Scientific and historical critical challenges to the resurrection Flashcards
What is the significance of Mark 16:1-8
Mark ends with this passage. It mentions how Jesus rose again and promises that JC will appear to the disciples again in Galilee as had been promised. This is crucial because the oldest account of the resurrection actually doesn’t involve any post resurrection appearances by JC or an ascension
There is a later part of Mark 16 but this is now generally viewed to have been added centuries later
What key text did Ian Wilson write
Jesus: The Evidence
What key text did Frank Morison write
‘Who Moved the Stone?’
What was Morison best known for
His Christian apologetics. This has made him much better liked among conservative Christians than Wilson even though Morison and Wilson often make the same naturalistic challenges to examples of miracles in the Bible
What does ‘Who Moved the Stone’ do?
The book addresses the issues with the empty tomb, offering a defence of the resurrection on the basis of a lack of convincing alternative historical explanations for the events surrounding it
How are the gospels different in terms of their accounts of the resurrection
Easy to note the differences in the resurrection accounts of the Gs. Apart from the basic outline of the disciples finding the empty tomb, there is little consensus for what happened next
This does not necessarily mean Jesus’ resurrection was false
Describe the differences between the synoptics in their account
All have the central symbol of the empty tomb being found after the Sabbath. However, in each gospel different figures discover the empty tomb, meaning even this idea is controversial
Matthew has the women being addressed by an angel instead of the young man in Mark and they flee in joy instead of fear and are suddenly met by JC himself
What could be the cause of these differences
Perhaps the author of Matthew found the Marcan ending too ambiguous and wanted to stress the certainty and importance of the resurrection appearances
We could perhaps account for the differences by using RC to determine the motives of each of the evangelists in editing their Gs
Describe the empty tomb in John
Jesus meets Mary and tells her that he will be ascending and to tell the others
Timeline and series of events very different to the Synoptics
Uncertain what sources the author used to compose this account
The lateness of the composition of John implies that by this point the symbol and story of the empty tomb was well established in Christian communities
How do the Pauline epistles challenge the historicity of the resurrection
It is unusual that this symbol doesn’t appear in any of the Pauline epistles, as this was the earlies account of Jesus. Some have claimed that this is evidence that Mark invented the story, knowing that pre-existing Jewish beliefs about bodily resurrection meant that audiences would understand the lack of a body meant that Jesus had been resurrected
What does the fact that the Pauline epistles do not mention the empty tomb perhaps suggest
The lack of feature in the epistles may suggest that the resurrection was an accepted part of Christian tradition, with the empty tomb simply being a narrative reinforcement of this event. This would mean that the empty tomb is used as evidence to show the resurrection occurred, not as a theological foundation for the resurrection
Explain the idea that Jesus’ body was taken by someone else
This is perhaps a more rational explanation as to why the disciples found an empty tomb. Potentially a variety of suspects who could have performed such an act. Perhaps the Roman authorities took it to prevent any further religious or political conflict occuring around his remains. Maybe one of the disciples took it to another resting place and a misunderstanding occurred, meaning the other believed he was resurrected. Both of these rational explanation align with our scientific understand of the world more than the idea of a resurrection
Explain the hallucination hypothesis
The same is true for the resurrection appearances. If there was a misunderstanding surrounding the empty tomb, it is easy to imagine how in the grief and fervour after JC’s death the disciples hallucinated or lied about the resurrection appearances. Perhaps mass hysteria and a strong desire for him to return led to an escalating series of visions that ramped up the theological importance of the empty tomb. Similar events have occured before in history
Most scholars aren’t interested in the veracity of the empty tomb accounts. What are they interested in instead?
More interested in undertanding how the evangelists wrote their accounts, what sources they used and how their accounts reflected the demands of their communities at the time
What was Wilson trying to do in Who Moved the Stone
Morison attempts an intellectual examination of the historical events surrounding the resurrection. Initially he did not intend to defend the resurrection, bur rather critique the idea. As his research progressed he became more and more convinced by the evidence to the point that he saw it as a real historical fact
What is the traditional Christian view on the resurrection
The traditional Christian view is that it was a miracle, with the empty tomb and later appearances signifying how Jesus really did rise from the dead. While this is the traditional view it is also the most controversial as it requires believing something that goes against our natural scientific instinct
How do enlightenment thinkers such as Hume challenge this view
Hume makes the arguement that the unreliability of testimony, especially from past cultures and societies, means that on balance it will always be more rational to believe that the laws of nature have not been broken. This arguement came against the back of the enlightenment where people began to promote trusting reason over religious dogma. Enlightenment thinkers started to question the assumption that Jesus was resurrected and looked upon the Gs with fresh eyes. They eventually drew the conclusion that scientifically and historically the resurrection could not have been verified. According to Hume the empty tomb and some testimonials from what he called ‘barbarian nations’ was not enough to suggest that God had intervened on Earth to break the laws of nature. According to them belief in the resurrection is always going to require a leap of faith
How does Morison try and counter this
This is the view that Morison is fighting back against. His works attempt to show that there is a rational case for the resurrection, with it being the best possible explanation for the empty tomb when we look at the alternatives. If we adopt a purely scientific view, then Morison has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there are no better alternative explanations. He does not have to prove that the resurrection definetely happened, just that it is a better explanation for the historical sources than the alternative. However, the alternative explanations are hard to rule out, especially when it comes to questioning the testimony and experience of other humans
Explain the idea of the resurrection as fiction
The idea that the resurrection is just fiction also has a set of requirements it must fulfil in order to be true. We have to consider what events might have reasonably transpired such that the disciples mistook the empty tomb to be a sign of resurrection, when the body might simply have been taken for example. In this sense the resurrection is only a fiction in the sense that there was a series of errors that led to the disciples falsely attributing a resurrection narrative towards events that had a perfectly reasonable alternative explanation
How do the gospels contain a counter to this within themselves
What stands in the way of these views is that in the accounts of the empty tomb the evangelists often take pains to pre-empt and counter these alternative explanations. They understand that simply finding an empty tomb was not sufficient evidence for resurrection. For example, the author of Matthew includes a line about the Jewish authorities paying the guards to lie about Jesus body being stolen. This suggests that the belief that the resurrection was a fictional event was already present among early Judeo-Christian circles, with followers of Jesus having to specifically spell out why Jesus’ body could not have been moved
What is the main issue with the idea of the gospel as fiction
While there may have motivations for the Roman or Jewish authorities or the disciples to move the body, supporters of the idea of the gospel as fiction have the issue of why no one later discovered the body at the place where it had been taken
Explain the idea that it was a hoax by the disciples
Another arguement that the resurrection was fiction suggests that the disciples and others lied about the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances. Followers of Jesus colluded to pretend he had been resurrected following the humiliation of his crucifixion.
