Does Christianity have a historically acceptable basis? Is sufficient evidence available to warrant belief that Jesus actually died on the cross and was resurrected? The previous pages on the Historicity of Jesus, and the early dating of the Gospels supplied compelling evidence that Jesus was an historical figure. There is also much compelling evidence that Jesus did in fact die on the cross, and was resurrected.
However, in recent years there have been renewed attacks on these bastions of the Christian faith. Many books have been written in recent years giving alternative explanations for both the crucifixion and the resurrection. Yet all of these alternative explanations, though very imaginative, are fatally flawed and can be disproved, as each has been.
People who choose not to believe are a welcome audience for any work that disparages Christianity. Of all religions, Christianity is by far the most frequent target. I find this to be a sure indicator of the truth within.
Many recent challenges to the resurrection have been by Muslims, who clearly understand that discrediting the resurrections disproves Christianity. Muslims interpret the Quran as saying that Jesus never actually died on the cross. Some Hindus also make that claim. Atheists have also been mounting more and more attacks on the resurrection. In light of these continued direct attacks it is important to look at the historical facts and interpret them with an unbiased eye.
As stated elsewhere, historical facts cannot prove spiritual truths. However, they can give a solid foundation for belief and at the same time demonstrate that the evidence does not in any way disprove those beliefs. So what is the evidence of history and of historians?
Roman history scholar, Professor Thomas Arnold, author of the three-volume History of Rome, and holder of the chair of modern history at Oxford, stated:
" I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." (1)
Textual critic and English scholar, Brooke Foss Wescott stated:
“…taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ.” (2)
Dr. Paul L. Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University, concluded:
“If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove this statement.”(3)
Dr. Simon Greenleaf, the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, author of the famous three-volume work, A Treatise of the Law of Evidence, which is still considered one of the greatest on the subject, examined the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ to ascertain the truth. He recorded his findings in his book, "An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice."
Greenleaf came to the conclusion that, based on the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history. (4)
Dr. Frank Morison, a lawyer who had been brought up in a rationalistic environment, had come to the opinion that the resurrection was nothing but a fairy tale happy ending which spoiled the matchless story of Jesus. He felt that he owed it to himself, and to others, to write a book that would present the truth about Jesus and dispel the myth of the resurrection.
Upon studying the facts, however, he came to a very different conclusion. The sheer weight of the evidence compelled him to conclude that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. Morrison wrote his book, but not the one he had planned. It was instead entitled, Who Moved the Stone? (5)
When investigating any subject, historians identify the relevant sources of information. They apply weight to those relevant sources based on how close to the actual events the source account is, whether there are eyewitness accounts, and if there is corroborating evidence elsewhere, among other factors. A good and reliable historian will also not claim more than these lines of evidence actually warrant.
It is important in a study of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection that we be extremely conservative with the evidence. Only very strongly supported historical evidence should be considered. The evidence should be so strong that the vast majority of today’s scholars on the subject, including skeptics, accept these facts as historical. If the evidence leads someone with vastly different beliefs toward the same conclusion, then there is a good chance the conclusion is true.
Historian Gary Habermas compiled a list of more than 2200 sources in French, German and English in which experts have written about the resurrection since 1975. He identified minimal facts that are strongly evidenced and regarded as historical by the large majority of scholars, including skeptics. (6) Habermas identified 12 separate minimal facts, which are considered to be knowable history, and are agreed upon by practically all critical scholars, whatever their school of thought:
With the exception of the empty tomb, virtually all critical scholars of all disciplines who deal with this issue agree that these are the minimum of known historical facts surrounding the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
Habermas and New Testament historian Michael Licona co-authored a 2004 book, "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus", considered by many to be the most thorough defense of the historicity of the resurrection. In an interview for Lee Strobels book, "The Case for the Real Jesus", Licona identified just five of these 12 minimal facts in making a persuasive case for the resurrection.(7) Below is a summary of those 5 points including, compelling evidence for the empty tomb.
Even firm critics of the resurrection accept the fact that Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. Extreme liberal critics John Crossan and James Tabor stated, respectively:
“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be.” (8)
“I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.” (9)
Many others experts who are either atheists or agnostic consider the crucifixion of Jesus an indisputable fact. There are several reasons for this. First, and as shown in the Reliability of the Bible page, the Gospel accounts are considered by all historians to be reliable historical documents. That doesn’t mean they all believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. However, the historicity of the documents themselves is beyond question and accepted by all experts.
Beyond the Gospels, there are a number of non-Christian sources that corroborate the crucifixion. These include the ancient writings of Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosota and Mara Bar-Serapion. Even the Jewish Talmud reports that “Yeshu was hanged.” So this first fact is “…as solid as anything in ancient history: Jesus was crucified and died as a result.”(10)
As mentioned, the idea that Jesus never really died on the cross can be found in the Quran (11), which was of course written hundreds of years after the actual crucifixion. In the 19th century others tried to explain away the resurrection by suggesting Jesus only fainted on the cross or was given a drug that made him appear to have died. Reputable scholars, however, have repudiated this theory long ago.
Normal Geisler, in his book When Skeptics Ask, gave several compelling evidences that Jesus did in fact die on the cross, and at the same time dispelled some common fallacies .(12) Among them:
1. There is no evidence to suggest that Jesus was drugged. He turned down the common painkiller that was usually given to crucifixion victims (Mark 15:23). Just before death, He was given a sip of sour wine to relieve His parched throat, but not enough to intoxicate (v.36). The obvious agony and His death cry do not fit the picture of a man who is about to pass out in a drug-induced state.
2. The heavy loss of blood makes death highly probable. He had been beaten and whipped repeatedly the night before His crucifixion by a three-lash whip which tore the flesh of the skeletal muscles and set the stage for circulatory shock. He was probably in serious condition before they crucified Him. Then He suffered five major wounds between nine in the morning and just before sunset. Four of these were caused by nails used to fix Him to the cross. We know from remains of Palestinian crucifixion victims that these nails were five to seven inches long and about three eighths inch square.
3. When His side was pierced with a spear, water and blood flowed out. The best evidence suggests that this was a thrust given by a Roman soldier to insure death. The spear entered through the rib cage and pierced His right lung, the sack around the heart, and the heart itself, releasing both blood and pleural fluids. Jesus was unquestionably dead before they removed Him from the cross and probably before this wound was inflicted.
4. The standard procedure for crucifixion was to break the victim’s legs so that he could not lift himself to exhale. Yet, the professional Roman executioners declared Christ dead without breaking His legs. There was no doubt in their minds. (This also fulfilled prophecy that his bones would not be broken.)
5. Jesus was embalmed in about 75-100 pounds of spices and bandages and laid in a guarded tomb. Even if He had woken up in the tomb, He could not have unwrapped Himself, rolled the stone back up the side of its carved-out track, overcome the guards, and escaped unnoticed (Matt. 27:60).
6. Pilate asked for assurance that Jesus was really dead before releasing the body for burial.
7. Even if you accept the ridiculous theory that Jesus did survive the Crucifixion, how could he possibly have walked around after nails had been driven through his feet? How could he have appeared on the road to Emmaus just a short time later, strolling for long distances? How could he have used his arms, which had been stretched and pulled form their joints? Not to mention the massive wounds on his back from the flogging and the spear wound to his chest. A person in that kind of pathetic condition would never have inspired his disciples to go out and proclaim that he’s the Lord of life who had triumphed over the grave. It’s preposterous to think that if He had appeared to them in that awful state, his followers would have been prompted to start a worldwide movement based on the hope that someday they too would have a resurrection body like his.
8. In the article “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ” the Journal of the American Medical Society concluded:
“Clearly, the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to His side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between His right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.” (13)
As mentioned, there have been many books and documentaries over the years using questionable evidence and opinions to attempt to dispel the truth of the resurrection. Author and senior editor and syndicated religion communist for UPI, Louis Cassels, responded rather harshly to such attempts:
The amazing thing about all these debunk-Jesus books is that they accept as much of the recorded Gospels as they find convenient, then ignore or repudiate other parts of the same documents which contradict their notions. (14)
You can count on it. Every few years, some “scholar” will stir up a short-lived sensation by publishing a book that says something outlandish about Jesus. The “scholar” usually has no standing as a Bible student, theologian, archaeologist, or anything else related to serious religious study. But that need not hold him back. If he has a job—any job—on a university faculty, his “findings” will be treated respectfully in the press as a “scholarly work.” (15)
There are three strands of evidence claiming that Jesus’ disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus: Paul’s testimony about the disciples; oral traditions that passed through the early church; and the written works of the early church.
First, the Book of Acts confirms that Paul personally knew Peter, James and John. Paul knew that they claimed, just as he did, that Jesus had returned from the dead. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul appeals to his audience’s knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. He reminds them that the majority of these people were still alive and could be questioned. Paul says in effect, “If you do not believe me, you can ask them.” He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.
Secondly, oral traditions, as mentioned in the Dating the Gospels page, were circulated very shortly after the crucifixion, lending added historical weight to the accounts of the resurrection. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15:3-7), he wrote of a creed he received from Peter and James while visiting them in Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion. This is within 5 years of the crucifixion. This is the sort of data that historians place a great deal of weight on. Not only is it extremely early, but it is given to Paul by eyewitnesses. It is much too early to be the result of legendary development over time. This creed has been one of the most formidable obstacles to critics who try to dispel the resurrection.
Other oral traditions of great importance are the sermons of the apostles found in the Book of Acts. The vast majority of historians believe that the early apostolic teachings are enshrined in these sermon summaries in Acts. They unambiguously declare that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.
Even the most liberal scholars have to admit that all four Gospels were written within 65 years of the crucifixion, though there is a significant amount of compelling evidence that it may have only been 17-20 years !! (see Dating the Gospels page) This is very significant especially when you consider our best two sources on Alexander the Great, for example, weren’t written until at least 400 years after his death.
Thirdly, the writings of the apostolic fathers, who were said to have known the apostles and whose writings reflect the teachings of the apostles themselves, wrote very clearly about how the apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus’ resurrection. Clement and Polycarp were early apostolic father who wrote about and confirmed what the Gospels taught. Early church fathers Irenaeus and Tertullian, confirmed both Clement’s and Polycarp’s contacts with and instruction by the apostles. So we have a direct connection from the eyewitnesses to the events and the early church fathers.
So these 3 lines of evidence, from Paul, the oral traditions, and the writings of the apostolic and early church fathers present multiple early eyewitness testimonies to the disciples claims that they had seen the risen Jesus. In addition, it is obvious that this event profoundly affected the disciples to the core of their being. There are multiple accounts, both inside and outside of the New Testament, testifying to the fact the disciples were transformed to the point of enduring persecution and even martyrdom for the beliefs they claimed to have witnessed. I can’t think of more compelling evidence.
The disciples didn’t just believe Jesus rose from the dead, they knew for a fact that he did. There is no other explanation. It is beyond credulity to believe they would suffer and die if they know this was all a lie. Of the over 2200 scholarly citations about the resurrection mentioned earlier that Habermas reviewed, no fact was more widely recognized than that the early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Christ. (16)
Paula Fredricksen of Boston University, who is not an evangelical, but rather a very liberal scholar claimed the disciples conviction that they saw the risen Jesus is “historical bedrock, facts known past doubting”(17) She stated:
“I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historical evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.” (18)
Paul, who was then known as Saul of Tarsus, was a historically known person and a virulent enemy of the early Christian church. He was commissioned to persecuting Christians, even to death. Paul said he converted to become a follower of Jesus because he personally encountered the resurrected Jesus. Both Paul himself and Luke wrote of his conversion and report that he firmly believed that he had encountered the risen Jesus.
This demonstrates that not just friends of Jesus claim to have seen him resurrected, but a bitter enemy as well. Paul’s belief that he had witnessed the risen Jesus was so strong that he, like the original disciples, was willing to suffer continuously for the sake of the Gospel, even to the point of martyrdom.
