Jared Compton led a discussion at our Difficult Issues Series on how to answer the person who asks is the resurrection reliable. This is a frequent question as Exploring Christianity, but more importantly, many popular level talk shows, books, and movies deny the resurrection of Jesus. The following excerpts are from Jared’s publication. You can find Jared Compton’s talk, outline, and full transcript on, “Is the Resurrection Historically Reliable?” at crosswayonline.org
A good number of folks think Christianity, along with its tale of resurrection, is precisely that —a tale. This alternative view has gotten things wrong by wrongly assuming two things about Scripture’s account. First, it wrongly assumes the account of Jesus’ resurrection was written long after the death of the historical Jesus. Second, it wrongly assumes the account of Jesus’ resurrection was created by these later writers so that the historical Jesus would match the Christ they were already worshipping.
To point up these wrong assumptions, we need simply to show that the records are both early and full of details not likely to have been invented by Christian, much less later Christian, groups. We’ll do this by noting three firm facts.
Firm Fact # 1 - The empty tomb.
This fact is supported by two considerations. First, Jesus was buried in a well-known tomb. This is important because were Jesus’ tomb well-known, the claim by the early church that Jesus had vacated his tomb could be easily verified (or discounted).
That Jesus’ tomb was well-known is pointed up in both early and non-legendary material. Mark’s gospel, written no more than thirty years after Jesus’ crucifixion and itself based on even earlier sources, mentions that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43).
Joseph was a member of the Jewish Council (or Sanhedrin; Mark 15:43). Why would later Christians invent a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist helping Jesus? Had the early Christians created this detail, the Jewish authorities could have easily disproven it.
Second, not only was Jesus’ tomb well-known, but it was also found empty by Jewish women. This detail is also found in very early sources, this time not only in Mark’s report (16:1-8) but also in Paul’s (implied in 1 Cor 15:4).
In Jewish society the testimony of women was at this time considered unreliable. As Josephus, the early Jewish historian (ca. 31–100 A.D.), notes, women were not allowed to serve as credible witnesses in Jewish courts.
Even further, Matthew’s still-relatively early account itself adds to the historicity of the empty tomb. Matthew notes that the Jewish authorities invented a tale that suggested the disciples had stolen away the body (see Matthew 28:13). In short, the earliest Jewish response was itself an attempt to explain why the body was missing and the tomb was empty.
Firm Fact #2 - The Resurrection Appearances.
Paul’s early account speaks of hundreds of witnesses who claim to have seen Jesus risen (1 Corinthians 15:5-9). Timothy Keller adds,
Three final considerations demonstrate that the resurrection was not something created by early Christians.
First, the majority of Jews simply did not believe in a resurrection in the middle of time, nor would they have called a non-bodily appearance a resurrection. Rather, for a Christian Jew (as the disciples were) to proclaim “he is risen” meant that Jesus was indeed bodily risen. Therefore, we must ask, where did this belief in a bodily resurrection in the middle of time come from?
Second, resurrection was important but not central in the Hebrew Scriptures or in the time between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament (i.e., 2nd Temple Judaism). In contrast, resurrection moved to the center of Christian belief (see Paul’s “first importance,” 1 Corinthians 15:1–6). Again, we must ask, what made resurrection so central to early, largely Jewish, Christianity?
Third, we must remember, the disciples were so convinced of this event that they were willing to risk their lives testifying to it. One must, therefore, explain what happened to the disciples between their fearful flight (see John 20:19) following Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion and their bold preaching soon thereafter (see Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:2). We might add to these Paul and James’s conversions; see Acts 9:1 and John 7:5 respectively. In short, we must ask, what caused these remarkable transformations?
In the end, this alternative view’s assumptions simply don’t account for these three facts. The empty tomb, the appearances and the rise of the early church’s belief in the resurrection are details that come from early sources and are details which cannot be satisfactorily explained as the creation of later Christian writers.