Counter this idea
However, such a conspiracy is hard to imagine. A lot of people would have had to have been involved and they would have still had to have removed his body. Furthermore, why would the disciples have been willing to die for something they knew was a lie. These flaws mean that people who make the arguement that the resurrection is fiction instead focus on what could have caused the disciples to mistake the empty tomb to be a resurrection, rather than this idea. Such arguements may be popular but they are not taken seriosuly academically
Explain Celsus idea that the resurrection story was just a myth
This idea was pit forward by the Greek critic Celsus, who often reserved a great deal or ire for early Christian communities. Said that it was a myth propounded by early Christians who couldn’t face that fact that there leader wasn’t truly the Son of God. In developing this story, they made the mistake of drawing too heavily on Jewish prophecy and myths, in particular the suffering servant in Isaiah
What is the flaw in this idea
How would such a myth occur when there were seemingly so many eyewitnesses or testimonies about the resurrection appearances. Again it would seem like the evangelists and disciples would be having to construct some sort of elaborate lie
Explain the hallucination hypothesis
Perhaps after the body was moved or disappeared, the disciples hallucinated the resuurection experiences in their fervour. Perhaps even in finding the tomb itself and seeing figures within it was a kind of hyserical hallucination that quickly spread among other disciples and followers
What is the flaw of this arguement
However, this view rests on the idea that there was not one sceptical or rational member among the disciples who might question their unreliable senses. Indeed, in the gospel accounts there are attempts to show that the disciples were not initially convinced by the empty tomb and that Jesus took pains during the resurrection appearances to demonstrate his reincarnated physical form
How does the hallucination hypothesis actually align with our historical understanding
However, such instances of mass hysteria do occur, and it is potentially the case that the growth of Christianity arose from a particularly acute instance of wish fulfilment, with the disciples seeking a happier end to the death of Jesus and projecting this onto a set of experiences which confirm this wish. Further evidence for this might come from considerations about the broadly mythological worldview of the disciples. Back in the first century there were no good naturalistic explanations for alot of phenomena. For example, miracle workers existed. Therefore, the kind of explanations the disciples would have given to hallucinatory experiences would have been much more religious or mythological as a result
What is the counter to this view
However, if such experiences were commonplace, it is fair to ask what made Jesus’ resurrection appearances so special or particularly convincing for the disciples. Still the rebuttal that the resurrection was unique in such a number of ways which other miraculous events at this time were not, and this is key to understanding why Christian had the impact that it did.
Why must we specifically look at the gospels narratives in trying to discount the resurrection
So far we have looked at broad scientific and historical reasons to deny the resurrection could have occured rather than looking at the specific historical accounts given in the Gs. While these arguements are convincing for many, they rely on discounting the historical sources we have about the resurrection. A proper rebuttal of the empty tomb arguements for Christianity should ideally be able to give another explanation for the evenys leading up to the resurrection. We don’t just want to mount a scientific challenge, but a historical challenge also. If we can provide a convincing and consistent account for Jesus’ missing body then we can meet biblical scholars on their own level and demonstrate that the resurrection is more likely to be fiction than fact
If this is not possible, then perhaps it is not so irrational for Christians to have faith in the gospel accounts, even if they do contradict our scientific beliefs
What is the major challenge in trying to mount such a historical challenge to the resurrection
the relative paucity of historical accounts
There are few historical sources about the resurrection and no witnesses to the act of resurrection. We don’t have much to work with. What happened in the three days between the crucifixion and the disciples finding the empty tomb is completely unknown. It is therefore hard to judge exaclty what good alternative explanations we could posit about the lack of a body and the reasons that it disappeared. What we have is a series of rather conflicting accounts about who discovered the empty tomb and reported this to the disciples
What kind of things CAN we conclude when we attempt to harmonise the gospel accounts
When we harmonise all of these gospel accounts we can perhaps establish that Joseph of Arimathea buried the body of Jesus (perhaps with help) in an empty tomb and this tomb was subsequently discovered without a body by Mary Magdalene (and most likely others) three days later, accompanied by a vision of Jesus. However, if we take the Synoptics as our primary source, then we might conclude that Mary also observed the burial and that other figures accompanied her at this moment and upon her return to witness the empty tombs and the appearances of an angel like figure.
What is Matthew notable for doing in his account
Matthew is largely notable for adding embellishments that are intended to provide evidence for the central narrative, such as the securing of the tomb and the bribing of the guards. These embellishments were likely a response to early critics of Christianity at the time of the composition of Matthew
Why are the gospel accounts of the empty tomb not that reliable
The gospel accounts of the empty tomb are not exactly reliable. For instance, the only person agreed upon to be a witness to the empty tomb and the early resurrection appearances was Mary Magdalene, a woman who was said to have been cured of ‘7 demons’ by Jesus (Luke 8:2). This suggests that Mary may have had some sort of mental disorder, meaning we can question the reliability of her testimony. The other witnesses who appear in the synoptics are not well known enough for us to draw conclusions about their mental states
How does Mark limit the historicity of the other gospel accounts
The earlies manuscripts of Mark do not include verses 9-20, which were most likely to have been later additions. This means that the earliest gospel account saw the women simply flee and not tell anyone about what they saw. This undermines the longer accounts in Matthew and Luke, who are likely to have used Mark as a source. Is this evidence that these authors embellished the original account of Mark?
