GodlessHaven.com

What About the Resurrection? - Examining the Evidence:

Written by Taylor Carr - August 18, 2024

The resurrection is like the Achilles' heel of Christianity. If Jesus did not, in fact, rise from the dead on the 3rd day (as the story goes), then much, if not all, of the religion is a lie. Why is this the case? The answer can even be found on a Christian website:

"The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is central to the message of the New Testament - it doesn't make sense without it... The cross and resurrection are central to virtually all known forms of early Christianity. It follows, therefore, that if the resurrection never happened, we are left with the alternatives of either proclaiming a message that is based on a lie, or radically altering what the early Christians were on about." [1]

Books upon books have been written on the subject of the resurrection, because it is such a critical element of the Christian faith. So what if reasonable doubt could be cast on the event? Many believers do not even want to consider the possibility, as it would seriously shake or undermine the very foundation of their belief. However, the truth should be sought in all manners, regardless of its effect on personal comforts. If Christianity is true, then it should not just hold up under examination, it should welcome examination, so that its truth may be better understood.

I. The Evidence in Question

Christians generally give a variety of different answers about the evidence for the resurrection, but there are often a few common points, and the source for the "evidence" presented is almost always the bible. But since the bible is the same book making the claim of resurrection, using it to verify the resurrection is circular reasoning; "the bible is true because it says its true" or more accurately, "the resurrection (according to the bible) is true because the bible says its true".

When an argument for the resurrection is made using the bible as evidence, we can basically throw it out on the spot. The bible makes very extraordinary claims about our universe and reality, and these need to be accounted for if we are to believe the bible has any historical basis. So as the bible itself is in question, its claims can only be accounted for by sources outside of it. And as always, whatever sources are offered need to be carefully examined themselves.

II. Rationalizing the New Testament Accounts

Some Christians still try to weasel their way into gaining acceptance of the New Testament writings as evidence for the resurrection. The following is from a popular Christian apologetics site:

"The New Testament documents, particularly the Gospels, were written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses before the death of the apostles. Therefore there were plenty of people around who could have contested the post crucifixion appearances of Christ. We must first understand that the Gospels are historical documents and they are reliable ones." [2]

There are several problems with the claims made here.

1. What evidence is there that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?
2. Perhaps the resurrection was not contested because it was a later fabrication?
3. What evidence is there that the gospels are historically reliable documents?

I've discussed elements of faith with religious believers who assert their beliefs time and time again, without providing justification for a lot of what they say. If you're going to make bold claims about the historicity of the bible or about the gospel authors being eyewitnesses to the resurrection, you need to do better than to base your claims on the bible's representation of facts, because that is the very representation that is being called into question.

Even so, what are some of the "evidences" proposed for the resurrection?

III. The Empty Tomb

Christians love their bible story about the empty tomb, and love to bring it up in discussions about Christ's resurrection, but the tale is actually quite different depending on which of the four gospels you read.

In Matthew 28:1-10, Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" go to find an angel at the tomb who tells them to inform the disciples that Jesus is risen, and upon rushing to do so, they encounter Jesus themselves.

In Mark 16:1-8, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James are accompanied by Salome to find a "young man dressed in a white robe" in the tomb, who tells them to tell the disciples of Christ's resurrection.

In Luke 24:1-11, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James are accompanied by a woman named Joanna this time, and they encounter two men in "clothes that gleamed like lightning".

In John 20:1-9, Mary Magdalene finds the tomb empty by herself, tells Peter and John, who follow her back to the tomb. After the disciples return home, Mary meets two angels and Jesus.

These differences are not minor, as each gospel gives us a different account of who went to the tomb, who they found or met at the tomb, and what happened afterwards. Interestingly, the end of Mark's gospel varies. In the NIV bible, a footnote follows verse 8, which reads: "Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses [9-20] belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost". It makes you wonder what these questionable verses are doing in the "inerrant, unchanging word of God".

Luke's gospel actually omits the message delivered to the women in the other gospels. They do not inform the disciples to go to Galilee, but instead they tell them of Christ's resurrection and their words are considered "nonsense" (finally, something I'd agree with the bible about). Later on, the disciples catch up with Jesus on the road, but are unaware of it until he enters their house and gives thanks for the food.

Why all this information? It's not just important to address why the bible cannot be used to account for its own claims, but it's also important to address why the bible should not be used in such a way. With inconsistencies like these in the empty tomb story, it serves to illustrate why we need to have a high standard for what we will accept as evidence. The four gospel stories cannot even agree amongst themselves, so why should the bible be thought of as a trustworthy source?

IV. The 500 Witnesses

Another favorite of apologists like Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel is the story of the 500 witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:6, which states in painfully brief description that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people after the resurrection. First of all, this tale has only been found in the bible. Second, it is mentioned by Paul, a New Testament author who never actually participated in the events of the four gospels and never met Jesus aside from a "vision" he had.

In the verse, Paul is writing a letter to the Corinthian church, telling them of Jesus' resurrection, and yet he never names a single person of the 500, so that his statements might be validated. Furthermore, no mention is made of the area where these 500 witnessed the resurrected saviour, and in giving a chronological description of who Jesus appeared to after death, Paul brings up no account of women at the tomb, yet women were the first ones present in every gospel.

This incident seems more like a point against Christianity than in support of it. If over 500 people witnessed the resurrection, why have history and archaeology turned up nothing like a letter or record of the event written by one of the witnesses? One might attempt to explain away this issue by citing the massive illiteracy rate in the New Testament era, but then one has to wonder about the individual allegedly writing the letter to the Corinthians as well.

There are many other instances in the bible of Christ appearing to people after his death, but I will not go into any more of them here, because they are of no concern to rational individuals who seek real, verifiable evidence. What we ought to be concerned with are instances or evidences outside of the bible that might give some credence to the resurrection.

V. Where is the Non-Biblical Evidence?

The only non-biblical evidence I have seen presented by believers has been that of historians like Josephus, Tacitus, etc. However, none of these historians actually record anything pertaining to the resurrection, and instead they supposedly document the Christian sect itself. I have dealt with these propositions in a separate article, which is entitled Did Jesus Really Exist?. In it, I explain that the sources are very much open to dispute and are often misconstrued by apologists and theologians.

There is a lack of non-biblical evidence for the resurrection, possibly because it never happened. Christians may gleefully regurgitate the adage, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but when their holy book tells of such wonderous tales as the dead popping out of their graves during the crucifixion and wandering into the city (Matthew 27:50-53), one can't help but question why such an extraordinary event doesn't have at least a few remaining historical records outside of the bible.

But it's not simply the lack of evidence that leads to the conclusion of the resurrection being fictitious. There is plenty of evidence that seems to indicate that the gospels and the bible have seriously strayed from historical truth. Nevertheless, the resurrection is a concept for which faith is essential, and any vain attempt at trying to objectively portray it as a factual event is going to fail.

Sources:

1. Tripp, D. No Christianity without the resurrection. Christianity.co.nz. Retrieved Aug. 18, 2008.
2. Slick, M. There are no non-biblical accounts to the resurrection. Carm.org. Retrieved Aug. 18, 2008.