Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies)

by Andrew Loke

vast amount of literature on the historical argument for Jesus’ resurrection—which has been the focus of at least 3,400 academic books and articles written since 1975 (Licona 2010, p. 19)—it has not yet been demonstrated in a single piece of work how all the naturalistic hypotheses can in principle be excluded. This problem is illustrated by the large monographs by Wright (2003),

What we do have is good. We have reports that Jesus had been raised from the dead from at least one eyewitness (Paul) and probably more (the Jerusalem apostles preserved in the kerygma).

Dreaming isnt eyewitness

Against the element of physicality of Jesus’ resurrection, one might object by citing the portrayal of Jesus’ resurrection appearance to Saul in Acts (9:1–9, 22:6–11, and 26:12–18) which indicates that only Saul saw Jesus and heard distinct words while his companions did not. ‘The lack of an intersubjective sharing of this experience, however, should warn us against too straightforward and too simple attempts to testify to the objectivity of the resurrection’ (Welker 2007, p. 462).

historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. (Ehrman 1999, p. 231)

While science by itself cannot identify a miracle,

Why not?

In the rest of this book, I shall demonstrate using historical arguments that the best explanation for the origination of the belief that Jesus resurrected is that it happened, and I shall demonstrate using philosophical and theological arguments that the best explanation for the occurrence of this event is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

2.4 Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued for the conclusion that (1.2) there were people who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus shortly after his crucifixion, and these people included individuals (Cephas, James the brother of Jesus, and Paul) and groups such as the ‘Twelve,’ the ‘more than five hundred brethren,’ and ‘the other apostles.’

4.7 Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued for the conclusion that (3.2) ‘At least some (if not all) of these ‘experiences of Jesus’ were caused by an extramental entity.’ This is warranted by the conclusion (established in previous chapters) that there were ‘appearances’ to three different groups of people (the Twelve, the five hundred, and the other apostles besides the Twelve) in different circumstances over a short period.

On the other hand, Craig (1984) notes that if the guard did not exist, the logical Jewish counterargument would be to retort that there were no guards rather than saying the guards slept.8 Instead, Matthew’s story has the Jewish side using the weak ‘but the guards were asleep when the theft occurred’ argument, suggesting the Jews of the time knew guards had been placed.

Since the tomb was guarded, it must have been empty soon after, for the earliest Christians would not have come to the widespread agreement that Jesus resurrected and be willing to suffer persecution for proclaiming this if the guards were still guarding the body inside the tomb.