What is the counter to this idea
We could perhaps instead say that mark was unfinished and then later completed by other evangelists. Perhaps the details of the resurrection appearances were more robustly analysed by Matthew and Luke, who gathered various oral and written sources on the empty tomb to construct their narratives.
How does 1 Corinthians 15: 5-8 challenge the gospel accounts
If we consider this possibility, it is worth briefly noting that other NT sources about the resurrection. The Pauline epistles, which were earlier than the gospels, give a vague number of resurrection appearances and do not specify the order of them and do not mention the women at all (1 Corinthians 15: 5-8)
Why is evaluating the historicity of the empty tomb so difficult
Given the two issues above (there are not many sources and the sources we do have are not reliable) this question is difficult to answer
How can the resurrection be proven historically
We do not need to prove that the empty tomb proves the resurrection absolutely, but rather show that by our conventional historical standards, the resurrection is either a possible or probable explanation for the empty tomb. This mean that one necessarily has to accept the resurrection as a real event. One can accept the gaps and biases in the records that we have. However, it perhaps mean that Christians can trust the resurrection accounts in the gospels as authentic; that there is a genuine mystery about the empty tomb to which naturalistic explanations cannot give an effective answer
What is the issue with trying to historically prove the resurrection in this fashion
However, it is also important to question whether this question is meaningful. We can ask whether it is actually possible to treat the empty tomb as a kind of court case for Christianity when there is so little historical evidence and the resurrection is such a weighty important event in the context of Christian tradition. It may be impossible to judge such a momentous event when we have so little real access to the details and so much rests on it being true or false
Explain the idea that Joseph of Arimathea moved the body
Says he moved the body between the time it was buried and when the empty tomb was discovered
The gospel accounts are unanimous in agreeing it was this figure who saw Jesus’ burial, and so both Morison and Wilson recognise that this is a conceptually strong possibility
He knew where the body was, he potentially had access to it even if it was secured, and as a member of the council, he might well have had good reasons for wanting to ensure its safety (or even destruction)
What three factors does Morison like to examine when evaluate these alternative explanations
Examine an individual’s actions in the context of religious and cultural practises at the time
Examine an individual’s actions based on their character and dispositions as described in the NT and other historical sources
Examine an individua’s actions based on logistics, planning and time required for certain feats
Each of these methods may well clash at times and it is not always easy to decide which we should prioritize in judging a person’s actions in a difficult and dramatic situation
Counter the idea that Jospeh moved the body
Joseph is a high ranking religious authority and so was likely a devout Jew. This is bolstered by gospel accounts in Luke affirming his good character. It is therefore unlikely that he would have wanted to perform actions that would contravene the sabbath and the law, least of all moving a dead body
Morison supports the idea that this would make it likely that Joseph would not have wanted to move the body. He says that method two leads us to the same conclusion. Joseph is described by Matthew as a prominent member of the council who goes boldly to Pilate to request Jesus’ body. Luke even suggests that the council had not agreed to this and that Jospeh was acting alone. John is the only outlier here, not mentioning that he was part of the council and simply saying that he was a secret disciple of Jesus. Morison says that if this was the case and Jospeh did believe in Jesus then he would have wanted to see him buried
Make the claim that he would have wanted to move the body
However, Joseph may well have sought a temporary burial by sunset in accordance with Torah Law (Deuteronomy (21: 22-23) but could have also desired a proper burial as described in the Talmud. Sceptic Richard Carrier suggests that Joseph could have felt it necessary that Jesus be moved to a secondary graveyard reserved for serious criminals, due to council regulations. Although the women went to the tomb after the ending of the sabbath, we don’t have strict times to work off. Maybe Jospeh went earlier and had the body removed before the women could arrive
It’s not clear from Joseph’s character that he would have desired the body to remain in the tomb
Describe the logistical problems with the idea that Joseph moved the body
It’s not clear from Joseph’s character that he would have desired the body to remain in the tomb. However, the third method could also swing this verdict. What kind of resources did he have at his disposal to move the body? It was true that he organised the burial, but Matthew states that the tomb Jesus was interred in was Jospeh’s own tomb. Would he have had access to another tomb, and if he did how did he move away the heavy body. If he was acting alone then moving the body would have been very logistically difficult. If he did have help, then this begs the question of how the removal of the body did not become public knowledge
