The Argument from Miracles: The Resurrection

[danserr]

Here is the sketch of an argument for the Resurrection. It is very brief, so it would be good if people would read a little more before considering it.
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351
This link is a brief pop article on the ress.
reasonablefaith.org/site/DocServer/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf?docID=621
this one, p3-8 is even briefer and doesn’t require you to sign in.

The procedure to verify the resurrection by scholars like NT Wright and William Lane Craig is: 1). to establish 3 historical facts on the basic of the evidence and then, 2). to argue that the best explanation of those facts is the Resurrection. So a brief summary follows:

**I. The Three historical facts. **

A). Jesus’ Burial and discovery of his empty tomb three days later.

1. The discovery of the empty tomb in multiply attested in early, independent sources. The pre-marken passion source, Paul’s letter to Corinthians mentions it, Matthew is an independent source since he includes the guard at the tomb, which is not in Mark.
2. Mark’s story is simple and lacks significant legendary development. (esp. compared to later Gnostic gospels which are real legends.
3. The empty tomb was discovered by women. Women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, so their presence indicates the account is probably legit, since no one would invent women as discovers of the empty tomb.
4. The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body (Matt. 28.15) shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb. The only reason to put that story there was if the Jews were really claiming that Jesus’s followers stole his body, by which they admitted the tomb was empty.
5. The disciples could never have preached the resurrection unless the tomb were really empty. No one would have believed them, it would have been absurd.

• For these and at least 3 other reasons, Gary Habermas found in a survey that 75% of scholars admit the empty tomb. “Experience of the Risen Jesus” Dialog 45 (2006):292.

B. Appearances of the risen Christ on multiples occasions to multiples individuals.

1. “The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James.” (cited from WLC)
2. The gospels account for multiples appearances, including to the women. The latter are probably reliable for the reason given above. They would not have been made up.
3. The appearances were physical. Paul in Corinthians implies this, Jesus invites Thomas to touch his side, Jesus eats a fish. If the appearances were not physical, the disciples would not have said Jesus was raised, they’d say they saw his ghost.

• Even the radical skeptic Ludemann agrees that these appearances happened. He simply disagrees on the best explanation of them, by arguing that they are simply hallucinations.

C. The Origin of Christian belief. The disciples came to believe, in spite of every reason not to, that Jesus was really raised from the death.

1. The ancient world always used the work “Resurrection” to mean a physical bodily resurrection. And they universally, from Plato, to Homer, through ancient Greece and Rome, agreed that Resurrection in this sense did not happen.
2. The sole exception was the Jews, who came to believe there would be a Resurrection of all the just, at the end of time.
3. Yet Christians claimed that 1). God raised Jesus, ahead of time, 2). that this man was the messiah, and the 3). resurrection was something to which they could contribute in the present life. 4).Early Christians had no spectrum of belief about the Ress. Rather there was virtually unanimous agreement on what it meant.
4. Beliefs in life after death tend to be very conservative (they are very precious to people). For Christians to 1). show such changes and 2). agree almost completely, this demands explanation.

Part II- The explanation of these three facts.
The most probable explanation of these three facts is that Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead leaving behind an empty tomb. It exceeds all others in terms of explanatory power and scope and other criteria for best explanation. So the evidence obligates us to conclude that it is historically probable that Jesus rose from the dead.

Please Note- none of these arguments assume the Bible was written early or that it was written by the first generation. I only claim that it is sufficient, when treated as a normal historical source, to establish the facts listed above, as most scholars agree.

Suggested reading and links.

NT Wright- Surprised by Hope (chap. 3-4), The Resurrection of the Son of God, ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm
William Lane Craig- The Son Rises (book), Reasonable faith chap. 8, reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351

 

[Barbkw]

I’m beginning to realize that most biblical “scholars” are heretical idiots.

 

[AntiTheist]

The most probable explanation of these three facts

…is that they are part of a legend that sprang up around one (or possible several) moral teachers in the early first century.

The legend was part of an oral tradition of a cult that worshipped this figure, and the legend was eventually written down near the end of the first century by people who weren’t eyewitnesses.

That’s the most probable explanation – not that someone died and came back to life.

 

[stephe1987]

AntiTheist, I might agree with you if I didn’t know much about the Bible or World History, but…

The “legend” thing has been ruled out based on the time period (not enough time for a legend to develop; use their standards for their time period, not ours… they were story tellers but they also had standards to keep when telling stories so they could be preserved, and the oral tradition was considered more reliable than written works). The Bible, although the originals can’t be found (I believe they did find part of one of the gospels and the parchment dated 70 AD), had to have been written shortly after the resurrection based on the content. It mentions certain historical events and then abruptly ends before another important event happened, so you can tell it was written in the first century (“In living memory” meaning the apostles were still alive, and/or people who were under their instruction were still alive). There are also documents about councils, letters, etc. about this topic.

I’d also like to point out the obvious: if that didn’t really happen and there were no eyewitnesses, Christianity would have died off as soon as it started. These were different times; most people worshiped idols and multiple gods, so it’s likely that they would have been stoned and that would have been the end of it.

There is also the torture argument. They died for what they knew was true and what they were in a position to know was true (unlike the Muslim terrorists, who did not see the angel, they just believe what they’d been told Muhammad saw/heard). Like recent scandals, someone would have cracked and that would have been the end of it.

There is no such thing as a hallucination experienced by multiple people at the same time.

There are also non-religious references to Jesus, although the Bible is the best source because it has been meticulously copied down and preserved over the centuries, and also because the non-biblical sources assume people already know the story of Jesus.

The most likely thing is that the Bible is telling the truth… IF you believe in God. If you don’t believe in God, stick your head in the sand and refuse to believe the proofs for God, then I guess you’re stuck because the Bible is saying something impossible happened, and without a God it can’t be true.

 

[Pieman333272]

…is that they are part of a legend that sprang up around one (or possible several) moral teachers in the early first century.

The legend was part of an oral tradition of a cult that worshipped this figure, and the legend was eventually written down near the end of the first century by people who weren’t eyewitnesses.

Not so. There is an abundance of evidence that the Gospels were written not as legend or folklore but as biography, non-fiction, and as true chronicles of Jesus’ life and the events in it.

That’s the most probable explanation – not that someone died and came back to life.

You know, you never answered my question. If you’re an open-minded person, what would convince you that the resurrection happened? Or will nothing, and are you not open-minded?

 

[AntiTheist]

The “legend” thing has been ruled out

…by people who want to believe the story.

Those who don’t start from the assumption that the story is true have to contend with the fact that all sorts of tales of magic existed in ancient societies and that the mere fact that stories were told that have magical elements doesn’t mean that the magical parts of the stories are true.

The Bible, although the originals can’t be found …] had to have been written shortly after the resurrection based on the content.

We don’t have any originals, so we’re in the dark as to when they were first written. And no, you can’t use the fact that the story is set in the early first century to demonstrate that it was written down in the early first century.

 

[AntiTheist]

You know, you never answered my question. If you’re an open-minded person, what would convince you that the resurrection happened? Or will nothing, and are you not open-minded?

I don’t know what would convince me that it happened. Certainly not stories from anonymous sources.

 

[Pieman333272]

I don’t know what would convince me that it happened. Certainly not stories from anonymous sources.

So if we had a copy of… let’s say, Matthew’s Gospel from 33 AD with the resurrection narrative, would that convince you?

 

[Barbkw]

…is that they are part of a legend that sprang up around one (or possible several) moral teachers in the early first century.

The legend was part of an oral tradition of a cult that worshipped this figure, and the legend was eventually written down near the end of the first century by people who weren’t eyewitnesses.

That’s the most probable explanation – not that someone died and came back to life.

Good heavens, this is what the world has come to, arguing the Resurrection with anti-Christians.

 

[AntiTheist]

So if we had a copy of… let’s say, Matthew’s Gospel from 33 AD with the resurrection narrative, would that convince you?

Eyewitness testimony cannot confirm that magic happened.

For example, an eyewitness account of an alien abduction wouldn’t be sufficient to confirm that aliens really visited the planet and abducted someone.

Now eyewitness texts might be able to confirm that certain events – or, rather, certain aspects of certain events – happened. One single text probably wouldn’t do it, but if you could assemble a number of eyewitness accounts, we might be able to confirm that something like the multiplying of the fishes and the loaves took place. That is to say, we could confirm that there was a crowd of people, apparently little food, and it looked like they were all fed somehow by a man named Jesus.

No matter how much testimony we had, though, it wouldn’t tell us anything about how this Jesus character did it. Was it really a miracle? Was it something like a conjuring trick? Were people just mistaken about how little food there really was?

Similarly, if you had a bunch of eyewitness accounts of Jesus appearing after his death, it would be good evidence that a number of people sincerely thought they saw the guy. It wouldn’t tell us how it was done, of course. Was it a miracle? Did he fake his death somehow? Did he have a twin unknown to others?

So we might be able to confirm that something happened, but when we’re talking about something that far back in history, where our only appeals are to eyewitness accounts, I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to confirm that miracles actually happened.

Of course, and this is the important point, you don’t have any eyewitness accounts of any of it. You have a bunch of anonymous texts that most scholars date to late in the first century. That’s it. Completely unconvincing.

However, I will say this: if Jesus ever appears before me and a crowd of onlookers to field our questions, and he tells us all about the events of the Gospel and how he did indeed rise from the dead, I would believe that.

 

[Barbkw]

Of course, and this is the important point, you don’t have any eyewitness accounts of any of it. You have a bunch of anonymous texts that most scholars date to late in the first century. That’s it. Completely unconvincing.

However, I will say this: if Jesus ever appears before me and a crowd of onlookers** to field our questions,** and he tells us all about the events of the Gospel and how he did indeed rise from the dead, I would believe that.

Stop lying.

“That wasn’t really Jesus.” “He had no proof of identification so it could have been anybody.”

 

[awatkins69]

…is that they are part of a legend that sprang up around one (or possible several) moral teachers in the early first century.

The legend was part of an oral tradition of a cult that worshipped this figure, and the legend was eventually written down near the end of the first century by people who weren’t eyewitnesses.

That’s the most probable explanation – not that someone died and came back to life.

Thanks for engaging with absolutely none of the content mentioned by the OP.

If those three facts are true, then how could it have been a legend? If the tomb was really empty, if the disciples and hundreds of others really all saw visions of the same Jesus risen, and if they really had no reason to believe he was resurrected but came to believe anyhow, then it is better explained by Resurrection of Christ by God.

What you’re arguing is not that the best explanation of these facts is that they created a legend. I’m not even sure what that means. What you’re arguing is that they are not actually facts.

 

[awatkins69]

I’m beginning to realize that most biblical “scholars” are heretical idiots.

How is any of this heretical?

 

[AntiTheist]

Good heavens, this is what the world has come to, arguing the Resurrection with anti-Christians.

Yes, it appears that this is what the world has come to – and yet, it brings up an interesting point.

Either the evidence is sufficient to convince just about anyone – in which case, you don’t need faith since you have evidence – or the evidence is insufficient – in which case, you need faith, and the idea of making an “argument from miracles” becomes an exercise in ridiculousness.

 

[Windfish]

…is that they are part of a legend that sprang up around one (or possible several) moral teachers in the early first century.

The legend was part of an oral tradition of a cult that worshipped this figure, and the legend was eventually written down near the end of the first century by people who weren’t eyewitnesses.

That’s the most probable explanation – not that someone died and came back to life.

What books have you read on this issue, AntiTheist?

 

[Windfish]

It is an excellent argument, danserr. Unfortunately, it will take a few decades before scholarship on this issue shakes off the German Lutheran tradition of biblical scholarship and catches up with the Catholic Church on this one. We have to wait for the old codgers to die off. All that being said, though, the three facts you discussed are established even with this terrible tradition in mind, which is awesome.

 

[Windfish]

One last thing - have any of you guys run across a generic argument from miracles? I want a solid one that addresses questions and possible objections like Aquinas’ Summa. There a ton of Catholic miracles that have been well-attested and some have even been scientifically examined, and I don’t want to construct an argument for each one. Rather, I think it would be a better idea to have a generic argument from miracles and then supply specific examples for the argument as needed. Any ideas?

