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

by Andrew Loke

The pagan philosopher Celsus, a prominent second-century opponent of Christianity, raised a number of objections to the resurrection. For example, he claims that discrepancies are present in the Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ resurrection which render them historically unreliable and suggests that the supposed eyewitnesses had hallucinations of Jesus (Origen, Contra Celsum 2.60).

Many theologians therefore concluded that the certainty of faith cannot be based on the results of historical study.

It may be the case that God exists but He does not provide a necessary proof because He wants to give humans the space to make free choice with regards to faith, but this does not imply that He did not leave behind any evidence to let people know about his revelation in history.

God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he’s there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free.

‘The factor of relative concealment allows cognitive freedom to persist … we have enough light to make us responsible but not enough to take away our freedom.’

Mathematical calculations cannot demonstrate the existence and career of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BCE. But converging historical evidence would make it absurd to deny that he lived and changed the political and cultural face of the Middle East.

This is manifestly false, as the unsolved problems of mathematics like Goldbach’s Conjecture, which is either necessarily true or necessarily false, though no one knows which, shows. By contrast I have tremendous certainty that George Washington was once the President of the United States, though this is a contingent historical truth. There is no reason a contingent truth which is known with confidence might not serve as evidence for a less obvious necessary truth.

Licona elaborates: The manuscript support for our present critical Greek text of the New Testament is superior to what we have for any of the ancient literature. As of the time I am writing this chapter, there are 5,839 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. A dozen or so of these manuscripts have been dated to have been written within 150 years of the originals, and the earliest (P 52) has been dated to within ten to sixty years of the original. In contrast, of the nine Lives of Plutarch … only a few dozen Greek manuscripts have survived. The earliest of these is dated to the tenth or eleventh century, or roughly eight to nine hundred years after Plutarch wrote them.

Their silence could have been illustrative of their contempt for, or embarrassment about, Christianity, rather than their ignorance.

Here is the point: just as the fictional account of the Titan does not undermine the reality of the sinking of the Titanic, fictional accounts of dying and rising gods would not undermine the historical reality of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The presence of parallels alone proves nothing about borrowing or the historicity of Jesus.

Given that these intelligent authors would also have known that their readers were in a position to verify and falsify some important details relevant to Jesus’ resurrection as argued in the rest of this book (e.g. concerning the guard at the tomb, see Chapter 6), they would not have made up those details.

unlike other figures of the past, Jesus has in every age exerted too powerful an influence on all sorts of people and still makes too strong a claim on everyone. Thus, we cannot have an unbiased historical record of him or an unbiased historian assessing the record, and therefore the historical-critical project is completely undermined (Kähler 1892/1964, pp. 92–95).

Based on the aforementioned syllogism, however, we can know that essentially there are seven and only seven possible categories of explanations concerning the claims of Jesus’ post-mortem appearances, viz. legends, no experience, intramental, mistaken identity, swoon, escape, and resurrection.

God is, according to the understanding of many monotheistic traditions, a beginningless and timeless First Cause of the universe, and scientific observations cannot confirm or exclude an entity that is beginningless and timeless, since scientific observations are limited to the observation of processes that occur in time.

The historian’s job is to tell the stories of memory in a way that most plausibly accounts for the mnemonic evidence. With this in mind, the historical Jesus is not veiled by the interpretations of him. He is most available for analysis when these interpretations are most pronounced. Therefore, the historical Jesus is clearly seen through the lenses of editorial agenda, theological reflection, and intentional counter-memory.

historians seek to describe accurately and to explain cogently how and why a certain event or situation occurred… . For all the talk of narrativism, presentism, postmodernism, and deconstruction, historians write pretty much the same way as they always have (even though what they write about may be quite new).

I am not convinced by alternative explanations of the resurrection. Thus I have to accept that as far as I can see it is more rational to believe in the resurrection than in the alternatives… . I have thus chosen to believe. And my belief is based on reasons. I argue that it is a rationally based belief that for me makes more sense than the alternatives.

Elementary psychological considerations tell us that the early Christians could scarcely mention such intriguing events … without being able to elaborate on them… . A preacher can begin with an outline but he cannot go on forever repeating mere outlines.

Gerhardsson

Paul says in this passage (v. 6) that most of the five hundred are still alive, inviting any reader to check the truth of the story by questioning the eyewitnesses. He could never have done this and gotten away with it, given the power, resources and numbers of his enemies, if it were not true.

Luke agrees with the tradition in placing the appearance to Peter chronologically prior to the group appearance to the disciples. ‘The fact that the name Peter is used in Luke 24:12 while Simon is used in 24:34 again points to different sources or traditions.’ The appearance to the Twelve in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is clearly narrated by Luke and John.