A good number of folks think Christianity, along with its tale of resurrection, is precisely that —a tale. This alternative view has gotten things wrong by wrongly assuming two things about Scripture’s account. First, it wrongly assumes the account of Jesus’ resurrection was written long after the death of the historical Jesus. Second, it wrongly assumes the account of Jesus’ resurrection was created by these later writers so that the historical Jesus would match the Christ they were already worshipping.
To point up these wrong assumptions, we need simply to show that the records are both early and full of details not likely to have been invented by Christian, much less later Christian, groups. We’ll do this by noting three firm facts.
Firm Fact # 1 - The empty tomb.
This fact is supported by two considerations. First, Jesus was buried in a well-known tomb. This is important because were Jesus’ tomb well-known, the claim by the early church that Jesus had vacated his tomb could be easily verified (or discounted).
That Jesus’ tomb was well-known is pointed up in both early and non-legendary material. Mark’s gospel, written no more than thirty years after Jesus’ crucifixion and itself based on even earlier sources, mentions that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43).
Joseph was a member of the Jewish Council (or Sanhedrin; Mark 15:43). Why would later Christians invent a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist helping Jesus? Had the early Christians created this detail, the Jewish authorities could have easily disproven it.
Second, not only was Jesus’ tomb well-known, but it was also found empty by Jewish women. This detail is also found in very early sources, this time not only in Mark’s report (16:1-8) but also in Paul’s (implied in 1 Cor 15:4).
In Jewish society the testimony of women was at this time considered unreliable. As Josephus, the early Jewish historian (ca. 31–100 A.D.), notes, women were not allowed to serve as credible witnesses in Jewish courts.
Even further, Matthew’s still-relatively early account itself adds to the historicity of the empty tomb. Matthew notes that the Jewish authorities invented a tale that suggested the disciples had stolen away the body (see Matthew 28:13). In short, the earliest Jewish response was itself an attempt to explain why the body was missing and the tomb was empty.
Firm Fact #2 - The Resurrection Appearances.
Paul’s early account speaks of hundreds of witnesses who claim to have seen Jesus risen (1 Corinthians 15:5-9). Timothy Keller adds,
Paul indicates [in this text] that the risen Jesus not only appeared to individuals and small groups but he also appeared to five hundred people at once, most of whom were still alive at the time of his writing [ca. 56] and could be consulted for corroboration. Paul’s letter was to a church, and therefore it was a public document, written to be read aloud. Paul was inviting anyone who doubted that Jesus had appeared to people after his death to go and talk to the eyewitnesses if they wished. (The Reason for God 2007: 204).Firm Fact #3 - The Rise the Early Church’s Belief in the Resurrection.
Three final considerations demonstrate that the resurrection was not something created by early Christians.
First, the majority of Jews simply did not believe in a resurrection in the middle of time, nor would they have called a non-bodily appearance a resurrection. Rather, for a Christian Jew (as the disciples were) to proclaim “he is risen” meant that Jesus was indeed bodily risen. Therefore, we must ask, where did this belief in a bodily resurrection in the middle of time come from?
Second, resurrection was important but not central in the Hebrew Scriptures or in the time between the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament (i.e., 2nd Temple Judaism). In contrast, resurrection moved to the center of Christian belief (see Paul’s “first importance,” 1 Corinthians 15:1–6). Again, we must ask, what made resurrection so central to early, largely Jewish, Christianity?
Third, we must remember, the disciples were so convinced of this event that they were willing to risk their lives testifying to it. One must, therefore, explain what happened to the disciples between their fearful flight (see John 20:19) following Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion and their bold preaching soon thereafter (see Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:2). We might add to these Paul and James’s conversions; see Acts 9:1 and John 7:5 respectively. In short, we must ask, what caused these remarkable transformations?
In the end, this alternative view’s assumptions simply don’t account for these three facts. The empty tomb, the appearances and the rise of the early church’s belief in the resurrection are details that come from early sources and are details which cannot be satisfactorily explained as the creation of later Christian writers.