These points are well documented, not just by Paul himself, but also by Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth, and Origen. Therefore we have early, multiple, and firsthand testimony that Paul converted from being a staunch opponent of Christianity to one of its greatest proponents. (19)
When virtually all people convert to a different religion, its invariably because they’ve heard the message of that religion from a secondary source. Paul’s conversion was based on primary evidence—Jesus appeared directly to him. He certainly was not a friend of Jesus and therefore primed to see a vision due to wishful thinking. His radical transformation from persecutor to missionary demands an explanation. The best explanation is that he truly believed he saw what he saw. He certainly had nothing to gain by making this all up.
The Jewish historian Josephus, in a section most historians regard as authentic, refers to “the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, whose name was James.” (20) We have very good evidence that James was not a follower of Jesus during Jesus’ lifetime. Mark and John both report that none of Jesus’ brothers believed in him.(21) Then, however, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul writes that the risen Jesus appeared to James. This is an extremely early account and this creed may have been passed along to Paul by James himself.
As a result of his encounter with the risen Jesus, James doesn’t just convert, he later becomes the head of the Jerusalem church.(22) James was so convinced that Jesus was the Messiah that he died a martyr, as both Christian and non-Christian sources attest.(23) So along with Paul, we have reliable historic information regarding another skeptic who was converted because of a personal encounter with the risen Lord and was willing to die for his convictions.
Though this 5th line of evidence is not as universally accepted among scholars, particularly liberal scholars, as the first 4, there is still very strong evidence in support of it. According to historian Gary Habermas, about 75% of scholars regard the empty tomb as an historical fact, which is very strong.(24) There are three main lines of historical evidence that support the empty tomb: the Jerusalem factor, enemy attestation, and the testimony of women.
The Jerusalem factor refers to the fact that Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem, and his resurrection occurred in the very same city. Just weeks after the crucifixion Peter stated to a crowd in Jerusalem, “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”(Acts 2:32 NIV) How could Christianity have ever taken off in Jerusalem if Jesus were still in the tomb? Of course this fact was confirmed by anyone who cared to check.
This leads to the next line of evidence, that of the enemy’s attestation to the empty tomb. The skeptics claimed the disciples stole the body. This is reported by Matthew, Justin Martyr and Tertullian. The obvious implication is that the tomb had to be empty for this claim to be made. According to Licona, enemy attestation is a very strong line of evidence in the eyes of historians.(25) Licona further states that even the idea that the disciples would have stolen the body is lame. To think they would have stolen the body, then were willing to suffer continuously and even die for what they knew to be a lie, is an absurdity.
The third line of evidence is the testimony of women as being the first to discover the vacant grave. All four Gospels attest to this. The importance here is that first-century Jewish and Roman cultures viewed women as second class citizens whose testimony was considered questionable at best, certainly much less credible then men. This is well documented and not disputed by historians. The point being, if the disciples were to concoct a story to fool others, they would never have had women provide that first testimony of the empty tomb. If they were making the story up they certainly would have used some of their men of high esteem to be the first to find the tomb empty.
The best explanation for why the Gospel writers would have included such and embarrassing detail of their story is because that’s what actually happened and they were committed to recording it accurately, regardless of any credibility problems it may have created.
Considering the wealth of historically reliable evidence available, and applying standard historical principles, skeptical historian Michael Grant seemed compelled to state:
“True, the discovery of the empty tomb is differently described by the various gospels, but if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to any other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was, indeed, found empty.” (26)
William Ward of Oxford University stated:
“All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.” (27)
Again, historical and archaeological facts cannot prove spiritual truths. However, they can give a solid foundation for belief and at the same time demonstrate that the evidence does not in any way disprove those beliefs. All Christians should be able to be able to knowledgably, patiently and respectfully defend our faith !!
Having a big sale, on-site celebrity, or other event? Be sure to announce it so everybody knows and gets excited about it.
Are your customers raving about you on social media? Share their great stories to help turn potential customers into loyal ones.
Running a holiday sale or weekly special? Definitely promote it here to get customers excited about getting a sweet deal.
Have you opened a new location, redesigned your shop, or added a new product or service? Don't keep it to yourself, let folks know.
Customers have questions, you have answers. Display the most frequently asked questions, so everybody benefits.
Copyright © 2024 Clearing the Path - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy