Is there anything more bizarre than a claim that someone rose from the dead? Jesus reportedly performed miracles, such as instant healings. However, Christianity ultimately hinges on whether Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified by the Romans. It is no wonder that many people have a hard time believing the New Testament’s message that the resurrection occurred. However, many do believe it, which raises the question, “Is the resurrection message in the New Testament reliable history?”
Historians have developed tools to determine accuracy of accounts in ancient documents. Here are a few
- Multiple sources of the accounts add to validity. In the Bible, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and the writer of the book Hebrews, cite or allude to the resurrection. The differences in these accounts indicate they are not from one source.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul names Cephas and the apostles as eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, but also states there were 500 others, all alive in that period. However, I do not know if there are writings not included in the Bible by any of these people saying the resurrection occurred.
Some may discount the writings in the Bible given that these are Christian sources, not non-Christian sources. This appears to me to be a moot point. Non-biblical sources of that same period verify that Jesus existed and was crucified. Non-biblical sources from that period, including writings of the historian Josephus, refer to many believers in the resurrection. But are not sources that profess the resurrection inherently Christian sources?
- Embarrassing testimony included with an account increases the probability that the account is valid, because it does not promote the author’s cause. There are embarrassing aspects in the Jesus account. Peter denied knowing Jesus three times after Jesus was arrested. Is this not “embarrassing testimony” given that Jesus named Peter the ‘rock” on which Jesus founded his church?
The manner of Jesus’ murder was reserved for those accursed of God; what a way to prove you are God!
Only the disciple John is named to be at the crucifixion; so much for faithful followers when the going gets tough.
Women first report the empty tomb, at a time when a woman’s word was considered less credible than a man’s. Needless to say, a promoter of the resurrection account would be remiss to start with witnesses deemed at the time to be “less reliable!”
Closer to home, Jesus’ brother, James (as well as some disciples) did not believe Jesus was divine until after the resurrection; Jesus could not convince them with his earlier miracles and teachings?
Just to put icing on the cake, in the four gospels there are accounts of Jesus being called a madman, drunkard, deceiver, and demon possessed, not quite what one would expect when reporting that Jesus is the Messiah.
- Reports only eyewitnesses would know, that are later verified, enhance validity.
The Roman historian Colin Hemer verified through archaeology and other sources that Luke records eighty-four historical and eyewitness details from the book of Acts in chapters 13 to 28 alone. Some are obscure details only an eyewitness would know. His accuracy of small details (like local politicians) in the Book of Luke is impressive.
The archeologist Sir William Ramsay, after 20 years of study, concluded that Luke “should be placed along with the very greatest historians,” accurately naming 32 countries, 54 cities and nine islands with no mistake, without benefit of modern maps or technology.
John has 59 historically verified or probable eyewitness details in his Gospel.
Writings by non-Christian writers verify 30 people and places that appear in New Testament documents.
These observations make me wonder, ” Why are the New Testament writers accurate on so many matters but not accurate about the resurrection?”
- Testimonies close to when the events happened are deemed more reliable than those written many years later.
All New Testament documents were written within 1 to 33 years after Jesus’ crucifixion in around AD 33. Historians know that because the Jewish war with Romans began about in AD 66, 33 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, and in AD 70 the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. There is no mention of this war in the New Testament and the temple is referred to as existing. Furthermore, the Roman emperor, Nero, killed Paul AD 62 and Peter around AD 67. Neither Luke nor any other New Testament writer mentions the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, though the deaths of a few less well-known apostles are documented.
- An account is viewed more reliable if those who have a vested interest against the validity of the account confirm aspects of it. Paul persecuted Christians prior to his encounter with the risen Jesus. This former persecutor of those who professed the resurrection eventually wrote much of the New Testament professing Jesus’s resurrection and its importance to mankind.
Mathew 28:11-15 reports that Jewish authorities claimed that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. This is verification of the empty tomb from a source other than those who profess a resurrection. To believe the theft allegation, with what we now know, is to believe that the disciples stole Jesus’ body so they could lie to people that Jesus resurrected so that some (or all) could then willingly suffer or be killed for that lie.
Even though historians do not know for sure why some of the Apostles were killed, they do know that the Apostles were willing to suffer and die for the resurrection message, verified in non-Christian sources. This impresses me, for if I was telling a falsehood and encountered someone who wanted to kill me for it, I would quickly confess, “Hey, I was only kidding. What I said is not true.”
We know from non-Christian sources that James, the half-brother of Jesus, was killed by the Sanhedrin (the Jewish ruling council) for professing the risen Jesus.
Other Apostles traveled to other countries spreading the word of Jesus’s resurrection and many were killed, though we do not have details of why they were killed. We do know that Nero passed laws against Christians, allowing their persecution throughout the Roman empire. Nero blamed Christians for setting fire to Rome, and he killed Christians in horrific ways during his realm. He is now viewed as a madman who likely ordered the fire himself.
The “outspoken” apostles had to know they were a target. They were professing the divinity of a man Roman authorities had recently crucified at a time the Roman “Caesars” were themselves professing divinity. They were promoting the importance of each individual at a time when individuals were supposed to pay homage to the power of Rome.
One thing for sure, the disciples, who had escaped being captured with Jesus and who were hiding in fear, suddenly, to a person, believed they were visited by the risen Jesus. Paul had an encounter later with the risen Jesus. I have seen no satisfactory alternative explanation of the cause of their beliefs in the resurrection. The most prominent anti-resurrection scholar promoted the idea of mass hallucination, and we can all make up our mind about that.
We know the apostles were spiritually abruptly transformed. They traveled, spreading the word of Jesus’s resurrection to the threat of their own safety. Some we know for sure were killed for it, and not just Paul and Peter. Others declared their message until the end.
Stephen was the first to be killed, stoned to death in Jerusalem for professing the risen Jesus to his last breath. Stoning was the method of capital punishment for blasphemy. The method of Stephen’s dying is consistent with his assertion of Jesus’ divinity.
No historian of the time, even among those critical of Christianity, reported apostles recanting their resurrection message. The apostles were apparently willing to suffer and potentially die for the message they were delivering, and that message was that they encountered the risen Jesus.
You might recognize that all through history people have been willing to die for a belief. However, what makes the disciples unusual is that they were eyewitnesses to the events they were professing.
Rising from the dead requires divine intervention. To convince a populace of the divinity of Jesus, a supernatural event had to occur. According to Biblical accounts, Jesus predicted his resurrection, though his disciples at the time did not understand what he was talking about. If true, he went to his painful death knowing his purpose.
Just because the Bible “says it” does not mean it is true. I agree. The resurrection is not true because the Bible says it is. The Bible was written because the resurrection was deemed to be true.
For years, the news of the resurrection was spread by word of mouth and in letters. Much of the New Testament is comprised of letters. The speed of the spread of Christianity is an amazing feat, particularly given the well documented animosity, verbally and sometimes physically, to Christians.
As written in the source I quoted, “The key to everything, including salvation, is the resurrection. If Christ rose from the dead, then Jesus is Lord and the essential teachings of Christianity are true on his authority.” If that isn’t worth considering, then I don’t what is.
NOTE: The essay uses information from several books, but mainly from articles in Raised on the Third Day, W. David Beck and Michael R. Licona, Editors, Lexham Press, 2020.
Leave a Reply