way, we can move on to sifting through the evidence to build a case for the resurrection. Now, even though the evidence shows that the Gospels are reliable ancient biographies that contain eyewitness testimony, we can feasibly build a case for the resurrection that doesn't rely on them at all.
Of the thirteen epistles that bears Paul's name, seven of them are universally regarded by even critical scholars as being authentically written by Paul. Of these seven, we only need rely on just two epistles: 1 Corinthians and Galatians. Two passages, one from each epistle, are important, because they contain the earliest reference to belief in the risen Christ.
So, 1 Corinthians is universally believed to have been written around 55 AD, which means it was written roughly only 20 years after Jesus' lifetime. However, 1 Corinthians 15 contains creedal material that predates the writing of the letter itself. Various clues in how it is written reveal an oral origin and Paul himself states he is relating material that he himself received.
Clues to the time when Paul received this oral tradition can be found in Galatians, where Paul details what he did immediately following his conversion to Christianity. He states how after spending time in Arabia and then Damascus, he went to Jerusalem and met with some of the disciples of Jesus. Paul states this was 3 years after his conversion.
However, the oral tradition already existed when Paul visited the disciples in Jerusalem. Meaning that it had already been formulated and begun to be circulated at that time, and so the creedal material is older than 3 years after the death of Jesus. As such, scholars place the origin of the creedal material anywhere from 6 months to 2 years after the death of Jesus.
This is important because it establishes that belief in the risen Christ and the appearances to the apostles were part of the earliest traditions of the Church. In other words, belief in the resurrection did not develop over time and sceptics of the past have argued. So, before the Gospels were written, the earliest Christians already believed that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead.
Aside from attesting to the earliness of belief in the risen Jesus, it also contains the earliest accounts of the appearances of Jesus to the disciples. Aside from the appearance to Peter and the other disciples, it also mentions appearances to other groups, including a group of roughly 500 people, as well as Jesus' half-brother James.
Paul even specifies that many of those whom Jesus appeared to were still alive at the time of his writing. In other words, they would have been available to seek out and speak with in order to get their testimony. What this means, then, is that multiple individuals clearly had experiences that they interpreted to be encounters with the risen Jesus.
So far, we have learned two important key facts: the earliest Christians all believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and many individuals had experiences that they took to be encounters with the resurrected Jesus. What other facts can we know beyond a reasonable doubt?
Well, we can know with certainty that Jesus was executed via crucifixion. If Jesus were not dead, then He could hardly have been resurrected from the dead now, could He? This fact is corroborated by external historical sources also: multiple non-Christian sources attest to the crucifixion of Jesus. Tacitus in particular confirms that it was during the reign of Tiberius and that Jesus was executed under Pontius Pilate.
Jesus' death by crucifixion is thereby regarded as one of the surest facts about His life by the overwhelming majority of scholars. However, what happened to Jesus' body after His death? This is where there is at least some dispute. The Christian story is that Jesus was buried in a tomb which was then discovered by a group of His female followers.
Now, whilst a good number of scholars accept both of these as facts, it is not as universal as the support for the previously mentioned facts, so some argument is needed. For some scholars maintain that Jesus' body was either left on the cross to be eaten, or else was dumped into a mass grave. Thus, we can't just appeal to the majority of scholars.
First of all, belief in Jesus' burial is part of the earliest Christian tradition mentioned above. This becomes hard to explain if Jesus had not actually been buried. For all the authorities had to do to quash reports of Jesus' rising from the dead would be to produce a body. This therefore greatly raises the level of plausibility of the burial of Jesus.
Second, we know that, in at least some situations, the Romans did permit burial of crucifixion victims. Of course, the question here would then be: why would the Romans permit the burial of Jesus? Well, Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover, and it was against Jewish law to leave someone 'hanging on a tree'.
