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
Amazing! Very powerful and inspiring article, as a Christian I couldn't agree more, thanks for writing this!
ReplyDelete"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. "
ReplyDeleteThe likelihood of body theft is far greater than anything else. There is 0 evidence to support the notion of God or a resurrection.
In fact, one of the very sources you quoted states clearly: "Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him..."
What is more likely? Divine intervention of fanatical cult spiriting away a body? Cults care not about persecution. They will readily die for their beliefs. Read the news of Waco, or Heaven's Gate, or suicide bombers.
All evidence you have is circumstantial or heresy. It would not fly in a trial.
Resting everything on the Annals is a grave mistake. The earliest extant manuscript of the Annals is from the 11th century CE. That means that nearly a millennia went by from which we have no copies of the Annals and no way of knowing if the first extant copy is indeed what was originally written.
ReplyDeleteSource: Hector Avalos
And that is a problem in general for people claiming corroborating contemporary records--no such records exist. And even if such records did exist (that is, allowing your use of Tacitus and the rest), it in no way supports any kind of divine reincarnation; all it would support is that some guy at that time was named Jesus and/or called Christ--hardly the kind of evidence you need to support your claim that a resurrection happened.
What tomb? Where is it. If you found it, how do you know there was anything or any body in it? How do you know it was empty? What were the names of these witnesses? How old were they. What was their position in life. Could they be lying, if indeed they existed? Did they think the world was flat. Were is your evidence? Musings and hearsay from men remote from the alleged event doesn't count unless there is real backup evidence. How do you know the event was supernatural? Supernatural=bogus. Musings and hearsay from other men doesn't count. Your above convoluted argument is useless without hard evidence.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, leading "a moral and ethical lifestyle which can change lives for the better one person at a time" is equally accomplished by people who don't believe in supernatural beings.
Frank
The passage in Josephus is a clear forgery. Josephus was an orthodox Jew who stated his belief that the Roman emperor Vespasian was the Messiah - the passage you refer to writes of Jesus in a highly praising manner which does not tally with his views. The first reference to this passage is made by Eusebius in the 4th century, a man who said that sometimes it is necessary to lie to pagans to convert them. The passage would also have to have been missed by Origen, who was clearly familiar with the works of Josephus as he quoted other passages.
ReplyDeleteThe other sources you mention were written over 100 years after Jesus' supposed death (if he ever existed on Earth, which is not clear from the non-Gospel books of the NT) and were clearly not getting their information first hand & do not say where they get it from, so these aren't as reliable as you make out.
You also say near the beginning:
"If Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead by the power of God as the Bible claims, then there is evidence of God's ability to raise from the dead"
Do you know what would be better evidence? If everyone who accepts this story did the same thing & had a bodily resurrection. Why are people not raised from the dead in the manner that Jesus supposedly did? Instead, Paul says that the resurrection is in spirit, for which we have no evidence.
Furthermore, several early Christian writers discuss in depth the Platonic idea of the Logos, a divine liaison officer between God & man that fits the character of Jesus, but make no mention of an earthly Jesus (Theophilus of Antioch in 'To Autolycus', Athenagoras of Athens in 'A Plea for Christians' and Tatian in 'Apology to the Greeks'). One in particular goes as far as to categorically deny that he was killed on Earth (Minucius Felix in 'Octavius')
None of your historical evidence supports your claim that the biblical myths about the resurrection are true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comments for those who participated. I appreciate your respectful dissent.
ReplyDeleteJames, I agree that scholarly debate exists regarding the precise wording of this text from Josephus. But one should not be so quick to totally disregard it. In the first place, this section appears in every known manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities. It's hard to imagine that an interpolation of this length made it into every single copy we have while none built on the original has survived. Secondly, Arabic translations of this section also exist of this section of Josephus. In the Arabic version of the text Josephus notes that Jesus was a good man who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Jesus disciples claimed he had been raised from the dead. Wha't interesting about Josephus is that while he is specifically discussing Jesus as a teacher in a broader section of seditious leaders against Rome, he offers nothing as a counter to the claims of Jesus' resurrection by the disciples of Jesus. It would have been very opportune for him to say what steps Jewish and Rome leaders had made to disprove these claims.
With regard to Origen not quoting this passage from Josephus, may I ask would you hold the same standard for authenticating other works? In other words, let's say historian writing about American Presidential history wrote a lengthy book about scandals, but did not cite every significant comment from Bob Woodward about Richard Nixon, would you conclude that any particular reference by Woodward about Nixon must be a forgery?
Also, how sure are you that we have a copy of every reference Origen made regarding Josephus in general or more specifcally comments made by Josephus about Jesus or Christians? Just because a particular author does not quote a section from Josephus does not invalidate the authenticity of that passage found in every copy of Josephus.
Finally if I understand your comment correctly, I understand you to be saying that the other books of the New Testament are not clear as to whether Jesus actually existed. If that is what you are saying, let me point out that Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament clearly refers to Jesus' death (and therefore life), burial and resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. John also speaks about the heresy of those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh, 1 John 4:2-3. Peter claims to be an eye-witness of Jesus life, 2 Peter 1:16-18, and refers to Jesus death and resurrection, 1 Peter 1:3. Of course Jude certainly seems to be pointing to the same denial to which John pointed in reference to those who "deny...Jesus Christ Jude 4.
I realize there are some scholars who follow the Tubingen school in Germany who doubt the autheticity of the New Testament. But textual critics and the pervasive amount of ancient manuscripts either in part or whole of the New Testament place these books in the first century AD. These accounts both in the Gospels and Epistles are very early and provide clear statements of Jesus life, death, and resurrection, as eyewitnesses.