Who was the first person to go to the tomb? Was it Mary Magdalene by herself (John)? Or Mary along with another Mary (Matthew)? Or Mary along with another Mary and Salome (Mark)? Or Mary, Mary, Joanna, and a number of other women (Luke)? Was the stone already rolled away when they arrived at the tomb (Mark, Luke, and John), or explicitly not (Matthew)? Whom did they see there? An angel (Matthew), a man (Mark), or two men (Luke)? Did they immediately go and tell some of the disciples what they had seen (John), or not (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)? What did the person or people at the tomb tell the women to do? To tell the disciples that Jesus would meet them in Galilee (Matthew and Mark)? Or to remember what Jesus had told them earlier when he had been in Galilee (Luke)? Did the women then go tell the disciples what they were told to tell them (Matthew and Luke), or not (Mark)? Did the disciples see Jesus (Matthew, Luke, and John), or not (Mark)? 1 Where did they see him?—only in Galilee (Matthew), or only in Jerusalem (Luke)?

Bart Erhman

Wright (2003, p. 612) argues, The stories exhibit … exactly that surface tension which we associate, not with tales artfully told by people eager to sustain a fiction and therefore anxious to make everything look right, but with the hurried, puzzled accounts of those who have seen with their own eyes something which took them horribly by surprise and with which they have not yet fully come to terms.

Naturally, at different centres of Palestinian Christianity the lists would differ. All agreed that Mary of Magdala was one of the number, but at one centre the names of local women would be remembered, and at another centre those of others. Luke’s (Caesarean) tradition preserved the names of Joanna and Susanna, Mark’s (Jerusalem) tradition a second Mary and Salome. (Taylor 1957, p. 652)

Creeds are designed to be concise so that they can be easily memorized and communicated to others. If the ‘simplicity’ of the creed in 1 Corinthians means that Paul is unaware of the miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection, then the simplicity of the Nicene Creed (fourth century AD) should mean that the writers are unaware of the Gospel narratives. (Wood 2008)

Vermès (2008, p. 106) is that the accounts differ regarding the number and identity of the women who visited the tomb: one, Mary Magdalene, in John and Mark B; two, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, in Matthew; three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome, in Mark A; and several, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women from Galilee, in Luke.

it is solved in a very curious way indeed, for this solution is saying, in effect, that what really happened is what is not narrated by any of these Gospels: for none of them mentions two angels! This way of interpreting the texts does so by imagining a new text that is unlike any of the others, so reconcile the four to one another. Anyone is certainly free to construct their own Gospel if they want to, but that’s probably not the best way to interpret the Gospels that we already have. (Ehrman 2014, pp. 134–135)

In Luke 24:1–53, Jesus’ resurrection, all of his appearances, and his ascension to heaven are narrated as though having occurred on that Sunday. That Luke compressed the events in this manner is clear, since in the sequel to his Gospel, Luke says Jesus appeared to his disciples over a period of forty days before ascending to heaven (Acts 1:3–9).

Dr.Licona

The apostles are supposed to have known best that there was not one single word of truth in the news of their master’s resurrection … yet regardless of this, they are supposed to have spread the same story with a fire of conviction that sufficed to give the world a different form. (Strauss 1862, pp. 276–277)

The hypothesis that the Apostles were knaves is quite absurd. Follow it out to the end, and imagine these twelve men meeting after Jesus’ death and conspiring to say that he had risen from the dead. This means attacking all the powers that be. The human heart is singularly susceptible to fickleness, to change, to promises, to bribery. One of them had only to deny his story under these inducements, or still more because of possible imprisonment, tortures and death, and they would all have been lost. Follow that out. (Pensées, 310; in Pascal 1670/1995,

That the use of synagogues was Paul’s missionary strategy for a long time is confirmed by Paul’s own recollection of how often he suffered under Jewish discipline (five times he had received 39 lashes [2 Cor. 11.24]), for it is difficult to imagine that Paul would have been punished and persecuted if he avoided synagogue communities and lived solely as a gentile among gentile populations (Dunn 2008, pp.

The silence of the early written Jewish sources in refuting the resurrection can therefore be explained by the fact that they thought they could not refute it convincingly (it is interesting to note that Jewish polemic that the disciples stole the body is reflected in Christian sources).

Romans were disgusted by the early Christians’ refusal to pay homage to the Roman gods by offering sacrifices, which was seen as threatening the stability of the state (McDowell

‘thus the faith in Jesus as the Messiah, which by his violent death had received a fatal shock, was subjectively restored, by the instrumentality of the mind, the power of imagination, and nervous excitement’ (Strauss

The tale of the empty tomb and the apparitions of the lost Lord momentarily illuminated their dark despair with a ray of hope. Doubts nevertheless lingered on. However, when under the influence of the Spirit their self-confidence revived, prompting them to resume their apostolic mission, and they felt increasingly sure that they were not acting alone, but that Jesus was with them.

Vermes

While biomedical models tend to use the terms complex visual hallucination, compound hallucination to denote apparitions, explaining their mediation by reference to aberrant neurophysiological activity in cerebral areas and/or the temporo-parieto-occipital junction, parapsychological models tend to combine such biomedical explanations with hypotheses related to a metaphysical origin of the perceived apparitions, such as the telepathic powers of dead or living agents.

Wright (2008, p. 58) explains, If the disciples simply saw, or thought they saw, someone they took to be Jesus, that would not by itself have generated the stories we have. Everyone in the ancient world took it for granted that people sometimes had strange experiences involving encounters with the dead, particularly the recently dead. They knew at least as much as we do about such visions, about ghosts and dreams—and the fact that such things often occurred within the context of bereavement or grief. They had language for this, and it wasn’t resurrection.

‘I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.’

Josephus Flavious Jewish War

Gnostic and Islamic escape hypotheses, which propose that God did a miraculous act to cause someone to be crucified in Jesus’ place,

The remains of a crucified man from the first century were found in a cave northeast of Jerusalem, with a nail still embedded in the heel. The circumstances of this find suggest the man’s body was taken down soon after death because of the wealth and influence of his family (Crossan and Reed 2001, pp. 3–4, 246–247; Lowder 2005, p. 264). The discovery of this man’s remains, and the reported timing of Jesus’ crucifixion and involvement of the high-status Joseph figure, make the story of Pilate’s early release of the body plausible.

Craig (1989, pp. 184–185) also notes that when Gamaliel died in AD 50, his follower burned 80 pounds of spices and commented, ‘Gamaliel was better than 100 kings’ (B Ebel Rabbathi 8.6). Thus it is not implausible that Nicodemus used 75 pounds of spices for Jesus’ burial as John stated, if he thought that Jesus had been unjustly condemned and crucified as King of the Jews.

The background for it is probably not an otherwise ‘unknown’ polemical Jewish story against the message of Jesus’ resurrection, but rather late Christian apologetics, perhaps stemming from the evangelist himself, to make the story and the message of Jesus’ resurrection ‘more plausible’ for Christians themselves.

the Toledoth Yeshu, claims that the Jewish leaders did drag Jesus’ corpse through the streets of Jerusalem, but this account lacks historical credibility because of the late date of writing.

Craig’s argument that acts like this usually brought to light, Carrier objects that there is rarely any difficulty for one or two persons to keep quiet, and it is possible that perhaps the thief died shortly after dumping the body in an unknown place. He notes that even nowadays with modern technology, detectives hot on trial must accept many crimes will never come to light.

our first Gospel is Mark; it records the ‘fact’ that the tomb was empty, but strikingly, no one is said to come to believe that Jesus was raised because of it… . The same view is advanced in the Gospel of John. Ehrman,

Whittenberger thinks, if the resurrection hypothesis were true and Jesus was really standing among his disciples, it is very unlikely that some would doubt. On the other hand, if one or two disciples experienced a hallucination of Jesus and the others did not, then it is very likely that some would doubt.

A habitual smoker will experience cognitive dissonance when hearing about the severe health risks of this habit … people often attempt to reduce this unpleasant tension by using or inventing stories that mask the incompatibility, by adapting their behavior, or by attempting to convince other people of their beliefs. (Philipse

If one person—say, a dominant personality—injects into the conversation an incorrect recollection or ‘distorted memory’ that others in the group do not remember, they tend to take the other person’s word for it. As one recent study has shown, ‘The misinformation implanted by one person comes to be shared by the group as a whole. In other words, a collective memory could become formed around misinformation. Misinformation shared by one person may be adopted by the rest.’

This examination of the instruction given concerning oral traditions, of the controls exercised … brings out the fact that the traditions were often transmitted from one generation to the next by a method laid down for the purpose, and that in many societies without writing particular attention was paid to careful preservation and accurate transmission of these traditions. (Vansina 1965,

In not one single case do we hear the slightest mention of the disappointed followers claiming that their hero had been raised from the dead. They knew better. Resurrection was not a private event. Jewish revolutionaries whose leader had been executed by the authorities, and who managed to escape arrest themselves, had two options: give up the revolution, or find another leader. Claiming that the original leader was alive again was simply not an option. Unless, of course, he was.

Zevi, a seventeenth-century Jewish teacher who claimed to be Messiah but who converted to Islam after he was captured by hostile Muslim forces. Instead of abandoning their beliefs, a number of Zevi’s followers rationalized how he had only ‘temporarily converted’ or was ‘destroying Islam from within.’