Evidence for the Resurrection

[Poof]

I have always heard that there is a lot of evidence behind the resurrection, but the only ‘evidence’ I see is the claim that 500 or so people have witnessed it. What is this ‘evidence’ everyone speaks of? Was it recorded by some historian or something? It’s amazing how I’m only asking this question now. As a growing Catholic, this should have been one of my first inquiries, yet, whenever the subject was brought up, the idea of asking never crossed my mind.

 

[snarflemike]

Don’t know if you’d consider this evidence or not, but to me it’s pretty solid.

It would have behooved both the Jewish leadership and the Romans to produce the body of Jesus after the claim went out that he had risen from the dead. That would have stopped the nonsense once and for all, and both Jewish leadership and Romans would have wanted that outcome. But they never produced the body.

Further, if the body was taken away by disciples, what happened to it? No bones, no claims of where it was finally buried, no nothing.

 

[rfournier103]

Don’t know if you’d consider this evidence or not, but to me it’s pretty solid.

It would have behooved both the Jewish leadership and the Romans to produce the body of Jesus after the claim went out that he had risen from the dead. That would have stopped the nonsense once and for all, and both Jewish leadership and Romans would have wanted that outcome. But they never produced the body.

Further, if the body was taken away by disciples, what happened to it? No bones, no claims of where it was finally buried, no nothing.

Not a bad line of reasoning. I still need to take that one on faith, but that logic makes it a little easier.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Plus the fact that the Apostles were tortured and not one of them admitted to hiding the body.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I have always heard that there is a lot of evidence behind the resurrection, but the only ‘evidence’ I see is the claim that 500 or so people have witnessed it. What is this ‘evidence’ everyone speaks of?

What sort of “evidence” are you seeking? Surely you are not asking for a YouTube video. Even today (absent such a video), how would you “prove” that somebody was resurrected?

Was it recorded by some historian or something?

It was recorded by several historians (with names like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul).

From a historical standpoint, for the era in question, it is one of the most heavily documented historical events by primary or secondary sources. From a historical standpoint, there is more evidence to support Our Lord’s resurrection than there is for Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon River with his military cohort (which led to civil war in Rome and the eventual destruction of the Roman Republic).

 

[Safia]

You should read THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD by N. T. Wright. There’s no way I can narrow down the book here. Will brilliantly answer your question, however.

 

[Poof]

What sort of “evidence” are you seeking? Surely you are not asking for a YouTube video. Even today (absent such a video), how would you “prove” that somebody was resurrected?

It was recorded by several historians (with names like Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul).

From a historical standpoint, for the era in question, it is one of the most heavily documented historical events by primary or secondary sources. From a historical standpoint, there is more evidence to support Our Lord’s resurrection than there is for Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon River with his military cohort (which led to civil war in Rome and the eventual destruction of the Roman Republic).

Awesome, that’s what I was looking for. Evidence was the wrong term, I was looking for documentations, verification from historians . However, excluding any of the apostles, were there any other historians who attested to the event?

You should read THE RESURRECTION OF THE SON OF GOD by N. T. Wright. There’s no way I can narrow down the book here. Will brilliantly answer your question, however.

An entire book on the resurrection!?! Who knew the event had enough material to bring about an entire book. I doubt they’d have it at my local book store though.

 

[thistle]

Awesome, that’s what I was looking for. Evidence was the wrong term, I was looking for documentations, verification from historians . However, excluding any of the apostles, were there any other historians who attested to the event?

An entire book on the resurrection!?! Who knew the event had enough material to bring about an entire book. I doubt they’d have it at my local book store though.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

 

[Poof]

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

Jackpot, thanks.

 

[danserr]

I have always heard that there is a lot of evidence behind the resurrection, but the only ‘evidence’ I see is the claim that 500 or so people have witnessed it. What is this ‘evidence’ everyone speaks of? Was it recorded by some historian or something? It’s amazing how I’m only asking this question now. As a growing Catholic, this should have been one of my first inquiries, yet, whenever the subject was brought up, the idea of asking never crossed my mind.

reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus

 

[DavidFilmer]

However, excluding any of the apostles, were there any other historians who attested to the event?