If Jesus’ body had have been moved, then how did the perpetrators hide this fact so effectively. It would require the collusion of a large number of people, none of which could have let it be known to the followers of Jesus that his body had been taken. Also begs the question of why this was kept a secret in the wake of resurrection stories among early Christian communities. Perhaps they did but they were not believed by the disciples. This might explain why Matthew details the bribing of the guards, but it doesn’t explain the broader logistical and social complications of the body being moved
In the case of Joseph, we can question whether someone who was broadly sympathetic towards Jesus would have created and continued this conspiracy. Unless he was determined to see the rise of a new religion so much that he persisted with this lie throughout his life
Why is the arguement that the body could not have been removed by the Jewish authorities because this would have broken the Torah a weak one
We have already seen that the Jewish authorities may have professed their commitment to the law they were hypocritical and willing to bend it to persecute Jesus.
Why does historian Charles Freeman think that the Jewish authorities may have moved Jesus’ body
Historian Charles Freeman argued that the Jewish authorities potentially wished to avoid Jesus’ tomb becoming a shrine, so removed the body in an attempt to further disperse his followers
What is the counter to this idea
However, if the Jewish authorities did move the body, and then resurrection stories subsequently started to appear, why didn’t they simply reveal the real grave? Since there presumed aim in moving the body would have been preventing the growth of the Christianity why wouldn’t they have revealed the body to do this
Why would the Romans have had the practical means to move the body
Pilate is likely to have known where Jesus was buried since he gave permission to Joseph of Arimathea to move this area according to the gospels
The Romans were not bound by Sabbath rules so they could have retrieved it whenever they wished
What would have been the motivations for Pilate doing this
Perhaps Pilate was worried about the religious and revolutionary fervour around Jesus’ death. By moving the body he removed evidence of Jesus’ torture and crucifixion and also prevents it from being visited by his followers, where they might gather and plot. Jesus was a potential problem for Pilate if he was seen as a martyr or the messiah. Indeed he was executed partly due to the political overtones of his title ‘King of the Jews’
Counter the idea that Pilate moved it
However, the Romans were keen in keeping records of crime and punishment, so if Jesus’ body was moved there would likely have been a record of this, unless Pilate ordered it in secret. Also, if such logs existed why were they not released in an attempt to quell the fervour brought about by the resurrection stories that emerged
The death of Jesus was a religious matter for the Jews and the Romans probably didn’t care about the death of one criminal
For instance, many scholars have doubted the historicity of Matthew’s idea that Roman guards partolled the tomb of a random Jew on these grounds. Matthew seems to be embellishing his account to support the empty tomb arguement. William Lane Craig has argued that they were Jewish temple guards rather than Roman guards
Morison argues that there is little direct evidence for Roman involvement in Jesus’ death. Simply claiming Pilate might have wanted the body to be moved is stretching our historical understanding if his character
No overwhelmingly strong case for either set of authorities moving the body, although it is possible that they did
Counter the idea that Jesus died on the cross
Research into the Roman method of crucifixion does not support this idea. It was a brutal method of execution that often resulted in death, even when a person was removed from the cross while still alive
Explain the swoon hypothesis
However, this did occasionally occur, and some scholars have speculated about what is sometimes called the ‘swoon hypothesis’, that Jesus was removed from the cross before death and then subsequently fled his tomb, with or without help
How does Wilson think we should examine the swoon hypothesis
Wilson says that this explanation is not readily apparent in the gospel narratives. For the alternative explanations we have examined so far, there are parts of our historical sources which potentially rebut or shed light on their likelihood, but the same is not true for the swoon hypothesis, so Wilson argues that this explanation needs no further insight. We must therefore draw on comtemporary scientific knowledge as well as exploring the logistical issues with the idea that Jesus not only escaped death on the cross but did not return to his former life
Describe Hugh Schonfield’s swoon hypothesis
The scholar Hugh Schonfield gives the suggestion that the sponge Jesus was given in the gospel narratives wasn’t soaked in vinegar but instead a drug to make it seem like he died. However, Schonfield then suggests that Jesus was accidentally killed by the lance that was thrust into him. The person Mary subsequently encounters at the tomb is thus not an angel or a divine messenger but the man who had been sent to revive him
How are other versions similar
Other explanations invoke the same general formula – that there is some method by which Jesus survives the crucifixion and is then able to escape the tomb sometime between his burial and the end of the sabbath
What are the two main issues with these kind of explanations
Faking death isn’t an easy feat to pull off, especially in societies that had less of a knowledge of drugs or physiology. Some have suggested that natural sources of drugs tetrodotoxin or reserpine could have been used. Both of these drugs can induce states of paralysis or very slow breathing, but the idea that they could have been sourced and correctly applied by the followers of Jesus is unlikely. Wilson notes that even if Jesus did survive he could hardly recovered in an empty tomb without medical treatment, let alone broken out. Perhaps Joseph of Arimathea found him while he was still alive and treated his wounds.
If Jesus did survive, why did no one hear about this? One possibility is that he survived for a bit but died somewhere else. It is even more inplausible to say that Jesus survived and continued living, as it seems likely someone would have recognised him afterwards. If we accept this claim then we have to accept the Jesus was willing to reject his previous mission and did not care about religious and ethical change. It would be strange if Jesus was so cowardly and duplicitous considering how the gospels depict him
What sceptical questions can we ask about the account that Mary and others found an empty tomb and came across a mysterious figure
What if the women got the wrong tomb? This is discounted by the fact that Mary and the other women witness Jesus being buried here. They were at the crucifixion and had a vested interest in making sure Jesus was buried properly
What if the women mistook a gardener or worker for a mysterious person or angel and fled before they could explain the situation with the tomb and the body? It is perfectly possible that a gardener or worker may have been at the tomb, we run into a number of concerns that strain the credulity of these figures somehow being mistaken for angels or divine beings. For instance, it said that the women to the tomb the morning after the Sabbath. It therefore could realistically have been dark when they arrived, which would suggest that no one was working. Alternatively, if it were light, why would the women have mistaken the garderner for something else. Similarly in many of the other accounts the disciples then come and access the tomb, would they have not encountered the same worker? Morison points out why the chief priests, the council or anyone with a vested interest in discrediting Jesus would not just release evidence of this gardener to undermine evidence for the resurrection? In all the gospels, there is quite specific wording that the gardener apparently said, wording that the gardener is supposed to have said, which would be strange if he were simply a gardener working around the tomb. There appears to have been a specific kind of encounter which would have been odd if the women simply mistook the worker for something else
How does Marcan primacy challenge the historicity of these accounts
The original ending in Mark is shorter than the current canonical one and finishes with the women fleeing the tomb. However, if we look at the other gospels, it is clear they have at least partially based their accounts of the empty tomb on the one found in Mark. The synoptics share a similar general structure, from the discovery of the empty tomb to the meeting of figures outside. This means we can question the historicity of the gospels. What if Mark got it wrong and then the rest of the gospels copied this faulty source. If this is the case, then the gospels don’t mutually support one another but simply share one another’s mistakes
There are a few ways of seeing this in action. For instance, in Mark the description of the figure is very basic. He is just a man in a white robe sitting in the tomb. His words are straightforward, telling the women Jesus is not here and is heading to Galilee. The parts that hint at the resurrection could just be the women mistaking the context of his words. The empty tomb account in Mark is modest and may well point towards a different situation around the empty tomb. We could even note that temple authorities wore white, and if they had have moved his body, they might have spoken directly to the women in a way that alarmed them. All this indicates that if we take the marcan priotity serioiusly, then the questions around this figure become more difficult
How does this become an even greater issue when we consider that Mark cites Mary as his main witness
The same is true when we consider the fact that Mary appears to be the core figure present at the empty tomb. We have noted that she may have had a mental condition. If this is the case then in the hysteria following Jesus’ death could have caused Mary to not be a reliable witness, and this problem is exascerbated by the issues that arise with the marcan priority as described above
It seems that we have one meaninful source (Mark), which details a potentially hallucinatory witness mistaking a figure in white’s words for something more portentous
Who else could have moved the body aside from the Jewish or Roman authorities
Grave robbers
Make the case that grave robbers took the body
What is the tomb was empty because grave robbers rather than authorities moved the body?
