Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Truth: The Journal of Modern Thought ^ | 1985 | Professor William Lane Craig

[BabylonXXX]

There is no historical evidence that Jesus lived, let alone was resurrected.

. . .except for the historical evidence that Jesus lived and was resurrected. Do you define "historical evidence" as everything except that which states Jesus lived? Brilliant.

What about the 500 other people thet were supposedly ressurected along with him? Did they ascend into heaven too, or did they die again?

The bible never states 500 other people were resserurected.

[A.J.Armitage]

You seem awfully certain of your asertions. Surely you can provide a little more backing then telling me to "dig". You made the asertions, you have the intellectual duty to prove them.

[A.J.Armitage]

Assertions.

[Dominic Harr]

This -- seems like 'evidence' to some of ya'll?

I'm truly stunned.

I can't believe that. I can't bring myself to believe that. This piece can't be presented -- and agreed with -- as "evidence". Please tell me this is a joke?

There wasn't one single piece of evidence in the piece. Just conjecture based upon an ancient piece of literature. At best heresay with an unreliable source. At worst, either it's pure propaganda or relates a big 'scam'. Maybe Jesus didn't really die. Maybe he did, and someone just stole the body. Maybe it never happened at all, and is just a 'local legend' gone wild.

All of these possibilities are totally rejected out of hand?

Someone said they didn't see the need for non-biblical, unbiased sources? I didn't realize it was that bad. Truly, I didn't. Perhaps I better understand party partisans, now. The highly relelvant, repeated point about Atta, etc, also seems to be completely disregarded, too. Not even discussed, simply dismissed. Dang. Must re-evaluate. I'm stunned.

Have we not come any farther than that, really? Forgive this rant. But this thing with Islamic fundamentalists who have been convinced by their priests that they will go to heaven to ravish virgins in reward for killing innocents has got me *really* questioning the thinking of all religous people.

And no, this is not 'Christian' bashing. Christians are typically wonderful people, citizens, parents. This is about the nature of religous belief, and the true value of 'reason'.

[lockeliberty]

You are absolutely correct Jerry. But we are called to defend our faith and our defense of the faith may be the spark that God uses to draw a person to Christ.

but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

[lockeliberty]

There wasn't one single piece of evidence in the piece. Just conjecture based upon an ancient piece of literature.

Under your "reasoning" then we can conclude that no accounts of History are correct unless verified by first hand account.

[r9etb]

Did Mohammed Atta?

There's a huge difference between Atta and the Apostles in this regard.

Atta could be explained as a man who died as a true believer in a false cause. Lots of people are willing to die for any number of wrong causes.

In the "Christianity is a fraud" formulation, the Apostles would have been the guys making the stuff up -- it would have been their plot, which they knew to be false. And if it were false, it's not terribly likely that they -- mostly uneducated Galilean rubes -- would die as they did, without recanting what they had been preaching.

[lasereye]

The author attempts to build his case strictly on biblical sources, which don't even offer a firsthand account of Jesus, since none of the writers of the New Testament were even alive at the time that Jesus allegedly lived.

The argument that the writers of the NT weren't alive during Jesus' time originated around the turn of the last century and has been examined by numerous scholars and has been thoroughly repudiated in the last few decades. All the evidence including archeological - some of which hadn't been discovered yet when the idea was proposed - supports Acts having been written in the first century for instance. Some scholars who had believed the idea that the NT was written later changed their minds after examining the evidence. You should read some of Josh McDowell's writings.

[r9etb]

There ought to be an equally tortuous body of thought regrading that, though I, not being scolarly in this regard, have never read one.

Here is a detailed medical discussion of the crucifixion, and it gives some pretty good reasons why Jesus would indeed have been dead on the cross.

As for the "giving up the body to the women" part -- I believe it was the generally duty of women to prepare the body; indeed, to prepare the body is precisely why the women returned to the tomb on the third day, only to find Him gone.

