T H E R ESU RRECTION OF JESUS

A short compilation of the evidence for it

Thomas Creedy
November 2010

The Resurrection of Jesus" 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Resurrection" 3
Easter, a#er Easter, a#er Easter..." 3

Why defend the Resurrection?" 3

The focus of our faith." 4

Judaism, Differing Accounts, and the Resurrection" 4

Non-Bodily Resurrection?" 5

Just another religion of resurrection?" 5

Are the Gospel’s historica&y accurate?" 6

The New Testament as evidence for Resurrection" 6

Martyrdom as evidence for the Resurrection" 7

Extrabiblical evidence for the Resurrection" 7

The i&egitimate alternative theories" 8

What then must we conclude?" 9

The Resurrection of Jesus" 2

 T H E RESURRECTION
The evidence and necessity of the event that changes everything

November 2010

Easter, after Easter, after Easter...

This Easter, as with every easter for nearly 2000 years, millions of Christians all over the world will
celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, after celebrating on Good Friday his death. These are two central
truths of Christianity, held to be true and necessary to faith. Yet, as the scholar of religion
H.E.W.Turner says, 'what was once regarded as an unchallengeable datum for the Christian faith
has come to be be viewed in some quarters as a problem if not also an embarrassment'. This is
definitely the case! Many people see faith as dangerous and stupid, and faith in the Resurrection of
Christ as particularly so. Is it irrational, or even (as some modern writers would suggest) irresponsi-
ble to hold and believe such things? As Christmas approaches, and opportunities to share the ‘rea-
son for the season’ begin to blossom and grow, I want to remind people of the sure foundation on
which our faith is based. I wish to make very clear that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is an his-
torical event, and that to be a fully balanced human being is to require engagement with what this
might mean. The lion's share of this is extracted from an essay I wrote, which in turn draws upon a
great deal of research from a great many books across a broad perspective of thought. The research
I did into the resurrection started with the biblical texts, then justified and explained them, before
looking at different ideas on the likelihood and purpose of the resurrection. Two books I would rec-
ommend for further reading are Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ’, and Craig Blomberg’s ‘The
Historical Reliability of the Gospels’.

Why defend the Resurrection?

The centrality of the Resurrection has been a key tenet of Christianity for the entirety of it's history.
It is essential, in fact. With this in mind, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15v14 that 'if Christ has not
been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain'. It is on this fact, therefore, that
Christianity stands and survives. On this fact the Gospel is proven as true and eternally relevant.
Without the resurrection, without it being actually true, our faith is meaningless. Some things in the
bible it is perhaps acceptable to ignore, to not defend historically. But not the resurrection. If we
deny the death and resurrection of Christ, then we deny the Gospel. We deny Christ. Our witness is
not one of Christianity. One of the greatest Anglican/Protestant theologians of recent years,
N.T.Wright, has called the resurrection 'the problem of easter'. Over the past two hundred years, this
article of faith has been subject to intense criticism from all sides. Yet it remains, and as the German
New Testament scholar Briger Gerhardsson points out, 'A vibrant christian faith, however, does not
demand a sacrifice of the intellect'. If it is true, then it is true, That is a simple observation, but an
important one. It must be said that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a piece of history, and stands
up to rigorous investigation. It is legitimate to question such a claim, due to the implications of such
truth, but overall, it is in fact a coherent, logical and 'true' claim about history.

The Resurrection of Jesus" 3

The focus of our faith.
As hinted at above, in 1 Corinthians 15v14, we read of Paul's focus on the resurrection of Christ.
For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus is of central importance, and must have happened, because as
Cerfaux (in his academic book on the theology of Paul) makes clear, 'this is the first focal point of
the faith, the work of salvation with Christ as the savior'. Chronologically, this passage is the closest
to the alleged events of the resurrection, and is thus of great importance in a study of the historicity
of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The very small gap (less than 30 years) between the resurrection
and the writing of this letter makes this a fascinating passage. Indeed, this is the main passage, out-
side of the Gospels, that deals with the resurrection, and it is clear from the way that Paul writes that
he thought the resurrection was an actual historical event. This passage is not written as an act of
faith, but more as a report, for to Paul, the resurrection was a historic event of the past, but much
more: it was a present reality. Strengthening the case, the legendary English New Testament scholar
G.N. Stanton observes of verses five to eight that 'behind these verbs lie technical Jewish terms for
the careful transmission of tradition'. These views emphasizes the grounding of Christianity as a
faith in the history of the world, and its necessity in interpreting the three days between the recorded
death of Jesus, and the alleged sightings of him, 'after death'. It is easy to see that the Jesus of Paul
was a historic being who had died on a historic cross, an idea which has profound implications for
questions of historicity. To look at Paul’s understanding of the resurrection is to look at an under-
standing full of faith - but also an understanding grounded firmly in a reality - both past and present.
The Resurrection happened - on one day 2000 years ago - but it also happens; in that Christian’s
live in resurrection power, saved by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross

Judaism, Differing Accounts, and the Resurrection

Christianity is a religion that has, in the technical sense, been borne out of Judaism. The life and
work of Jesus was foretold in the Old Testament (Effectively the Jewish Bible), and he was born
into a Jewish world and setting. The Resurrection, however, and Jesus in general, has not actually
ended up convincing many Jews to abandon their birth religion. We will thus consider one of the
points of Pinchas Lapide. One Jewish view is that the New Testament elaborated on something not
quite clear, and turned it into reality. This is a serious challenge. This Jewish scholar writes that,
'this inclination to “secondary elaboration,” as Joachim Jeremias calls it, can even be demon-
strated quantitively: While Paul, who was closest to the events, needs only four sentences (1 Cor
15v3-7) to express his faith in the resurrection, Mark, decades later, needs eight. After him, Mat-
thew expands the report to 20 verses, followed by Luke who is able to report later more than twice
this amount – 53 verses. The Fourth Gospel, edited two generations after Easter, long after the last
eyewitnesses were deceased, devotes two full chapters of altogether 56 verses to the theme, in order
to describe what its author could know only by hearsay'. This is a fair point, and would seem to
shoot the New Testament Gospels out of the water. But this is to deny a number of things. Firstly,
the fact that the Gospels agree on the core facts of the matter. This is undeniably the case. As Paul
puts it in the verse quoted about, Christ died and rose again. This is core to all of the Gospels, and
was demonstrably an early belief. Secondly, as identified by N.T.Wright, is the unity in variety that
the various textual accounts demonstrate - the core remains, different versions have different fo-
cuses, reports, and emphases. G. N. Stanton observes that from the outset, 'Whether or not one ac-
cepts the religious stance of the evangelists, one can hardly deny that they all set out the story of
Jesus in the light of their conviction that God raised Jesus from the dead 'on the third day'. It is fun-
damentally clear that the resurrection has always been a crucial part of the Christian tradition, and

The Resurrection of Jesus" 4

this is arguably because it is grounded in history. Mark is generally seen as being the gospel with
the earliest resurrection account, that differs in some cases to the later Gospels. N.T.Wright brings
his immense scholarship to bear on this point, emphasizing that 'The surface inconsistencies be-
tween Mark 16v1-8 and its parallels, of which so much is made by those eager to see the accounts
as careless fiction, is in fact a strong point in favor of their early character'. Even this early account
- a historically very useful segment, clearly states that Jesus had fulfilled his claim to rise again, the
tomb was empty, and that there were eyewitnesses. Mark 16v9-20 IS a later addition - but only in
the sense that it is not always clearly part of Mark’s Gospel. We can, however, because of the style
and weight of evidence for it, be confident that we are reading The Gospel as Mark intended to read
it. Even if we are not - there is clearly a resurrection being reported in Mark 16v1-8, and so as a his-
torical event is it not impossible.

Non-Bodily Resurrection?
Debate over the historical actuality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ has been raging ever since the
gospels ended. In the centuries since the death of Christ, both believers and skeptics have been en-
gaged in dialogue over the resurrection. The history of critical study of this area is noticeable for
many reasons, not least in its length and breadth, and the fact that the debate, for many, has not yet
been satisfactorily resolved. Such study can legitimately be seen to have begun in earnest in 1695
with the publication of John Locke's 'The reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scrip-
tures', and continued to the present day. The vocal nature of scholars such as Bart Ehrman and
Ludemann ensure that the resurrection debate is seldom out of the theological consciousness.
Ludemann, although writing from a Christian perspective, is radical in his quest for truth, stating
that 'we can no longer understand the resurrection of Jesus in a literal sense, i.e. in a bloody way'.
Such a claim is anathema to orthodoxy, and could be seen as going directly against the New Testa-
ment's own view. There are many reasons why Ludemann holds this view, which constitutes a rela-
tively strong case against the bodily resurrection being historically fact. His motives are admirable;
the pursuit of truth, but his conclusions are ultimately unhelpful. Ludemann's assertion that 'Chris-
tians should live by the little that they really believe, not by the much that they take pains to believe',
instantly negates any sense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection, ignoring the glory of it, and
clearly not heeding the warning of Paul regarding its importance. If it is not true, then our faith is in
vain. I believe, many believe, and many people who have looked into it in great detail, that the bod-
ily resurrection of Jesus is a historical event. This is what a faith on which an understanding of eter-
nity rests - it would be risky to get it wrong or base it on weak evidence!

Just another religion of resurrection?

Has anyone ever thought, or ever asked you, whether Christianity is just a copycat religion? Of sun
gods? Or Egyptian deities? One of the greatest and most persistent criticisms of Christianity and its
belief in a resurrected Jesus, is that it sits too comfortably in the heritage and beliefs of older and
other religions. Both of these charges are noticeably fallacious. Christianity is the fulfillment of Ju-
daism. It is necessary to understand the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, on which
note the scholar Gerhardsson states that 'Historically, Christianity may be characterized as a new
tradition which originates within a well-developed mother-tradition from which it gradually liber-
ates itself, at the same time it also receives influences from other traditions in the milieu'. This is a

The Resurrection of Jesus" 5

new and vibrant faith, grounded firmly in history, and standing as a bulwark against two millennia
of subsequent interpretation. In relation to closely linked cults such as Mithraism, it is clear that the
relationship has been unfairly painted in academia. As Blomberg says, 'claims that Christianity was
born out of Mithraism reflect almost no historical understanding of chronology, lines of influence,
or true similarities or dissimilarities between the two religions', and such an attitude vindicates the
original uniqueness of Christianity in this respect. In the case of Mithraism - there is no real way in
which the ideas could have cross pollinated. In the case of Egyptian religions (Horus, Ra etc), the
simple fact that Christianity was born out of Judaism - which carefully rejected the Egyptian relig-
ion (read Exodus for details!) - is equally nonsensical. It is eminently reasonable to put forward the
proposition and conclusion that Christianity is both unique, and a fulfillment of an older tradition.
This is what the New Testament says, what the Church has proclaimed, and arguably what is true.

Are the Gospel’s historically accurate?

The most likely contact anyone will have with the concept of the resurrection of Jesus are of course
the Gospel the narratives. These - as we often claim, and Lunchbars express - are eyewitness ac-
counts of the life of Jesus. In historical study, eyewitness accounts are incredibly useful - and one of
the most important forms of evidence. Upon close, critical and objective evaluation of the Gospel
narratives, it is clear that they should be seen as historically accurate documents. Such a conclusion
must be reached with great caution because, after all (as the scholar Kee observes), 'the gospels
have only a strictly limited use as historical documents, there are primarily testimonies of faith'.
This was their initial purpose, but it is not illegitimate to see the Gospels as historical documents.
The three synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke - are very similar (hence the name synoptic)
and are not particularly complicated. The fourth Gospel - John - is in a very different style, and is
actually written much later than the others. It is the latest, and most unique Gospel. Even for the
fourth evangelist, however, historical commentary was important. The New Testament scholar
V.H.Stanton observes that, 'the spiritual experience of the writer of the Fourth Gospel himself, and
that of Christian Mystics in all generations, has been intimately bound up with belief in the historic
truth of the appearing of Jesus Christ in the world, according to the main lines of the representation
given of it in the Fourth Gospel'. The core and focus of the Christian Good News is a historical
event. Many people think that the Gospels are merely ‘nice stories’, or ‘meta-narratives with moral
teaching’ - but this is not the case. My stance, in the historical stream of Christianity, is that the
Gospels are accurate representations of ultimate, absolute truth. Disagreements with this stance will
undoubtedly abound, but there are good reasons for following a more conservative, and arguably
positive view, that the Gospels are documents of historical record. To further advance this idea,
Gerhardsson makes the bold claim, grounded in years of study, that 'there is in the Gospel of John
an express desire to stand firmly on historical ground'. If this is the case for the least historically
accurate Gospel account - and it is historically true - then we can be certain of the historical reliabil-
ity of the Gospel accounts.

The New Testament as evidence for Resurrection

One of the strongest arguments for belief has always been the perseverance of those that hold it.
This is not in itself an argument for anything - otherwise I would be arguing that suicide bombing

The Resurrection of Jesus" 6

was ok and that the Islamic heaven DOES exist and does contain the reward of more than a few vir-
gins. The evidence for the New Testament speaks of a positive doctrine. A world-changing doctrine.
The Gospel records and Pauline accounts are further supported by the rest of the New Testament, in
particular the book of Acts. Recounting the events that took place in the earliest period of the Chris-
tian Church, it is clear that the fellowship in Acts is a different one from that at the end of the Gos-
pels. As the theologian Gareth Jones, author of ‘Critical Theology’, says, 'Resurrection, Pentecost
and the expected Parousia, change things; they make people think theologically about Jesus of
Nazareth'. This is not dry academic theology - this is theology in the vein of true Christianity. Truth
about God. It is worth mentioning, Pentecost is another historical event, and the Parousia is the
coming of the Spirit - even more obvious in the church today than other things. In the words of
Bishop Farrar, in his work ‘The Life of Christ, he references the landmark change that Jesus
brough: 'all this vast revolution due to the power of Christ's resurrection'. Leaving aside for the
moment the question and witness of the blood of martyrs, Acts makes it clear that early Christianity
was grounded in a bodily historical resurrection. In a recent summary of critical study of the book
of Acts, the commentary scholar Clark makes it clear that, 'above all, they (the apostles) testify to
the fact of the resurrection, and to Jesus as the Messiah, on the basis of scriptural prophecies and
types'. They knew Christ had existed, and understood him in the context of Judaism, and testified to
the fact of this. It is undeniably the case that the early church saw the resurrection as a historical
event, and went out into the world with this in mind. In many cases, this mission resulted in death at
the hands of unbelieving authorities, and here we find yet more evidence for the historicity of the
resurrection.

Martyrdom as evidence for the Resurrection

Would you die for something that is not true? Or that you know not to be true? In general terms,
many of the early Christians were called upon to pay the ultimate earthly price for their faith. Mar-
tyrdom was a common fate for early Christians. Augustine, writing around 350 years after the
events of the first Easter, clearly still struggled to come to terms with the way that this worked; 'It is
incredible that Christ rose in the flesh and with his flesh ascended into haven. It is incredible that
the world believed so incredible an event; and it is incredible that men of no birth, no standing, no
learning, and so few of them, should have been able to persuade, so effectively, the whole world,
including the learned men'. And yet it was an incredible truth that many were willing to die for,
from Steven's early stoning, to the death of Paul, traditionally ascribed to beheading after two years
of house arrest. N.T.Wright, once again, is forcefully affirming of what this means objectively; 'the
resurrection, however we understand it, was the only reason they came up with for supposing that
Jesus stood for anything other than a dream that might have come true but didn't. It was the only
reason why his life and words possessed any relevance two weeks, let alone two millennia, after his
death'. The silent voices of the martyrs, and the enduring nature of a very specific, 'incredible' be-
lief, are testimony to the power of the resurrection, and its historical basis.

Extrabiblical evidence for the Resurrection

In addition to the biblical accounts, someone seeking a balanced and accurate view of the Resurrec-
tion should consider sources written from outside of the faith perspective. There are several secular
sources that deal with, as Josephus puts it, ' the tribe of christians, so named from him, [who] are
not extinct at this day'. Josephus was a Jewish/Roman historian who dealt with the period around

The Resurrection of Jesus" 7

which Jesus lived and died. Josephus’ works have been altered throughout history - but even on the
most contentious issues there is agreement as to what is original. Even the most skeptical scholars
of Jospehus see that one, if not two of his various mentions of Jesus are what was originally written.
With Josephus, the general scholarly consensus is that he supports the existence of Christ, and to a
certain extent the historicity of the Resurrection. In one of his dialogues, in a dissertation concern-
ing Jesus, Josephus writes that 'Jesus was risen from the dead, and ascended into heaven, as the
prophecies did foretell was to happen'. As, in a Christian sense, Josephus was not a believer, this
statement is fascinating. This represents a broader notion regarding the Jewish reception of the
death and resurrection of Jesus. Instead of producing a body and decisively proving the falsehood of
the new sect, the Jewish authorities denounced it as a heresy; that is to say that the bodily resurrec-
tion was not denied, but rather the results of it in Christian action. This is fascinating. It adds to the
succinct observation of intelligent apologist William Lane Craig, that, 'the most reasonable histori-
cal explanation for the facts of the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the
Christian way would therefore seem to be that Jesus rose from the dead'. This is becoming increas-
ingly evident, from all sorts of sources, including other Roman historians such as Tacitus and Sue-
tonius. The Rabbinical tradition, in which the aforementioned scholar Pinchas Lapide sits, also has
no qualms with the resurrection of Jesus, the issue comes when we realize that 'it is Jesus' messiah-
ship, not his resurrection, which marks the division between Christianity and Judaism'. The Jewish
authorities made no claims regarding the non-happening of the resurrection, only of its meaning,
and the role of Jesus as Messiah. That a Jewish academic has no issue with resurrection as an actual
historical event should cause even the staunchest sceptic to consider the claims of Christ.

The illegitimate alternative theories

It is very likely that many of you will have heard of alternative theories, the most prominent being
the so-called 'swoon theory'. The ultimate conclusion of serious academic investigation of the Res-
urrection is that either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or he did not. The simple fact that the oppos-
ing theories that deal with this first easter fall apart under scrutiny is further evidence that the bodily
resurrection is a historical event. There are many of these alternative theories, throughout the criti-
cal history and study of the resurrection, which have plagued belief. Blomberg is of the legitimate
opinion, upon observation, that 'today comparatively few scholars opt for the alternatives to belief
in the resurrection that have been most commonly offered down through the ages, and that still sur-
face more often in popular literature'. The bodily resurrection as a historical event is the most likely.
One plausible alternative to a bodily resurrection, would be a spiritual resurrection in line with
Paul's view of spiritual bodies post resurrection. Hans Grass proposes that it was not a physical but
a spiritual body, a subjective vision. The liberal Christian theologian Eduard Schweizer held to an
'illusion' type experience, that some kind of objective resurrection occurred, but that it defied de-
scription. This, however, is not what the Gospels seem to say. Jesus allowed people to touch him
after the resurrection - and ate and walked alongside people. In a similar vein, Rudolph Pesch ar-
gues that Jesus psychologically prepared his disciples for a resurrection experience. Indeed as leg-
endary Jesus scholar Geza Vermes puts it, 'The most significant peculiarity of the resurrection sto-
ries is that they nowhere suggest that the rising of Jesus was expected by anyone'. This strengthens
the case that the New Testament view of events is the historical one, and that other theories are in-
adequate and false. As Blomberg says, 'such 'explanations' require more faith for one to believe in
them than does the supernatural explanation that Jesus did in fact rise bodily from the grave'.

The Resurrection of Jesus" 8

What then must we conclude?
In conclusion, it can be very cogently argued that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was a historical
event. In addition to this, as Karl Barth would imply, it was and is the most important event ever.
This is true. For this is what the resurrection is. Unless you are arrogant enough to say with com-
plete certainty that God does, or can not exist, resurrection is a possibility. William Lane Craig
makes the cogent point that, 'For as long as the existence of God is even possible, an event's being
caused by God cannot be ruled out'. That event, arguably, is what the resurrection was. The evi-
dence, should the sceptic or seeker be so inclined to willingly engage with it, is there. Furthermore,
as Barker puts it, 'resurrection is central to any understanding of Jesus', we simply cannot engage
fully with this charismatic figure of faith unless we ascribe proper importance to the resurrection.
N.T.Wright offers that 'The early christians did not invent the empty tomb and the 'meetings' or
'sightings; of the risen Jesus in order to explain a faith they already had. They developed that faith
because of the occurrence, and convergence, of these two phenomena'. This event, this death and
rising again of the man-God Jesus Christ, is what is celebrated at easter. Submit yourselves to the
truth, seek and you will find. The Resurrection changed people, changed history, changed this
writer. It can change you, and the people around you. Because it is true.

The Resurrection of Jesus" 9