Interestingly, the Gospels portray two secret followers of Jesus amongst the Sanhedrin, Joseph and Nicodemus, as being the buriers of Jesus. Well, this would make sense if we suppose that, anxious to avoid transgressing the law, the Sanhedrin would have wanted Jesus taken down and dealt with as soon as possible.
This would mean that Joseph and Nicodemus could easily have petitioned Pilate to take Jesus' body down from the cross. The rest of the Sanhedrin just wanted to make sure the law was observed. But wouldn't they have found Joseph and Nicodemus burying Jesus in an actual tomb odd? To answer that question, we must look to Jewish law and burial practices and customs.
In fact, we can also look more broadly at 1st century Near Eastern and Mediterranean socio-cultural values as well. Now, in the case of a blasphemer (which is what the Sanhedrin considered Jesus), Jewish law does state that they were to be buried in an ignominious fashion, but what did that mean precisely? Well, to be purposefully buried away from family was considered shameful.
Now, Christian philosopher and theologian, William Lane Craig, finds issue with this by pointing out that the language accounts of the Gospels do not read like Jesus was buried in a shameful manner. Whilst true, this is not incompatible with the fact that being purposefully buried away from family members would have been considered dishonorable.
We can grant that Joseph and Nicodemus, as secret followers of Jesus, did everything they could to rightfully honor Jesus' body in death, but this would have been kept secret from the Sanhedrin. As far as the general public knew, Jesus was buried shamefully after being executed in the most heinous fashion. So, this whole account is very plausible in light of ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman burial practices and socio-cultural values.
Whereas if the Gospel writers were simply making things up, why go to all that bother? Why not have the disciples steal Jesus' body and bury Him after the fact? Thus, we can be reasonably confident that Jesus was really buried in a tomb after His death via crucifixion. This in turn provides good evidence that the tomb was therefore discovered empty.
Because if Jesus' body had still lain in the grave, then, once again, the authorities could easily have produced Jesus' body. Now, the Gospels have the Sanhedrin claiming that the disciples stole Jesus' body and hid it away somewhere. However, if Jesus' body had still lain in His tomb, and the Sanhedrin and/or Romans produced Jesus' body, this would make no sense.
There is no mention of a body being produced anywhere in the entire historical record, even in works hostile to Christianity. So, we are forced to accept that the tomb really was discovered empty. Another fact that supports the authenticity of the accounts of the empty tomb is that it features women discovering the empty tomb.
However, a woman's testimony was considered virtually worthless in ancient Jewish and Graeco-Roman society. Had the Gospel authors been inventing the accounts, why on earth would they chose women? Surely, they would have had the male disciples as the discoverers of the empty tomb. So, we can therefore be confident that Jesus' tomb was therefore discovered empty.
Aside from these facts, we also know that Paul was a former pharisee who converted to Christianity, and that Jesus' half-brother, James, who was described as being sceptical of Jesus' claims in the Gospels, also converted to Christianity after a similar experience with the risen Jesus. However, what other facts can we discern?
Whilst scholarship is divided whether or not Jesus really claimed to be divine and/or the Messiah, we can easily construct historical arguments that show both of these things were the case. Jesus really did claim to be divine and really did claim to be the Messiah.
We can be confident that Jesus claimed to be Israel's Messiah because, otherwise, it makes no sense why He was executed via crucifixion. Moreover, if Jesus Himself never claimed to be the Messiah, then it becomes inexplicable how such claims became attributed to Him. After all, there were figures in Jewish history who were regarded as teachers and even healers who were never considered as being contenders for the Messiah.
Moreover, there is no non-Messianic version of Christianity. You'd think that if Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah that there would be early, non-Messianic traditions circulating alongside the Messianic traditions, but there is no trace of anything even remotely resembling this. We don't start seeing alternative traditions until much later.
It is often claimed (without evidence, it should be said) that the canonical Gospels were either arbitrarily chosen by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea and/or that competing accounts were destroyed. Now, aside from there being no shred of evidence that this ever happened, we have hard evidence explicitly contradicting this claim.