If this was the case, then perhaps the figure at the tomb was intentionally frightening and mysterious to scare the women away
As criminals, they wouldn’t want to release the truth about Jesus’ body to the authorities for fear of punishment. This would allow resurrection stories to grow unchecked
We could imagine that Joseph or others left items of value behind which might be considered a good target for robbery
Counter this idea
Why would robbers be interested in someone who didn’t cultivate wealth during his ministry? They would have needed to have advanced knowledge in knowing where Jesus was buried or they would have had to have taken a guess at to which tombs where valuable
Seems like a strecth and just speculation with little basis in evidence
What is the problem with analysing the gospel accounts in terms of their historical merit
By analysing the gospel sources on their own historical merits, we are taking their accounts of the empty tomb in good faith, when we should perhaps be a little more cynical and sceptical. These are writers with their own agenda and a personal investment in the resurrection being true. Without an objective or antagonistic witness, we struggle to judge what is a good explanation and what is a bad one
One possibility we haven’t looked at is that there was no specific event where the women visited Jesus’ tomb. This says that the events logged in the gospels are completely erroneous. As proclamations of faith, perhaps these gospels were not concerned with historical accuracy. They might just have fashioned lots of hearsay and tradition into a narrative that support the notion of resurrection. Perhaps the resurrection appearances did happen to the disciples but the empty tomb did not. In this case, the empty tomb does not support the resurrection, but instead the empty tomb was a narrative crafted out of of an attempt to bring together a wild set of experiences in the immediate aftermath of Jesus’ death
This is not an unfair theory as any gospel account of the empty tomb is likely to have been influenced by the resurrection appearances
Furthermore, memory is unreliable. We tend to craft narrative in our mind when there were none and put together sequences of events that were largely separate. Perhaps it is natural that the evangelists sought an easy narrative where there was none, a shorthand way of demonstrating the physical resurrection of Jesus without simply talking about the experiences of the disciples
This arguement is hard to evaluate but it aligns with what we know about human experiences and the way we remember them. Morison and Wilson both take this arguement seriously on the grounds that we’re putting alot of faith into a set of accounts that, at least from basic instinct and reason, we should probably intuit not to be as reliable as many in the Christian faith take them to be
How is this idea supported by 1 Corinthians 15: 5-8
1 Corinthians 15:5-8 states that over 500 people witnesses resurrection appearances (though Paul curiosuly does not mention Mary). Even if we account for the fact that this may have been slightly inaccurate, we’re still left with an incredible amount of excitement and fervour after the death of Jesus. Wilson points out how characters such as Paul and Peter speak with great zeal after the resurrection appearances
Where did the first systematic challenges to the resurrection come from
The first systematic challenge to the resurrection came from pagan philosophers from the Roman Empire, criticising the rise of Christianity. Later these challenges would be restated by enlightenment philosophers
Where do most of these enlightenment arguements find their origin
Most of the enlightenment arguements around the resurrection were framed back in 180 CE by Celsus in his work ‘The True World’. Celsus launches two attacks on Christianity
He writes one section from the perspective of a Jew, interpreting Christianity as a corruption of Judaism and a misunderstanding of Jewish scriptures
The second part challenges Christianity head on by ridiculing the resurrection of Jesus
Who replied to Celsus
Christian scholar Origen tried to reply in 248 CE in ‘Against Celsus’
What scientific explanation does Celsus give for the resurrection appearances
Celsus suggests that Jesus’ resurrection appearances may have been hallucinations caused by wishful thinking
How does Origen respond to this
