The Historical Case for the Resurrection

A.N. Mironov, Peace Be With You (Christ Appearing to the Apostles) (2010)
A.N. Mironov, Peace Be With You (Christ Appearing to the Apostles) (2010)
A.N. Mironov, Peace Be With You (Christ Appearing to the Apostles) (2010)
A.N. Mironov, Peace Be With You (Christ Appearing to the Apostles) (2010)

As we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ this octave, let’s talk about the case against the Resurrection. One of the most common reactions to the Resurrection is simply that the idea is ridiculous. Bob Seidensticker has compared believing in God to believing in unicorns and suggested an alternative approach:

We already have a scholarly discipline devoted to deciding what happened in the past. It’s called History. It uses principles shaped over centuries that do a good job of synthesizing what actually happened from what is invariably insufficient or contradictory evidence. Spoiler: history is no friend of the supernatural. The consensus view of historians scrubs the supernatural from the record.

The resurrection, the Trinity, hell—there’s plenty of nonsense within Christian dogma that has just that queer twist about it that legend has.

So let’s talk about the historical facts. By the early- to mid-first century, Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire, from its origins in Jerusalem even into the capital of the Empire itself. St. Paul has an entire Epistle to the Christians of Rome, and Acts 2:9-11 describes the original spread of Christianity to Jewish pilgrims from around the Empire. But it’s not just Christian sources which talk about the spread of the faith. The Roman Emperor Nero blamed the Great Fire of Rome on the Christians in the year 64, showing that Christianity had already spread to the capital of the Empire, and to such an extent that it had been noticed as something distinct from Judaism by the Romans themselves.

Much of what we know about this fire comes from the Roman senator (and historian) Tacitus (c.56-120 A.D.), a pagan. The fire occurred during his lifetime, and he was involved in Roman politics from the time of the Emperor Vespasian (69-79 A.D.). As a Senator, he is believed to have had access to Senate archives that would have been inaccessible to ordinary Romans. Writing in the first decade of the second century, the Great Fire was about as recent as Watergate is to us today, and every bit as controversial. Tacitus describes how the Great Fire was scandalous “as it had broken out on Aemilian property of Tigellinus and appearances suggested that Nero was seeking the glory of founding a new capital and endowing it with his own name.” He continued:

Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast  numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.

This information is important, because it shows that Christianity has exploded throughout the Roman Empire before 64 A.D., with the Christians convinced that the Apostolic preaching is orthodox and accurate… so convinced that they’re willing to undergo the public humiliation of being hatred by all of their countrymen, and then ultimately to undergo torture and the most brutal forms of execution imaginable.

From an historical perspective, why does this matter? Because something has to account for this. A quick contrast might illustrate my point. The Book of Mormon was written in the 1820s, and is allegedly a translation of texts from the 4th century B.C. to the 5th century A.D., originally written in “Reformed Egyptian” (a non-existent language). That many centuries after the fact, it’s easy to make claims that are hard to debunk. For example, the Book of Mormon claims that steel swords and elephants existed in the New World before Columbus. That’s not archaeologically supported, but it’s a hard claim to disprove, this many centuries later.

Christianity isn’t like that. In its initial proclamation, it’s making claims about events which are recent, public, and verifiable. On Pentecost, a mere fifty days after Easter, St. Peter gets up and proclaims to a crowd of Jews that Jesus is greater than King David, and that David “foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption” (Acts 2:31). The Tomb in which Jesus was laid was well-marked, and had even been guarded by Roman soldiers (Matthew 27:65-66). If the Tomb isn’t Empty, you could literally walk from over and disprove Christianity by midday.

Standing before King Agrippa and the Roman procurator Porcius Festus, St. Paul says, “For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this was not done in a corner.” In other words, the earliest Christian proclamation wasn’t just “take our word for it,” but “many of you listeners know about these events.” And what sort of events are we talking about here? St. Paul elsewhere noted that, after the Resurrection, Jesus “appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Cor. 15:6). Notice that Paul stresses that many of these people are still alive: that is, he’s inviting his readers to verify this fact.

So here’s what we’ve got:

  1. St. Peter claiming, 50 days after Easter, that the Tomb is empty.
  2. St. Paul claiming that the Resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 people. That is, we’re not just asking about whether the Apostles hallucinated or conspired to fake the Resurrection, but a plot or mass delusion apparently involving hundreds of people.
  3. Christianity exploding in size as the first century audience – the people in a position to physically fact check these claims – converted en masse.

Whatever your religious leaning happens to be, these are documented historical realities that need to be accounted for. If the Tomb wasn’t Empty, why did so many people in Jerusalem think it was? (Even the opponents of Christianity tacitly conceded that the Tomb was Empty, and sought to explain this away: Matthew 28:11-15). And if there weren’t really hundreds of people claiming to be eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, how did Paul get away with saying that there were? So the best historical evidence is that the Tomb was Empty, that hundreds of people did report seeing the Resurrected Jesus, and that Christianity spread like wildfire across the Roman Empire as a result. The historical case for the authenticity of the Resurrection is strong, and simply laughing it off is academically and intellectually unserious.

For more on this subject, listen to The Physical Case for the Empty Tomb, the latest Catholic Podcast episode.

20 comments

  1. This article of Joe Heschmeyer is really excellent. He uses the skillful development of his case by, first ,inviting our scorn for stories which try to produce facts out of mere legends; and then he proceeds to show that Christianity has actual solid proof, contrasting the factual evidence of eyewitnesses that the tomb was heavily guarded all the time after the burial,yet, became empty, and then, the sighting of Jesus, by a large group of over 500 people who were direct, first hand witnesses to the risen Christ, which, in turn, combined with so many other individual sightings of the risen man, together with other testimonials of single individuals eventually lead to the widespread explosion of solid converted believers among the population , which documentation is still preserved for us , today, for those interested in serious research .

  2. All excellent points and proofs for the physical resurrection of Jesus. I guess the Shroud of Turin might be the ‘cherry’ to top all of these other circumstantial proofs off?

    One other point. In every serious investigation of a person already deceased, close family members and friends are usually interviewed by the investigators so as to gain a better understanding of the primary subject of investigation. So, in this case, the close relations and friends of Jesus would be those who should be interviewed. And what we find is that the ‘mystical body of Christ’ (Jesus’ family and friends), were not left spiritually bankrupt or impotent after the death of Jesus, but exactly the opposite occurred. They received spiritual powers and miraculous gifts to a degree that were never conceived before, even by those same disciples themselves. That is to say, that the inheritance that Jesus left to His family (disciples) is also a powerful witness to Christ’s own miraculous resurrection. And, moreover, Jesus prophesied that this very thing would occur, when He said :

    “Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise BELIEVE FOR THE VERY WORKS’ SAKE. Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the WORKS that I do, HE SHALL DO; and GREATER THAN THESE SHALL HE DO. Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I WILL DO. ” (John 14:11)

    So, we have here Jesus stating that ‘after He goes to the Father’ ( ie..After His resurrection) He will still be working miracles and signs in the world through His ‘mystical body’, so as to convince the populations of all the world, even as the same miracles/works convinced so many people while He Himself preached in Israel. So, this is to say, that the ‘Resurrected Jesus’ was still actively working in the world through His ‘Mystical Body’ after His death and resurrection, and so the miracles and wonders described in the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ should also be part of the body of evidence used for a proof of the Resurrection. This is to say, that the ‘Living Christ’, revealed through the acts and wonders of the saints in His Church, both past and present… is a type of evidence that His Resurrection is real.

  3. The most salient point of all this is Joe’s observation that these early Christians were “so convinced that they’re willing to undergo the public humiliation of being hatred (hated) by all of their countrymen, and then ultimately to undergo torture and the most brutal forms of execution imaginable.”

    Do people die, and watch their families die for a known lie, for a theological **maybe**?

    Interesting on the Mormon Tale….most of the Mormon expats I know cite just this (the spurious book of Abraham) and “Randy Joe” Smith’s sexcapades as their reasons for exiting. The fact much of the Book o’Mormon directly correlates with a 1766 version of the KJV known to be in the Smith family possession doesn’t help the cause….

  4. No offense to my Christian brothers, but the historical case (strictly speaking by the sources we have) is poor. It is not that we don’t have a lot of ancient attestations–in fact, the resurrection is will documented. The problem is, rather, the credibility of the source. A bunch of religious zealots willing to die for their beliefs don’t necessarily make for impartial sources from a historians perspective.

    We also have quite a few Hadith and attestations to the Quran–but, we discount their views out of hand.

    I think anyone who holds an ancient religious document to the same par as a secular document is simply not conducting honest historical inquiry.

    This is not to say I doubt the resurrection, God forbid, but I am not convinced by a strictly historical argument.

    God bless,
    Craig

    1. Craig, is the greek physician who interviewed the participants of the new religion, as unbiased as say an american who wrote about how we won WWII?

    2. Simply, the more outrageous the claim the bigger the standard of proof we require. There is a reason why miracles were used to validate the Gospel. IMHO, miracles still do. Thomas Aquinas considered belief the biggest miracle there was. So, the historical case, to me, invalidates the central truth of the Christian religion–HIs grace. Those who pretend the Christian religion is philosophically and historically compelling are trying to make Christianity appealing to the world, which it can never be.

      1. The question is whether the credibility of the resurrection of Jesus is reasonable or unreasonable. Experience would say that such a thing is an extremely low probability event and we are two millennia removed from the event. Nevertheless, is the evidence available to us today sufficient to assess the truth of it as reasonable? I think the evidence is pretty strong and that it is reasonable to accept the witness of those closest to the event. Evidence alone will never bring it from reasonable to certain, only faith can make that leap. People that demand the evidence to provide absolute certainty are unscientific and will never be satisfied (and shouldn’t be on juries). Reason and evidence have limitations, and science itself has shown that there is truth that can’t be proven, it just is without being explainable.

        1. Craig characterizes the early Christians as a bunch of religious zealots and cites that as a reason for discounting their credibility. By contrast It strikes me that the Gospel accounts present the witnesses as initial skeptics, ‘doubting’ Thomas being a prime example. Their reaction sounds a lot like I would expect of myself of anyone today who encountered such a thing. If the earliest Christians were zealots and willing to die for their beliefs, it’s because their skepticism was overcome not by wishful thinking, but by all they had seen and heard from the day Jesus stepped into the public light to the day he ascended into heaven.

      2. Hi Craig,

        I get what you say, but I think too that He reveals his grace through history. So those who have experienced that grace have recorded and will continue to record their observations, understanding, and recall in order to share. It is there for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. Any written history will of necessity be slanted through the medium of the writer and his sense of his audience. But I don’t know that the writers are motivated to present Christianity as ‘appealing’. Have they not instead reported “It is what it is.” St. Teresa, paraphrased, is purported to have said, “Dear God, if this is how you treat your friends, it is not surprising that you have so few.” I for one try to represent it as I know it to be, to communicate, to share my point of view. Of course I hope that any ‘grace’ I have been given may be shared in the process.

        If I understand your statement correctly, are you saying there is no compelling philosophy or history within Christianity? Is there nothing to share in terms of historical fact?

        1. Margo, in short Christianity’s claims are only bolstered by their own tradition, like Islam with theirs. Christianity’s historical veracity is compelling only to the converted.

          In short we have early documents, but no independent confirmation of their claims (aside from an interpolation in Josephus that calls Jesus the Christ.).

          1. Craig,
            I would suggest that logic (without faith) may convict. Have you seen Pascal’s Wager? Logically, humanity has all to gain and to lose if Christ is Christ.

          2. As you are Roman Catholic I believe, have you heard of the Shroud of Turin? Take a close look at the information online. It has been ably proven that the single sample from which the carbon14 tests were done was from an area into which a cotton repair was almost invisibly woven in the 15th(?) Century. This was confirmed by examination of the remaining samples.

            As to why the samples were taken only from one place and from that place in particular, that remains a mystery, though one could posit theories.

            Of course anyone who closely and seriously examines all the evidences amassed by Ian Wilson and others will soon see that the object can only be what it appears to be.

            Hidden in plain sight, for those who will look.

    3. At last I have to agree with Craig about something.

      St. Peter claiming, 50 days after Easter, that the Tomb is empty.
      The empty tomb doesn’t prove the resurrection. Specially from the mouth of someone with alleged guilt issues.


      2. St. Paul claiming that the Resurrected Jesus appeared to 500 people. That is, we’re not just asking about whether the Apostles hallucinated or conspired to fake the Resurrection, but a plot or mass delusion apparently involving hundreds of people.

      Mass illusions do occur. Specially in the mind of illiterate/semiliterate 1st c. Palestinian Jews. The fact that one guy named Paul writes that 500 people saw Jesus means nothing if those 500 are not accounted for. Paul’s credibility as a “historian” is not warranted. If Jesus had appeared to 500 he could easily have appeared to someone who would make a difference (say, a literate person like Pilate, or a bunch of Roman soldiers). But no one of those 500 seem to have written or told someone to write about the marvel they had witnessed. 500 is otherwise such a huge number that it is unthinkable that no historian would notice the social upheaval in Jerusalem this would have caused. And these aren’t even the arguments set forth e.g., here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2014/04/500-eyewitnesses-to-the-risen-christ-9-reasons-why-its-not-likely/ and here: https://celsus.blog/2013/07/04/1-corinthians-15-and-the-500-witnesses/.

      The same goes for the credibility of Matthew’s claim that dead people were being raised from the dead. That would be a social happening — that no historian or even other evangelists noticed.

      Christianity exploding in size as the first century audience – the people in a position to physically fact check these claims – converted en masse.
      Historians really doubt that the Christian population was so massive, specially in the 1st century.


      Whatever your religious leaning happens to be, these are documented historical realities that need to be accounted for. If the Tomb wasn’t Empty, why did so many people in Jerusalem think it was?

      I guess your notion of “documented historical realities” needs some polishing. If Muhammad wasn’t visited by Gabriel, why so many people think he was? If Romulus wasn’t resurrected, why so many people think he was? And on and on and on.

      1. Hello KO (short for Knock-out?),

        You say, “…these are documented historical realities that need to be accounted for.”

        I say, “Amen, and thank God we have Scripture, logic, the Catholic Church, and nature, which all speak to the reality of a Resurrected Christ.” These are historical realities, are they not?

        May God bless you during this Easter Season and throughout all the days of our lives.

        1. K.O., worshipper of trees and stones, the bringer of sparkling water, the brother of birds and wolves says:

          Margo,

          Happy Easter for you too.

          I’d contend that logic and nature do not speak to the reality of a Resurrected Christ. See, Muslims and Jews (among others) would argue that “logic and nature do not speak to the reality of a Resurrected Christ”.

          On the other hand, Scripture and the Catholic Church’s doctrine (whether someone accepts this doctrine or not is irrelevant in this case) are not “documented historical realities” in the sense that a mere declaration contained in those sources reflect, by themselves, some reality “out there”. By the same token, the Qur’an and Moslems’ beliefs cannot, by mere dint of their being historical documents, lay claim to authority about historical reality, notwithstanding the Moslems’ insistent proclamation that the angel Gabriel sending messages from God to Mohammed is “a fact”, “therefore we should obey God through Muhammad”.

          Both beliefs are ultimately unverifiable and rest solely upon faith, which is not, by any means, logical or empirical knowledge, but can be summed up appropriately as “pretending to know things you don’t know”.

          1. Hi K.O.,

            Nature is cyclic; things are alive and then die and then are alive. Consider the water cycle, or matter and energy. My spouse is a scientist who understands Einstein; his understanding is that many scientific theories are unable to be tested because we simply don’t have instruments. We are not able to properly and accurately OBSERVE what does in fact exists. Consider the history of microbiology or genetics, for example.

            I mentioned Pascal regarding the argument from simple logic. Read it is you get a chance. It clearly and without slant demonstrates a stark reality about ‘historical’ reality–God has been alive and operative throughout time, and it is all our loss to deny it.

            The Church is definitely a historical, a substantial, a material reality()in addition to that we don’t see–spiritual) which has existed since the time of Christ. (I am not deluded, and millions of others are similarly not either!). Scripture is also a document, a written record, of reality experienced by many many people throughout time, and the different authors are shockingly noncontradictory. Ever try the kid’s birthday party game of telling something in another’s ear to be repeated in the circle? The READER may tend to discount what one reads, but Scripture nevertheless is a historical document containing accounts (by different people) of the life and time of a man named Jesus, this man Christians have come to know as the Christ.

            We disagree, I think.

            Does KO symbolize “knockout”?

            Regards,

  5. Read the Koran and read the Gospels, if you cannot discern the difference further comment is useless. If you wish for the truth however inconvenient, go and seek it, if you wish for what you find convenient you have probably already found it. You are in good company, until you leave this world. Then you will find it poor company indeed.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.