Aside from the basic facts, such as Constantine having no role within the Council of Nicaea, and the canon of the New Testament being decided prior to the Council of Nicaea, there's the fact that we have extant copies of rival accounts to the four canonical Gospels, and they are much too late to be considered 'valid alternatives' to the canonical Gospels.
However, it is worth noting that even in heretical forms of Christianity such as Gnosticism, Jesus is still portrayed as some kind of divine or messianic figure. It's not until much later where you get heresies such as Arianism that deny the divinity of Christ. If Jesus never claimed to be divine and never claimed to be the Messiah, why is it that the earliest traditions of Christianity hold him to be both?
Surely, if Jesus never claimed to be either, then non-Messianic, non-Trinitarian Christianity would have predated Trinitarian, Messianic Christianity and not the other way round. Especially considering that Jesus was crucified. To say that a crucified deity/messiah would have been a hard sell would be a colossal understatement.
In an honour-shame based society such as the 1st century Near East and Mediterranean, it would have been considered utterly absurd. Jews were strict monotheists who believed that those hung from a tree were cursed by God. The pagan Greeks and Romans would have considered a deity actually becoming human (as opposed to merely appearing human) and then be crucified as utterly non-sensical.
The reason for this was because crucifixion was a status degradation ritual meant to dishonour someone as much as possible, and so it would have defied how the Greeks and Romans understood honour and deity for one to be actually fully human and actually crucified. Especially considered that Jesus was Jewish, as the Greeks and Romans held negative views of Jews.
Jesus also hailed from Galilee, and Galileans had a negative reputation amongst Jews and non-Jews alike. Jews regarded them as backwards country bumpkins, and it was also a hotspot for uprisings and so not regarded well by the Romans. Jesus specifically hailed from Nazareth, a city of absolutely no repute whatsoever.
Jesus associated with social undesirables, such as fishermen, tax collectors, and prostitutes. Jesus' teachings made specific ethical demands of His followers (i.e. giving up familial relations if they became an obstacle) that would have been unthinkable in the social world of the 1st century.
Jesus was a rural itinerant preacher in a world controlled by wealthy urbanites, so His social standing alone would have been enough for non-Jews to find claims regarding His divinity as ridiculous. However, they also believed that the best possible fate was to escape the world of matter. So, a deity to actually take on human flesh would have likewise been considered ridiculous to non-Jews.
It's also worth noting that resurrection was not only a belief unique to Judaism, but also a specific mode of returning from death to life. It wasn't simply a return to your ordinary human life that you had before. But, rather, also involved a transformation into an immortal body. However, the prevailing belief amongst Jews of the 1st century was that this was reserved exclusively for the righteous dead at the end of history.
Gentiles would have regarded resurrection as less than ideal, since it still meant having a body, and Jews would have found the idea of someone executed as a criminal and blasphemer being resurrected before the end of time as particularly odd as well. So, we can be confident that Jesus really did predict His own death and resurrection.
Note how the disciples are routinely depicted as being confused when Jesus would say He would die and be resurrected. Aside from portraying the disciples negatively, it matches the socio-cultural background data. It makes sense that the disciples would have been confused since they were not expecting the Messiah to be killed and resurrected.
So, we can be reasonably confident of the following facts:
1. Jesus was crucified.
2. Jesus was buried.
3. Jesus' tomb was found empty.
4. Jesus' disciples and other followers had experiences they believed to be encounters with the risen Jesus.
5. Jesus' sceptical half-brother, James, converted after a similar experience.
6. The Church persecutor, Paul, converted after a similar experience.
7. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah.
8. Jesus claimed to be divine.
9. Jesus predicted His own death and resurrection.
Aside from these facts, we also have to explain the meteoric rise and success of Christianity when its central claims and teachings ran against the prevailing socio-cultural milieu of the 1st century.
No comments:
Post a Comment