Origen replies that the appearances were in broad daylight to groups of people and that there is no evidence in the gospels that the witnesses were mentally unbalanced or delirious
Explain Celsus’ idea that the resurrection story is myth
Celsus suggests that the resurrection was just a poor copy of the ‘fantastic tales’ of pagan heroes descending into the underworld and returninh. This arguement was used by 20th century scholar James Frazer and the sociological approach to interpreting scripture
How does Origen respond to this
Origen replies that, unlike the myths of gods like Osiris, Jesus died in a public place under a Roman official. It is history not mythology
What role does Celsus suggest the disciples could have played in the resurrection
Celsus suggests that the resurrection is a hoax and that the disciples lied about meeting the risen Jesus
How does Origen use the changed character of the disciples to prove the resurrection
Celsus suggests that the resurrection is a hoax and that the disciples lied about meeting the risen Jesus
Give a quote from 3rd century Christian writer Eusebius to support this arguement
‘Why would they die for him when he was dead, after they had deserted him when he was alive’ (3rd century Christian writer Eusebius)
Give a quote from Jacques Abbadie to support this idea
‘No one dies for a fiction they have invented’ (Jacques Abbadie, 1698)
How does Thomas Woolston counter this idea
Thomas Woolston responds to this by saying ‘many other criminals and cheats have gone to their death proclaiming their innocence’
How did the debate between Origen and Celsus end
Origen’s replies to Celsus were considered to be the last word on the subject for several centuries, but versions of Celsus’ arguements returned, strengthened with scientific evidence, during the enlightenment
What did enlightenment thinkers broadly do
Rejected many of the beliefs and traditions of previous generations and developed new ways of looking at the world based on three key ideas
What were these three key ideas
Rationalism – Truth comes from the use of reason, rather than accepting tradition or authority
Empiricism – Knowledge comes from sensory experience of the world and is explored using the scientific method
Scepticism – The reasonable starting position is to doubt the truth of all knowledge claims
These three factors combine together in the scientific worldview that emerged during the enlightenment. This worldview undermined the plausibility of the resurrection for many people
How did Baron D’Holback undermine the gospels
Baron D’Holback uses contradictions between the 4 gospels to question whether they really could be inspired by God
How did Hermann Reimarus counter the resurrection
Hermann Reimarus argued that the historical Jesus was a Jewish prophet turned political revolutionary who never claimed to be the SoG and whose disciples stole his body to fake the resurrection. Challenges such as this were essentially the same as those proposed by Celsus, but this time they were strengthened by a new scientific worldview that was deeply sceptical about miracles and a scientific approach to analysing the bible which weakened confidence in the idea that the gosples were reallly eyewitness accounts of the events they describe. Because of this, these challenges could not be so easily countered by Origen’s arguements
How did Thomas Woolston challenge the resurrection
Thomas Woolston’s ‘Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour’ (1730) calls the resurrection ‘a monstrous fraud’. Woolston proposed that the disciples stole Jesus body. He echoes Hume’s arguement that even if this is unlikely, it is a better explanation than the scientifically impossible idea of a resurrection
Give a quote from Woolston to support this idea
Because the resurrection violates the course of nature, no human testimony could possibly establish it, since it had the whole witness of nature against it’ (Thomas Woolston)
What must we accept about the resurrection if we do not accept any naturalistic alternatives
That this miracle really did occur
Why can the idea that the resurrection did happen be seen as parsimonious in a certain sense
Many of the naturalistic explanations are deeply improbable, whether or not God exists, whereas if God exists and if God performs miracles, the resurrection might not be that improbable at al
Give a quote from WLC to support this idea
That Jesus rose naturally from the dead is fantastically impossible. But I see no reason to think that it is improbable that God raises Jesus from the dead