Well, how about Early Church Fathers? Especially ones like Polycarp (who was a disciple of the Apostle John).

If you’re looking for non-Christian references you will find few. There’s a dubious quote from Josephus. The thing is - people tend to write about things they know about. Roman historians write about Rome- they don’t write about Greece (that’s what Greek historians did). Christian historians write about Christ. Pagan historians write about other things.

It seems odd that we tend to accept pagan historians at their word when they write about their own cities and rulers, but we dismiss the reliability or objectivity of Christian historians.

 

[EricFilmer]

Evidence was the wrong term, I was looking for documentations, verification from historians . However, excluding any of the apostles, were there any other historians who attested to the event?

As has already been mentioned, Josephus (a 1st Century Jewish historian) recorded information about Jesus being a “wonder worker” and that there was an ongoing “tribe” of his followers. Additional text (declaring Jesus to be the Messiah) was probably the result of a later (Christian) author. So, objectively speaking, we really can’t cite Josephus as a non-Christian historian recording Jesus’ resurrection.

In any event, I think it would be unreasonable to presume that there could be a 1st century non-Christian historian writing about an encounter with the resurrected Christ. After all, if an non-Christian had such an encounter, one would expect him to convert to Christianity (which is exactly what happened, for example, with St. Paul). As a matter-of-fact, this is exactly the point that skeptics bring up concerning most of the descriptions of Jesus found in the writings of Josephus (i.e., if Josephus actually wrote all of it, and believed all that was written, why didn’t he convert to Christianity?).

So it makes sense that the various resurrection accounts were written by Christians.

 

[jschutzm]

There is also the Jewish Historian Josephius who makes mention of Christ and his followers.

There are also some references in Roman records about the followers of Christ or “Chrestus” as they called them.
We don’t see the Roman records talking about how erroneous their beliefs are… but focussing more narrowly on how to suppress their numbers… torture them,… dispose of their bodies, etc.

Lee Stroebel in his video “The Case for Christ” talks about how religious communities who pass on information orally are actually somewhat ‘self correcting’ - in that if someone exaggerates claims, invents new myths, etc. - the community as a whole has a mechanism to censor and correct the mistakes. Almost like “NO, that’s not how it happened”

And we don’t see the “story” of Jesus getting MORE exaggerated or fabulous over time. We don’t see 1st and 2nd century writings only saying that he was a good teacher, but then by the 8th or 9th century we see writings that portray him as a Divine Lord, the Son of God.
The consistency of the Chrisitan faith ITSELF, over these past 2,000 years is actually 1 piece of evidence in favor that it is talking about REAL events and not cultural myths.

Professional Historians would expect a myth or a conspiracy to get skewed over time, perhaps more vague, and/or become even MORE fantastical. But that hasn’t been the case with the Resurrection account.

 

[Uranage]

Try these for starters. Peter Kreeft’s stuff is good as well.

lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf

garyhabermas.com/books/inbook_to-everyone-an-answer/habermas_case-for-xp-res.htm

 

[Uranage]

Awesome, that’s what I was looking for. Evidence was the wrong term, I was looking for documentations, verification from historians . However, excluding any of the apostles, were there any other historians who attested to the event?

An entire book on the resurrection!?! Who knew the event had enough material to bring about an entire book. I doubt they’d have it at my local book store though.

Wright’s book is excellent. Over 700 pages though. Check out *The Case for the Resurrection *of Jesus by Habermas and Licona as well.

 

[DavidFilmer]

In any event, I think it would be unreasonable to presume that there could be a 1st century non-Christian historian writing about an encounter with the resurrected Christ. After all, if an non-Christian had such an encounter, one would expect him to convert to Christianity (which is exactly what happened, for example, with St. Paul).

