Some skeptics and critics of Christianity argue that the idea of resurrection is a psychological crutch. Others suggest it is a vain belief with little basis. For instance, in a ABC Nightline Interview (12/29/2010), atheist Sam Harris makes the statement, "When an evangelical writes to me with lots of capital letters saying, 'You don't understand, the cave was empty on the third day,' I don't have to burn a lot of fuel wondering if I've read the Bible closely enough. And maybe I am completely wrong about the resurrection," he said. "But when a well-known philosopher or well-known theoretical physicist writes me and says, 'Listen, you are completely wrong and here's why,' ... it merits a little more attention to see whether or not he or she has actually discovered something wrong in my argument." His comment suggests the idea of the resurrection is just a crazy idea with little veracity. Some unintelligent, dogmatic but myopic minded Christian has gone off without considering the lack of evidence. Thus his statement, "I don't have to burn a lot of fuel wondering if I've read the Bible closely enough.... But when a well-known philosopher or well-known theoretical physicist writes me and says, 'Listen, you are completely wrong and here's why,' ... it merits a little more attention to see "
But is the assumption that outside the Bible there is no evidence to support this claim a correct assumption? And, is the scientific method of positing a theory to describe a natural phenomena and then testing it the only possible means of "knowing" something? In other words, is the resurrection a matter of "blind faith" as some would say?
There are lines of reason and evidence to weigh within those lines of reason to support the Bible's claim of the resurrection. One of the lines of reason is the historical information among contemporary secular sources and literary sources of early opponents of Christianity. While their goal was not to support the claim of the resurrection, they sought to explain away the claims of the empty tomb thereby acknowledging the tomb was empty. In other circumstances they provide a historical background for the mindset and actions of the earliest disciples.
For instance the fact that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea is supported in the work of the Roman Historian Tacitus in his Annals, 15.44, (circa 112 AD) . Lucian of Samosata, poet and playwright, noted Christians followed Christ who had been crucified in Palestine, Death of Pelegrine (circa 2nd Century AD). One tradition from Jewish sources known as the Toledeth Yeshua (600 AD) notes, "Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him..." Finally, a Arabic translation of Josephus' Antiquities (18.33) notes the disciples of Jesus, "reported he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive accordingly." Josephus here reports the claim as early as the 1st Century AD. (The original language text is more blatant in saying "he appeared to them alive" but some consider this an insertion by Christians).
While none of this proves the Bible's claim, it is evidence from non-Christian sources that at the very least report the notion of Jesus' resurrection and at the very most offer an alternative explanation of the the empty tomb. What is amazing is that none of the sources argue the tomb was later found occupied or that Jesus' body had been found. Some of the sources make unflattering comments about the "superstition" of these foolish followers, but none make claims or statements that the body was present.
In fact, history shows the great suffering that the early disciples faced. Excommunication and ostracism from Jewish society was one consequence, death by persecution was another. The contemporary followers believed to the point to death. They claimed to be witnesses of it. Why die for something you know is false? Since Christianity was illegal under Roman law, they did not prosper from it. Jewish Christians in Judea lost all social and economic ties to the Jewish community. Why keep it up if they knew it was not true?
Again, this doesn't prove the Biblical claims. But it does provide a line of reason based on evidence that can be weighed. Even scientists like Dr. Harris evaluate evidence and make conclusions based on the evidence. Their conclusions may change as evidence changes, but they are still conclusions.
Intelligent individuals will look at evidence and come to conclusions. Is there historical data outside the Bible that supports the idea the tomb was empty? Yes there is. What may one conclude about that data? If the tomb was found empty, why was it empty? Was it empty because the disciples stole the body, Jesus wasn't really dead, someone was confused about where Jesus was buried, or Jesus was raised by God? Evidence exists which supports the last conclusion.
For those who reach that conclusion, the question becomes how does this impact my life? If I conclude there is a God who is capable of raising someone (and me) from the dead, should I live in a manner knowing I will be held responsible for my behavior? How should I view the authority of a powerful and loving God as depicted in the resurrection?
This is why Christianity works. Not because it is a vague belief in some superstitious notion without corroboration. But because Christians can look at the historical evidence and conclude what the Bible claims about Jesus' resurrection, His life, and His teachings are correct. Since I will stand before a God at some point and be responsible for my life's decisions, I will make decisions based on what I can know about God. A Christian's knowledge about God's character, power, and creative authority all provide a direction toward a moral and ethical lifestyle which can change lives for the better one person at a time.
www.benbrookchurchofchrist.com
