The Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Revisited

In one of the very first posts on this blog, I presented a summary of the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus. In this post, I revisit this topic, addressing a few additional issues I did not address in my original post. 

Historical Skepticism

One approach sometimes used by skeptics to reject the reality of Jesus’s resurrection is to appeal to historical skepticism, the idea that we really cannot know anything about the past at all. If we cannot know anything about the past, then we cannot know that Jesus rose from the dead. The problem with this is that no one really believes we cannot know anything about the past; everyone has beliefs about what happened in the past that they are certain about. Historical skepticism is just appealed to by skeptics in an inconsistent manner when the specific topic of Jesus’s resurrection is brought up in order to avoid considering the historical evidence for it with an open mind. 

Skeptics who reject the reality of Jesus’s resurrection often claim that the most we can say about history is what probably happened, not what certainly happened; so, we can never have good enough reasons to devote our lives to something that is based on historical claims. But, since we cannot be 100% certain about anything, all of our beliefs about every topic are based on what is probably or most likely true. Besides, belief in the truth of Christianity is not purely based on the historical evidence of Jesus’s resurrection. It is based upon the overall explanatory power of the Christian worldview regarding the universe and the human condition, as well as the evidence for miracles happening in the name of Jesus today. Given this, plus the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, there is good reason to believe in the historical truth of the resurrection of Jesus. 

Skeptics who reject the reality of Jesus’s resurrection often claim that, in order to conclude from historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, you first must interpret history from a Christian perspective; but, the Christian perspective is based on the assumption that Jesus rose from the dead, so it is merely circular. But being open to the possibility that Jesus rose from the dead does not require one to already have a Christian perspective; it just requires one to have an open mind. If a person does become convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, then, naturally, they will start interpreting history from a Christian perspective. And this is the real reason that many scholars and historians refuse to consider the possibility that Jesus really did rise from the dead; they know that if they accept this, it will necessitate a paradigm shift in how they understand the world and history. 

Wright and Licona

Two of the most significant scholarly works on the topic of Jesus’s resurrection are The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright^[1]Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003. and The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Mike Licona^[2]Licona, Mike. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. In The Resurrection of the Son of God, Wright makes a convincing case that the earliest Christians really believed that Jesus had risen bodily from the dead, and that the resurrection narratives in the Gospels do record early eyewitness testimony about Jesus’s resurrection. In The Resurrection of Jesus, Licona makes a convincing case that, even using a “minimal facts” approach, using historical facts that are not controversial, the historical evidence that Jesus actually rose from the dead is strong. Together, these two monumental works create a compelling case for the historical reality of Jesus’s resurrection.

Criticizing Licona’s book on Jesus’s resurrection, atheist John Loftus argues that, “if it takes a seven-hundred-page book to defend the miraculous claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, such a claim is ipso facto improbable.”^[3]John W. Loftus, Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, Revised and Expanded Edition (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2012), page 177. But this argument ignores the fact that the great majority of Licona’s book is devoted to issues of historical methodology; Licona first has to spend a great deal of time refuting the arbitrary and unreasonable philosophical assumptions non-Christians frequently use to rule out the possibility of miraculous explanations a priori, before he can address the actual historical evidence. The great length of Licona’s book is due to the need to refute widespread, arbitrary philosophical assumptions that prevent many people from assessing the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection with an open mind; it is not due to the existence of a significant amount of historical evidence against Jesus’s resurrection. 

Licona’s “minimal facts” approach has also been criticized by skeptics, who argue that if the Gospels are historically unreliable regarding some of their claims, then this provides good reason to be skeptical of their claim that Jesus’s resurrection happened. However, this criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the “minimal facts” approach. The “minimal facts” approach is not based on accepting any particular text(s) as being historically reliable in general; rather, it is based on historical facts which are well-established and not controversial among historians. The Gospels are not our only or earliest historical sources regarding Jesus’s resurrection, and it is perfectly reasonable to regard the Gospels as providing good historical evidence of the truth of Jesus’s resurrection, even if one believes that some other claims of the Gospels are historically unreliable. Historians routinely use historical documents that are to some extent unreliable (as most historical documents are) as sources for historical knowledge. There is good reason to believe that the resurrection narratives in the Gospels record early eyewitness testimony about Jesus’s resurrection, so it is reasonable to accept the Gospel resurrection narratives as providing historical evidence of Jesus’s resurrection, even if one believes the Gospels contain some historical inaccuracies. 

The Historical Evidence

Skeptics often point out that we do not have any evidence from the first century of what non-Christians had to say about the apostles’ claims that he had risen, only Christians. Therefore, they argue, since they were not neutral observers, we should have a “hermeneutic of suspicion” regarding their testimony. But the fact that the disciples were willing to suffer and die for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead means that we should certainly not have a “hermeneutic of suspicion” regarding their testimony; we know that they were sincere. People sometimes die for false beliefs, but no one will die for a belief which they have made up and know is untrue. 