[r9etb]

See #69 for a link to what you describe.

[Vercingetorix]

"You seem awfully certain of your asertions. Surely you can provide a little more backing then telling me to "dig". You made the asertions, you have the intellectual duty to prove them." -- A.J.

One good scholarly source is all you need to start with. It will provide references to the pertinent original literature as well as the works of the most competent contributors to the question. "The Jesus Mysteries" by Freake and Gandy is probably most directly involved with the question. Toynbee's original ten volume "Study of History" has lots of the details concerning the actions of the Church irrespective of the question of Christ's historicity.

In the end there is no substitute for extensive reading. Assertions of historical significance can only be "proved" by reference to numerous other historical assertions. Would one such reference be enough or would all such pertinent assertions have to be catalogued for your assessment?

Wouldn't it be better if you took responsibility for making up your own mind on the question? The resolve to answer the question implies that you will take responsibility for discovering the truth and accepting it whatever it is.

My assertions serve little other purpose than to suggest that the truth may well be different than the sanitized version presented by those who presume to occupy pulpits and thrones.

[r9etb]

If something like the story in the Gospel didn't happen, there'd be no Christians and thus no Scriptures.

This is why the Creeds are so careful to say that Jesus "suffered under Pontius Pilate." The Gospels are full of contemporaneous names which allow for rather precise dating and placement of the events.

If it were really "invented in Egypt," one would expect a variety of geographical errors and anachronistic references. In fact, however, it all hangs together as to time and place.

One other thing: the "no contemporaneous mention" issue finds a reasonable explanation in the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The Jewish records in Jerusalem would have been there, and probably destroyed with everything else....

[A.J.Armitage]

There wasn't one single piece of evidence in the piece. Just conjecture based upon an ancient piece of literature. At best heresay with an unreliable source. At worst, either it's pure propaganda or relates a big 'scam'.

Then refute it's points, rather than reject it out of hand(as you falsely accuse us of doing).

Maybe Jesus didn't really die. Maybe he did, and someone just stole the body. Maybe it never happened at all, and is just a 'local legend' gone wild. All of these possibilities are totally rejected out of hand?

These were considered in the article itself and in the following discussion. Christians reject them, but not out of hand. I don't think you even intend to discuss them, though, so much as you intend to create a fog of indeterminacy.

Someone said they didn't see the need for non-biblical, unbiased sources? I didn't realize it was that bad. Truly, I didn't. Perhaps I better understand party partisans, now.

The existence of the New Testament proves there were Christians shortly after Jesus' time of Earth. There are certain implications that follow from that. There were people around who were in Jerusalem at the time. If it had not been the case that, at the very least, something like the Gospel happened, these people would have made the start of Christianity impossible. Here, we're faced with the question of how the demoralized followers(or, rather, former followers) of an executed "criminal" became white-hot missionsaries willing to suffer death for the cause. There's a "factor X" here, as the article puts it, that, if not the resurrection, did the work of the resurrection. The article explains why the other possibilities are implausible.

There are, BTW, Roman and Jewish sources referring to Christianity.

The highly relelvant, repeated point about Atta, etc, also seems to be completely disregarded, too. Not even discussed, simply dismissed. Dang. Must re-evaluate. I'm stunned.

It most certainly was discussed, by myself and others, albeit in dismissive tones. There's a reason for that: it's a fundamentally stupid point. There's a difference between a dupe and a liar. If Mohammad Atta had, instead of being a murderous thug, a missionary for a faith he knew to be a lie put under torture and the threat of death, you might have a point. You still wouldn't address the fact of how many early Christians would have to have been in on it without telling the truth, even under the threat of fire and sword, for it all to have been made up.

[RightWhale]

There is no historical evidence that Jesus lived, let alone was resurrected

Actually, there is. Who or what he was has been questioned, but not that he existed.

[AppyPappy]

the true value of 'reason'.

"Reason" has become a worthless term. We aren't Vulcans.

[ArGee]

In order to validate this convoluted sophistry, one must believe that Jesus of Nazareth was actually dead when he was place in the tomb. There ought to be an equally tortuous body of thought regrading that, though I, not being scolarly in this regard, have never read one. How is it that the legend of the Roman Soldier and the removal from the cross is not discussed to this extent; that Jesus' body was given up to the woman, by the guard, prior to his actual death?

Calling an argument names is an easy way to avoid respoinding to its particulars.

The author has already addressed the "Jesus was never dead" argument reasonably well. I have read better, but it isn't a matter of the facts anyway.

John 3:17-19 (NIV) For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

Shalom.

[ArGee]

Just look at human nature and think about the apostles. Would you die for a lie?

Did Mohammed Atta?

To make the distinction a little more clear - would you die for a lie that you yourself had invented and knew beyond the shadow of a doubt was a lie?

Mohammed Atta may have died for a lie, but it was not a lie he invented. He believed it.

On the other hand, if Peter or Paul died for a lie, it was a lie they knew to be a lie. Peter claimed to have seen the risen Christ, and it was this claim that lead to his death. Don't you think that sometime before he was crucified, or at least before he had to watch his wife being crucified, he would have cut a deal?

Shalom.

[A.J.Armitage]

Assertions of historical significance can only be "proved" by reference to numerous other historical assertions. Would one such reference be enough or would all such pertinent assertions have to be catalogued for your assessment?

Just provide a source I can check for myself for each assertion, preferably by means of a link. You assert(again with no evidence) that it's all out there. Fine: show me some.

Wouldn't it be better if you took responsibility for making up your own mind on the question?

No, it would be better if you took responsibility for your assertions. You said it. Prove it.

Discourse would be impossible if every time someone made an assertion he started to pretend the other person has a moral duty to find the proof for it. To the contrary, the person making the assertion has a moral duty to provide evidence.

My assertions serve little other purpose than to suggest that the truth may well be different than the sanitized version presented by those who presume to occupy pulpits and thrones.

"Those who presume to occupy pulpits and thrones." Someone's been reading Paine. It's just that I don't see any ermined monarchs running around. Do you? I suppose you might be English. I'm not. I'm American. Your little thrones comment is an attempt to tie in unrelated(and long settled) political issues. Anyway, you don't even understand how religion was tied in at the time.

Many of those in pulpits do present a sanitized version of the Truth, but I don't think that's what you have in mind.

[A.J.Armitage]

One other thing: the "no contemporaneous mention" issue finds a reasonable explanation in the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The Jewish records in Jerusalem would have been there, and probably destroyed with everything else....

Excellent point. Beyond that, only a very small proportion of what was actually written survives.

[ArGee]

Certainly someone who had done as much as Jesus did would have earned at least a footnote in non-biblical sources besides the passing reference made by Josephus.

This is an interesting if useless comment. The Bible is a compendium of sources that were not Biblical at the time they were produced. They were produced by men who wanted to record history. Luke wanted to record history from the perspective of an historian, the others with other agendas. However, they were not setting about to create the New Testament, they were only trying to record what they had seen and heard. Approximately four centuries later a group of religious scholars determined to collect these writings and call them Scripture. They did this after they were written and had long been accepted as historical.

Suppose there had been six other accounts written. Is it not likely that those documents would also have been included by those same scholars into the Scriptures?

To say that the sources are all Biblical is merely to say that they were all collected by believers. That does not disqualify them in any way.

What you really should be looking for is an historical document, or rather a collection of such documents, that contain similar historical details but deny the truth of the New Testament. That would be more powerful - a collection of documents from the same time frame that attack the historical accounts of the Gospels and were not included. But such documents do not exist, despite the fact that the religious and political rulers of the day were extremely interested in discrediting the nascent religion.

Care to speculate as to why not?

Shalom.