 

[AntiTheist]

What books have you read on this issue, AntiTheist?

Well, for one, I’ve consulted several scholarly editions of the Bible that explicitly say, upfront, that the scholarly consensus is that they are unsure who wrote the Gospels, that the Gospels are anonymous texts. A frequent convention in the scholarly literature is to refer to the author of the texts as, for example, “The author of Matthew.”

 

[danserr]

…is that they are part of a legend that sprang up around one (or possible several) moral teachers in the early first century.

The legend was part of an oral tradition of a cult that worshipped this figure, and the legend was eventually written down near the end of the first century by people who weren’t eyewitnesses.

That’s the most probable explanation – not that someone died and came back to life.

As others have pointed out, you have engaged with precisely none of my points, some of which specifically refute the legend hypothesis.

• You are claiming to refute my argument by accepting the three facts and simply affirming that the best explanation of them is the legend hypothesis. This is misguided because the legend hypothesis actually denies that those three facts occurred, especially the third, (the origin of Christian belief). Now, as I have shown this is no longer regarded by most scholars are a viable position, so you will need some strong justification for your position, but looking over your post, I see none.

You do not actually engage with any of my three points, some of which specifically refute the legend hypothesis.

• You have said nothing about evidence for the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of Christian belief all of which you would have to dismiss or explain away in some way to maintain the legend hypothesis. Even more, you would have to show that your argument refuting those 3 facts is more probable than the three facts themselves.

So I would advise you to look over my post again; it is not enough to mention a “theoretical” possibility. Historians deal in probability, we accept the most probable explanation, so you have to show that any explanation you prefer is more probable than the empty tomb, risen appearances, origin of Christian belief, and the Resurrection as the best explanation of those facts.

Specifically against the legend hypothesis (mostly from my OP, so please read it again):

1. the empty tomb is multiply attested in early, independent sources. This includes St. Paul who was hardly writing at the end of the century
2. Mark’s story is simply and lacks significant legendary development.
3. Paul (writing around 50 AD) records the appearances of the risen Christ. (again, hardly the end of the century)
4. The Early Christians had virtually no spectrum of belief about life after death. NT Wright says “Now if the idea that Jesus had been raised from the dead only began to crop up after 20 or 30 years of Christianity, as many skeptical scholars have supposed, you would find lots of strands of early Christianity in which there wasn’t much place for resurrection… therefore, the wide extent and unanimity of early Christian belief on the resurrection force us to say the something definite happened way back early on that shaped and colored the whole early Christian movement.”
   (from appendix to Anthony Flew, There is a God)
5. The presence of the women.

• St. Paul, writing around 50 AD, only 20 years after the Resurrection lists the witnesses to the Resurrection. James, Peter, the 12, 500 brothers at once etc. But he never lists the women. Why? Because women were not regarded as credible witnesses in the ancient world. A century later Celsus ridiculed Christianity as simply based on “the testimony of some hysterical women.”
• But the gospel writers put the women front and center, especially Mary Mag. (who had a checkered past). Quoting Wright again: “As historians we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made of 5 years later, let alone, 20, 30, or 50, they would never have had Mary Magdalen in this role. To put Mary there from the point of view of Christians wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead [is] like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians, this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never never have made this up. These stories, of the women finding the empty tomb and then encountering the risen Jesus, must be regarded as solidly historical.” (idem).

These reasons alone tell against the legend hypothesis.

• note. If anyone want the Wright article I’m working from, pm me with your email address. It’s basically a very brief 7 page summary of his 700 page book.

 

[danserr]

Well, for one, I’ve consulted several scholarly editions of the Bible that explicitly say, upfront, that the scholarly consensus is that they are unsure who wrote the Gospels, that the Gospels are anonymous texts. A frequent convention in the scholarly literature is to refer to the author of the texts as, for example, “The author of Matthew.”

And you will note if you read my OP that nothing I have said depends on the gospels being by the people whose names are on them.
Only looking over a few editions of the Bible hardly counts as engaging with the evidence.