But if Jesus really did rise from the dead, why did the majority of first century Jews not believe it? Theologically speaking, this is a difficult question which the New Testament authors themselves wrestle with, and attempt to provide some theological answers to (e.g., Romans 9-11). But, historically speaking, it is not terribly difficult to answer this question. Most first century Jews were expecting a military Messiah who would kill the Romans and provide political freedom to the nation of Israel from Roman rule. A crucified Messiah who called them to follow Him on the way of the cross was not what they expected or desired. Most first century Jews were too fixated on their nationalistic political hopes to be open to this strange idea about the person and work of the Messiah. And that is why most first century Jews did not believe the Christian message that Jesus the crucified Messiah had risen from the dead.

The Empty Tomb

The Gospel of Mark ends with the women leaving Jesus’s tomb and “saying nothing to anyone” (Mark 16:8). Skeptics sometimes argue that this provides evidence that Mark made up the story of the empty tomb; he wrote that the women told no one in order to provide an explanation for why no one had ever heard of the empty tomb story before Mark wrote his Gospel. But surely the women must have told the apostles about the empty tomb at some point; otherwise, how would Mark himself have known about it? It would make absolutely no sense for the women to have an angel tell them that Jesus was risen from the dead at Jesus’s empty tomb and never tell the apostles about it. Mark’s meaning cannot possibly be that the women never told the apostles what the angel had told them about Jesus’s resurrection. Rather, Mark’s meaning must be that, as the women went to tell the apostles, they did not speak to anyone else or proclaim Jesus’s resurrection in the city. 

The earliest Christians did not venerate Jesus’s empty tomb. It was not until the fourth century that the supposed location of Jesus’s tomb became a site that Christian pilgrims visited. Skeptics sometimes argue that this shows that the earliest Christians did not know where Jesus was buried, and that the Gospel stories about the empty tomb were completely made up. But there is a good reason that early Christians would not have venerated Jesus’s empty tomb: it was empty. There were no relics there of Jesus to venerate. It is also quite possible that Jesus’s empty tomb ended up being used for someone else’s body, which would have made it quite strange for Christians to come there and venerate it. The earliest Christians were focused on proclaiming the good news that Jesus was now alive and reigning as Lord, not on venerating the place where Jesus had been briefly buried. The practice of venerating relics and holy sites only gradually developed within the Christian tradition, which is why it was not until the fourth century that someone decided to make the supposed location of Jesus’s tomb a site for Christian pilgrimage. 

Paul and the Gospels

According to the early Christian tradition about Jesus’s resurrection which Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians, the resurrected Jesus appeared to “the Twelve” (1 Cor 15:5). Skeptics have argued that this contradicts the Gospels, which tell us that one of the Twelve, Judas, betrayed Jesus. However, we must remember that, after Jesus’s ascension, Matthias replaced Judas as one of the Twelve (Acts 1:12-26), and that he, along with the original eleven disciples, was also a witness to the resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:22). Thus, there is no contradiction at all between Paul and the Gospels on this point. 

The early Christian tradition about Jesus’s resurrection which Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians also mentions that the resurrected Jesus appeared to James (1 Cor 15:7). Skeptics have argued that, if James really had been an unbeliever during Jesus’s ministry, then Paul would have mentioned that here. However, since Paul is quoting a creed here, with minimal commentary, there is no good reason to expect him to comment here that James had not believed in Jesus during Jesus’s ministry. 

According to the Gospel of Matthew, when the disciples met the resurrected Jesus in Galilee, “they worshiped him; but some doubted” (Matt 28:17). Skeptics have seized on this, arguing that this shows that the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection must not have been very good. However, it is extremely unlikely that Matthew intended to say that some disciples were skeptical that they were really seeing Jesus. Rather, it is likely that Matthew intended to convey something similar to what Luke says about the disciples when Jesus appears to them, that, at first, “they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement” (Luke 24:41). There was some initial doubt/disbelief on the part of the disciples, not because there was a lack of evidence that Jesus was really alive, but because the fact of Jesus’s resurrection was so amazing and “unbelievable.” 

Conclusion

The historical evidence for the fact of Jesus’s resurrection is strong, and attempts by skeptics to cast doubt on this evidence fail. There are no historical hypotheses that come anywhere close to explaining the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection like the belief that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead does. When faced with this fact, some skeptics will simply claim that they do not need to explain what really happened in order to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead; they can just dismiss this miraculous explanation out of hand. But this is just an irrational, desperate attempt to evade what the historical evidence shows. An objective, open minded assessor of the historical evidence should conclude that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead.