Did The Resurrection happen?

There's HEAPS of stuff on the resurrection on the web. Anyone can find the best (and worst) sites without too much trouble. Of course, the Internet Infidels is the best place to start.

I will argue that it cannot be doubted that the earliest followers of Jesus had some kind of experience following their leader's death. This experience led them to believe that Jesus was alive again.

The Apostle Paul's Writings

Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth is the earliest document which mentions the resurrection. Here it is:

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.
By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
(1 Corinthians 15:1-9)

Some points:

(1) nowhere in the skeptical or atheistic literature have I seen anyone question that Paul wrote this letter in about AD 50-55. I'll take that as a given.

(2) Paul is a first-hand witness to the resurrected Jesus. This is not hearsay. Paul mentions his conversion again in his letter to the churches in Galatia:

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased
to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man,
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.
I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.
I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.
They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."
And they praised God because of me.
Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.
I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.
(Galatians 1:13 - 2:2)

Paul mentions his story in passing - the Galatians already knew the details (1:13) - you can read Galatians to find out why Paul is retelling the tale. For the moment we'll look at Paul's conversion.

(3) Galatians was written in either AD 49 or 56. The arguments for these dates are well known and easily researched. After Paul was converted, he went to Arabia and Damascus for 3 years (1:17-18). Then he went to Jerusalem, where he met Peter and James, the leaders of the church there. Then he went to Syria and Cilicia (that is, his home) for 14 years. Sometime before AD 55 he went to Corinth (1 Cor 15:1). So the very latest that Paul could have been converted was 17 years before his first trip to Corinth, and probably earlier than that. Paul was thus converted before AD 37. Jesus died sometime between AD 30 and 33, so there is at most a 7 year delay between Jesus dying and Paul's conversion, and at most 10 years between Jesus' death and Paul talking to Peter and James in Jerusalem. I don't think that its too far-fetched to assume that they shared their stories. Note also that Paul and Peter have some major disagreements (see Galatians 1-2), but never on the resurrection. It is taken as a given, right from the beginning.

(4) Paul distinguishes his own experiences from the others: "last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born". It is uncertain what Paul means by this. Evidently his readers understood what Paul meant, since he certainly related his story to them while he was in Corinth. Possibly it merely alludes to the fact that Paul's experience happened a good deal later than the others - "abnormally" may also be translated "untimely".

(5) What exactly did Paul experience? Unfortunately he doesn't give us any details, although it is obvious that his readers knew the story - he writes to the Galatians: "you have heard..." and to the Corinthians: "I want to remind you...". Clearly his story was well known. Paul was so widely travelled that most the Christians throughout the Mediterranian would have been familiar with it. We possess a version of the story, as it was eventually received by the author of Acts, in Acts 9, 22 and 26, which may or may not be an accurate recordings of the actual events - I'm prepared to believe that something like this was what happened.

"I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.
I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison,
as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me.
I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, `Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?'
"`Who are you, Lord?' I asked. "`I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied.
My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
"`What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. "`Get up,' the Lord said, `and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.'
My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.
"A man named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living there.
He stood beside me and said, `Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at that very moment I was able to see him.
"Then he said: `The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.
You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
(Acts 22:3-16)

Regardless of what one thinks of the authenticity of Acts, it is obvious from Paul's own writings that his experience was very real to him. As Paul mentions in both Galatians and 1 Corithians, he " persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it". Suddenly he had a total change of heart and became a follower of Jesus. It was no gradual realisation. It was a single event. Some skeptics suggest that the disciples suffered some experience caused by guilt or grief and created the resurrection stories in order to cope with their emotions. This cannot be said for Paul. Neither can any "group psychology" explanation account for Paul's conversion. It was three years after his conversion that Paul began engaging with the established "Jesus cult". No explanation will do other than that Paul thought that he had had a real experience, which caused him to totally abandon his life as a prominent Pharisee and follow Jesus.

(6) Although Paul's testimony about Peter and James does constitute second-hand evidence, we can be confident about making some conclusions. 1 Corinthians 15:3b-7 was quite probably an early creedal statement. So say the liberal and skeptical scholars. If so, we possess two sources for the conversion of Peter and James - Paul is not simply relating what Peter told him when they met, but citing a creed which expressed the accepted story of Peter and James, which Paul evidently agreed with, having talked personally with Peter and James. James was Jesus' brother (Galatians 1:19), who was not one of the Twelve, and plays no part in the gospel accounts of Jesus' life, other than that of a brother who rejected Jesus. James went on to become the leader of the church in Jerusalem and was martyred in about AD 61. This is related in Josephus' work Jewish Antiquities, section 20.9.1, which is not disputed for authenticity:

"Since Ananus was that kind of person, and because he perceived an opportunity with Festus having died and Albinus not yet arrived, he called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought James, the brother of Jesus (who is called 'Messiah') along with some others. He accused them of transgressing the law, and handed them over for stoning."

Note that some have doubted the martyrdom of the apostles ( here, here and here). It is true that many of the stories we possess are legendary, so we will confine the discussion to those who we have good evidence for - James and Paul. Both had experiences which must have been quite life transforming: they both had major turn-arounds in thinking, from unlikely backgrounds, and both died for those beliefs. James was Jesus' brother. He must have know Jesus when they were both children and thus been highly unlikely to think he was anything like the Son of God. He absence from the pre-resurrection stories seems to confirm this. What happened to change his mind?

The final end of Paul is a little more difficult to nail down with certainty. All the traditions claim that he was beheaded in Rome - the standard mode of execution for a Roman citizen. There is no reason to doubt the truth of this tradition, although it is uncertain exactly when Paul died. Unfortunately the book of Acts finishes with Paul under house arrest and awaiting trial in Rome. Possibly he was released and made his intended journey to Spain before returning a final time to Rome where he was executed, but this is speculation.

Paul records some of his trials in his second letter to the church in Corinth, in which he felt compelled to reply to some preachers who were preaching "a different gospel from the one you accepted" by detailing his own commitment:

Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea,
I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.
I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. (2 Cor. 11:24-27)

Several of these events are related in the book of Acts. There can be little doubt over Paul's amazing commitment to Jesus, without needing to know with high certainty what his final fate was.

Peter presents more of a problem. I guess it is possible that he was unstable after Jesus' death and had some hallucination or whatever. Although I think this unlikely, I won't persue Peter's testimony any further.

(7) Some have suggested that the apostles were liars, using the resurrection story to extort money. This does not explain Paul's conversion. In 1 Cor. 9 Paul mentions that some of the apostles "receive their living from the gospel". If they were abusing that right then Paul would have had ample opportunity to say so here. But the main argument in this direction comes from Acts 5, where Ananias and Sapphira are famously struck dead (presumably by God) for not sharing their money. It seems strange that the skeptic would accept this story as being very early, while rejecting virtually everything else as later legend, apparently including the verses immediately preceeding this story: "There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:34-35).

So, there is strong evidence that both Paul and James had life-changing experiences which caused them to totally review their opinion of Jesus. Both came from unlikely backgrounds and both persisted with their new beliefs in the face of persecution. Note that I have not attempted to prove the empty tomb, nor the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

2. The crucifixion

By the time of Paul, Jesus was being spoken of in extremely high terms. In Paul's letter to the church at Philippi he quotes another church credal statement:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:5-11)

Paul begins his letter to the Roman church like this:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God--
the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures
regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,
and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Romans 1:1-4)

In fact, all the New Testament documents have this high view of Jesus. There is no sign of Jesus ever being seen as merely a man. This fact presents the skeptic with a problem: not enough time has elapsed between Jesus' death and the existence of such beliefs in order for these beliefs to have developed via "natural" myth-developing processes. The skeptics thus often launch an attack on the reality of even the most basic "facts" of Jesus' life, and assert that nothing about Jesus can be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Jesus could have been a semi-mythical figure who may have lived several centuries before the Christ-myth finally took solid shape in New Testament times (see here for a typical example of such speculations).

The primary problem with such a scheme is that there is not one shred of evidence for it. Nowhere is there any mention of anyone named Jesus or Christ (as a proper name) prior to Paul's writings. There is no evidence for the evolution of a movement which eventually became the early church.

3. The Gospel Writings

As has been pointed out many times, the gospel accounts of the resurrection do not constitute good enough evidence to prove the resurrection beyond reasonable doubt. The major problems are:

(1) it is uncertain when the gospels were written.
(2) the gospels are not first-hand evidence.
(3) the resurrection accounts seem to "improve" with age and gain a legendary character.
(4) the accounts contradict each other.

I would not use the gospels in attempting to "prove" the resurrection. One can conclude that belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection was in existence by about AD 70. Very little else can be asserted with confidence. However, it must be stressed that the problems stated above do not disprove the resurrection. They will no doubt cause problems for doctrines of inerrancy, but not for the historicity of the resurrection.

4. Some links

The most reasonable writings which I've been able to find on this topic are by Jeff Lowder, from the Internet Infidels. His essay is excellent. As Jeff points out, one's opinion of the resurrection is largely determined by one's belief (or non-belief) in God and not by a study of the historical evidence.

The Infidels have a small site devoted to discussing the resurrection. Wunder's piece deserve's serious consideration. Robert Price is perhaps worth reading, although he seems overly keen to be both provocative and intellectual (check out the jargon!), which undermines the value of the pieces.

For those who like the idea that the resurrection is a re-working of the common ancient world saviour-god myth, please check here.

Reasonable pro-resurrection sites:
Justin Taylor

John Clark Comments? Mail me