The Gnostic writers of the 2nd and 3rd century AD blended Philo, Christianity, and Greek philosophy. Some schools of gnostic thought deny that the material and spiritual can co-exist. It's no wonder that some would deny Jesus' physical life on earth because for them do so would inherently deny his deity. Others would go to the other end of the spectrum. This would be as one would expect as a theological and philosophical defense of their position. Notice again they are writing after the period of time in which Jesus lived.
Thanks James, I've enjoyed the dialogue.
Little Known,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your leaving your thoughts. If all the evidence which existed or which I cited was a single reference in an obscure copy of a doubted author, it would still be evidence meager as it is. But, there are several references listed here.
The reality is that Tacitus is cited in support of other historical personalities and events. So is Thucydides, Plato, Euripides, and Sophocles, Suetonius, Julius Ceasar (Gallic Wars), and many others. Yet all of these sources are recognized, generally speaking, as authentic even though the extant copies of each are hundreds and in some case more than a thousand years older than the original autographs which are lost.
If you were to apply this same standard to all of these works as you are to the section in the Annals which references Jesus, then much of the historical sources we have for other fields would be lost as well.
If one reads the section from the Annals it seems to flow logically as Tacitus explains why Nero blamed the burning of Rome on Christians and then defines for his readers the very general identity of this group of people. They are followers of a man Pontius Pilate crucified. There is no reason to assume that just because the age of the earliest copy of Tacitus (which generally is accepted as authentic) should here be discarded because of a reference to Jesus.
The record evidence as a contemporary source (or near contemporary source) of the events of Jesus' life is found in the date in which Tacitus wrote. Unless there is credible reason to believe that the extant copies vary from the original, it is still a contemporary source.
Matt Doc Martin,
ReplyDeleteYes the Toledoth Yeshua story suggests a gardner had taken the body. If the Jewish leadership knew the gardner had taken the body, why not produce it? Why is there not a record of either the Jewish or Roman authorities simply producing the body? Then would this religon not have died out as the potential followers realized the folly of their belief?
While I agree that "fanatical cults" may die for something they know is a lie. Early Christianity does not fall into this category. The Branch Davidians of Waco and the Heaven's Gate and other cults who have died together share a couple traits absent from early Christianity.
First, these cults try to physically isolate themselves from the rest of society. They do so in order to allow the leaders to squeeze of other influences and counter thinking in the lives of their followers. Early Christianity did not do this. In fact the opposite is true. Early Christians sought to engage and compete in the market place of ideas in their culture. This is clearly seen from Paul's comments about eating with non-Christians (1 Corinthians 10:27). There's not a reference in the New Testament where Jesus or the early church advocates physical separation from society as a whole (moral and ethical separation yes).
Second, cult leaders use physical and mental intimidation to keep followers in line and to brain wash their followers in to strict obedience even to the point of death. Nothing in the New Testament advocates this behavior. Those of the early church who died in defense of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection did so on their own because as witnesses of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection they knew it to be the case.
Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul were witness of Jesus resurrection. With the exception of Matthew's fate we know they died or were persecuted for preaching that claim. It's hard to imagine they would have taken it that far if they knew their claims to be false.
Suicide bombers don't commit suicide because they are advocating a claim they know to be false. They die on the promise of receiving some grandeur because they die. The early christians did not choose how, when, or what kind of death they faced in order to accomplish some task, as do suicide bombers. Rather the faced death rather than denying a truth. There is a subtle but great difference in these motivations of behavior.
FrankieSoPhilly,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the alternative opinion. The witnesses you are looking for are found in the Gospels of Matthew and John and the writing of Peter and Paul (1 Corinthians for instance). These men claimed to be witnesses. While there are some who argue these books were written later than the lifetime of the men the authors claim to be, the reality is that the textual evidence for the authenticity of these texts is great. Some of the manuscripts of these works are very old dating to the first half of 2nd century AD making the copies of the originals less than 100 years removed from the time of Jesus' death. For instance the John Rylands library cotains manuscripts of John which are likely 50 years or so removed from the original Gospel of John.
Textual critics base their dating on the type of writing used and writing material used for instance. The reliability and authenticity of these texts should not overlooked just because some doubts the substance of the record they contain.
Non-biblical sources of Greek, Roman, and Jewish origins talk about Jesus' physical life, death, and seek to explain the claims of the disciples about Jesus' empty tomb.
What is most interesting is how much information about Jesus is found in Greek and Roman sources. Judea during Jesus' life time was consider with great disdain. It's citizens had no standing in the eyes of Roman and Greek society, generally, Jesus was just one of many Galilean Jews purportedly to claim themselves as the messiah. Roman authorities would be at liberty to kill such men without question or raising attention. Yet so much is said about Jesus in an array of Greek and Roman sources. Why?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteNon-Christian Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources corroborate:
1. Jesus lived.
2. Jesus was crucified at the hands of Pilate.
3. The historical window in which this happened.
4. That Jesus' disciples claimed he was raised.
Rather than showing that Jesus body was in the tomb or providing evidence to the contrary of Jesus' empty tomb they suggested ambigous alternative theories: "a gardner stole it". If they knew that, why not produce the body? Why not have the gardner retrieve the body and hang it Jerusalem where the church gathered for several months and completely abolish the "myth" as you say before Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire as the Roman governor Pliny would write to Trajan circa 117 AD?