And, indeed, as Scripture records - there were LOTS of gentiles (pagans) and Jews who accepted the Gospel message preached by the Apostles without any “road to Damascus” experience. Mark and Luke (both pagan names) were certainly post-Resurrection gentile converts (with no apparent firsthand experiences). And I’ve never read a Biblical scholar (either Catholic or protestant) who maintains that Matthew the Evangelist was the same person as Matthew the Apostle - Matthew the Gospel writer was most likely a post-Resurrection Jewish convert to the Christian Faith.

Most scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John. That means that half of our Gospel books were incontrovertibly written by pagan converts, and one-fourth was likely written by a post-Resurrection Jewish convert. 3/4 of the Gospel was written by people who were contemporaries of the time but had no firsthand knowledge (which is typical of historians - they write what they have learned. It is rare that a historian has personally experienced the events about which he writes, although the Gospels do include one such source).

The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the best documented accounts of the era. The documentation is even MORE credible due to the fact that most of these historians were moved to become Christians themselves and then write about it (a very dangerous thing to do in ancient Rome).

 

[kkoleon]

amazon.com/Trial-Witnesses-Resurrection-Jesus-ebook/dp/B000JQUE1U/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1335095145&sr=1-3-catcorr

Try this link its a free amazon book I just read. You can do the e copy for free. It is a trial of the witnesses to the ressurection that looks examines the evidence from a legal perspective. Awesome read recommended to anyone.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I think the problem with expecting anyone other than Christians to affirm that Christ rose from the dead is that when you affirm that Christ rises from the dead, you must by logic be a Christian. How could you say He rose from the dead and remain a non-Christian, an atheist, or a deist?

This is why the only historical evidence for the resurrection comes from Christians - because when you realize the truth of the Resurrection, it changes you. The early Christians did not change history; history changed them.

 

[Perplexity]

Hopefully I’ll have a new thread up by tomorrow going over why I don’t think the evidence for the resurrection has probative force. For now, I’d like to address the claim that folks would’ve tried to find Jesus’ body in response to the kerygma.

First, you’d need to entirely dismiss Carrier’s spirit-body hypothesis according to which the earliest Christians believed Jesus physically resurrected by receiving a new resurrected body from God. On this theory, it’d make no sense to go out and find Jesus’ corpse since he didn’t resurrect with that body.

Second, this assumes that had they found Jesus’ body, it would’ve shaken the disciple’s faith. Here, you must contend with the cognitive dissonance reduction hypothesis, according which such a revelation would’ve just received rationalization. (This phenomena is well documented, and we all experienced it after Harold Camping’s October prophecy not only failed but quickly received a rationalization, and with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists et al).

Finally, the kerygma wasn’t preached (allegedly) until 7 weeks after Jesus death, and decades by the time Paul wrote 1st Cor. Could they have even identified Jesus’ decayed body? Especially if he was buried in a criminal’s lot, with multiple other bodies?

There are all kinds of objections I could list here.

 

[Perplexity]

Hopefully I’ll have a new thread up by tomorrow going over why I don’t think the evidence for the resurrection has probative force. For now, I’d like to address the claim that folks would’ve tried to find Jesus’ body in response to the kerygma.

First, you’d need to entirely dismiss Carrier’s spirit-body hypothesis according to which the earliest Christians believed Jesus physically resurrected by receiving a new resurrected body from God. On this theory, it’d make no sense to go out and find Jesus’ corpse since he didn’t resurrect with that body.

Second, this assumes that had they found Jesus’ body, it would’ve shaken the disciple’s faith. Here, you must contend with the cognitive dissonance reduction hypothesis, according which such a revelation would’ve just received rationalization. (This phenomena is well documented, and we all experienced it after Harold Camping’s October prophecy not only failed but quickly received a rationalization, and with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists et al).

Finally, the kerygma wasn’t preached (allegedly) until 7 weeks after Jesus death, and decades by the time Paul wrote 1st Cor. Could they have even identified Jesus’ decayed body? Especially if he was buried in a criminal’s lot, with multiple other bodies?

There are all kinds of objections I could list here.