Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

Introduction

Photo by Zachary Olson on Unsplash

The overwhelming consensus of scholars is that the religious figure known as Jesus Christ was an actual historical person.  Not only the Gospels but also early historians that non-Christians trust discuss Jesus during his time here on earth.  These historians, while they do not talk extensively about the ministry and teachings of Jesus, do corroborate many of the historical facts that the Gospels purport to convey.  Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Babylonian Talmud, and Lucian, among others, mention the crucifixion of Jesus as well as the Christians who followed his teachings. {1}  While the crucifixion of a condemned criminal would not be unusual in the time of Christ, a resurrection would be.  Because of the nearly ironclad case for the historical accuracy of the crucifixion, in this paper I will present the best modern evidence for proving the historical accuracy of the resurrection narratives.

How is one to understand the Biblical narratives of the resurrection?  The Bible is a book that can be divided into seven major genres: narrative, poetry, wisdom, prophecy, gospels, epistles, and apocalypse. {2}  Some of these can be further subdivided.  For example, the book of Genesis is mostly narrative history, but one could make strong arguments that the creation story would be considered mytho-history, as “it aims to anchor realities present to the audience such as the world, mankind, natural phenomena, cultural practices, and the prevailing religious cult in a primordial time”. {3}  Thus we have the very real command to keep holy the sabbath given precedent in the creation story by God’s rest.  Whether or not the creation story in Genesis is literal, the “myth of a six-day creation climaxing in a day of rest can be authoritative for Sabbath observance in Israel without thinking that God created for literally six, consecutive, 24-hour days and then rested on the seventh”. {4}  

However, the Gospels are in a completely different category altogether.  According to scholar Mel Lawrenz, they are not simply a narrative or biographical work, but rather a “proclamation”. {5}  Unlike most of the other books of the Bible, the Gospels were actually written either by eyewitnesses or those who knew and worked with them.  That alone puts them on a whole new level.  There are three markers by which we can test whether the Gospels ought to be taken literally:

1. They have a history of composition.

2. They’re set in a specific historical context.

3. They are meant to convey historically-accurate information. {6}

The Gospels were not the first-ever written material about the life and death of Jesus.  In fact, in a passage to which we shall return in a moment, Paul recounts his resurrection narrative using what scholars believe is an older formula from AD 30-35 handed down to him. {7}  Mark’s Gospel was written first, with Matthew and Luke to follow.  These three are called the synoptic gospels, a term used because of “their similar perspectives on Jesus’ ministry”. {8}  The Gospel of John is written in a different way, meant to convey deeper theological truths. {9}

How can we be sure, though, that the Gospels are historically accurate?  Author Craig Keener provides four good reasons to believe this.  First, “most scholars today recognize the Gospels are ancient biographies”. {10}  They are written in the same manner “as ancient biographies like Lucian and Josephus”. {11}  This is also an important defense against skeptics.  Some will argue that the discrepancies of facts between the same stories in the different Gospels are proof of their inaccuracy.  However, we must be fair to the authors and look at these texts through the lens of the time and cultural context in which they were written.  Similar to John’s sentiments (21:25), Lucian writes: “These are a very few things out of many which I might have mentioned, but they will suffice to give my readers a notion of the sort of man he [Demonax] was.” {12}  It seems reasonable to believe, then, that the Gospels fit into the historical narratives of their time.

Photo by Pisit Heng on Unsplash

However, it is not only on literary similarities that we base belief in the Gospels.  Many ancient histories and biographies were written many years, or sometimes even a few centuries, after the events and people they speak about.  This is not the case with the Gospels.  Much of the scholarship concludes “that the synoptic gospels were composed before the death of St. Peter and St. Paul in the year 65 AD, and that the gospel of John was composed around the year 90 AD”. {13}  Contrast that to such an important figure as Alexander the Great, who conquered much of the known world in his lifetime, but died in India in 323 BC.  His biography was not written until the decade 31-41 AD by Curtius Rufus. {14}  That is a much more significant amount of time between the events and the writings than the Gospels.  In cases like these, one would naturally expect legends and inadvertent falsehoods to creep in, but it cannot be proven that this happened with the Gospels.

Another objection against the Biblical narratives is that they were written by Christians, and thus are biased.  There are a number of ways to refute this.  “First, Paul’s testimony is stronger than that of a neutral witness of the risen Jesus, since his bias ran in the opposite direction.” {15}  According to the Acts of the Apostles, Paul (or Saul, as he was then known) was one of the fiercest persecutors of the early Christians, until a conversion experience turned him into one of the fiercest defenders of the faith.  N. T. Wright explains: 

It must be asserted most strongly that to discover that a particular writer has a ‘bias’ tells us nothing whatever about the value of the information he or she presents.  It merely bids us be aware of the bias (and of our own, for that matter), and to assess the material according to as many sources as we can. {16} 

Thus, those who argue that the Gospel narratives are biased commit one of two logical fallacies: the genetic fallacy or the ad hominem fallacy. {17}

Now that the historical accuracy and veracity of the Gospels has been established, we can move to a discussion of the most amazing story in them: the resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion.  What is the importance of the resurrection?  St. Paul writes, “And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). {18}  Many misunderstand the meaning of the resurrection, and it is important to remove these misunderstandings from consideration right away.  First, it is evident from the narratives that the resurrected Christ was not a ghost.  Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli put this into logical form: “A ghost is a spirit without a body; the resurrected Jesus has a real body; therefore the resurrected Jesus is not a ghost.” {19}  They continue that Jesus’ resurrection is a completely singular event, different than any of the other Gospel accounts of people being raised from the dead.  After all, these are “resuscitations”, and people like Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain and Jairus’ daughter died again after being raised. {20}  Some of the objections and misunderstandings covered by Kreeft and Tacelli are not worth reproducing, due to their lack of academic rigor.

  Looking at this from a historical perspective there are four main facts (provided by William Lane Craig) on which we can base this analysis.

To be continued.

__________

1. Michael Gleghorn, “Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources”, at BeThinking (2001), at bethinking.org.

2. Mel Lawrenz, “The Many Genres of Scripture”, at Bible Gateway Blog (3 March 2016), at biblegateway.com.

3. William Lane Craig, “The Sabbath Day and Mytho-History”, at Reasonable Faith (7 November 2021), at reasonablefaith.org.

4. Craig, “The Sabbath Day”, at reasonablefaith.org.

5. Lawrenz, “The Many Genres”, at biblegateway.com.

6. Mark Strauss, “What Are the Gospels, and Why Are There Four of Them”, at Zondervan Academic (22 September 2017), at zondervanacademic.com.

7. “Does the ‘1 Corinthians 15 Creed’ Date to About AD 30”, at Belief Map, at beliefmap.org.

8. Mark Strauss, “What Are the Synoptic Gospels, and Where Do They Come From”, at Zondervan Academic (18 September 2017), at zondervanacademic.com.

9. For a fuller explanation of this, read “Three Ways John Is Different From the Synoptic Gospels”, at N. T. Wright Online, at ntwrightonline.org.

10. Craig Keener, “The Reliability of the Gospels”, at Influence (23 October 2019), at influencemagazine.com.

11.  Luke Lancaster, “The Gospels Are Ancient Biographies”, at St. Peter Institute for Scripture and Evangelization (29 August 2021), at stpeterinstitute.com.

12. As quoted in Lancaster, “The Gospels Are Ancient Biographies”, at stpeterinstitute.com.

13. Fr. Dwight Longenecker, “How Do We Know the Gospels Are Historical?”, at Catholic Education Resource Center (2012), at catholiceducation.org.

14. “Curtius Rufus”, at Livius (31 March 2020), at livius.org.

15. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004), 124.

16. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 89.

17. Habermas and Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, 125.  For a discussion of these fallacies, see Peter Kreeft, Socratic Logic, (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2010), 68-113.

18. The Holy Bible, Douay Rheims Version (Charlotte: Saint Benedict Press, 2009).

19. Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 179.

20. Kreeft and Tacelli, Handbook, 177.