Originally posted by Kamikaze
What evidence is there that Jesus did rise from the dead? I'm curious.
Well, this is a long answer, but here goes:
Given that the resurrection is claimed as a historical occurence, it only make sense to tackle the question with the approach usual for any historical event. Christianity stands or falls by this claim, so let's see how it fares under the lights of historical scrutiny. I'm not going to ask you to treat the Bible as God's Word in this discussion, just as ancient documents recording an event.
What criteria do historians use to evaluate the historical value of an ancient document? (Note, I'm not an expert in this field, but this amounts to a good summary. I'm relying on outside sources for the following lists) Basically, there's the "internal criteria" and the "external criteria".
Internal criteria:
1) Was the author in a position to know what he or she was writing about? Does the text claim to be an eyewitness account, or based on one? Or is it just hearsay?
If the document doesn't even claim to be an eyewitness account or based on one, its vlue is probably less that it would be otherwise. Of course, being an eyewitness account doesn't make it true (see External Criteria)2) Does the document contain specific, and especially irrelevant, material?
Firsthand sources are typically full of material, especially details, which aren't central to the story, whereas fabricated accounts tend to be generalised.3) Does the document contain self-damaging material?
If a document includes material which could cast a negative image on the author, on the "heroes" of the story, or especially on the truthfulness ofthe story, this is typically a good indication that the author had truth as a central motive for writing.4) Is the document reasonably self-consistent?
There is a coherence to truth which fabrications usually lack, though different perspectives on a single historical account usually include some minor discrepancies.5) Is there evidence of "legendary accretion" in the document?
Fish stories tend to be exaggerated over time. The presence of "larger than life" features in a document suggest a later time of writing, and proportionally diminish the document's historical trustworthiness.External Criteria
1) Would the authors of the document have a motive for fabricating what they wrote?
Obviously if a motive can be established for the author to make it up, the document's trustworthiness is diminished. Conversely, if the author had nothing to gain, or even something to lose, by writing it, trustworthiness is increased.2) Are there any other sources which confirm material in the document and/or substantiate it's genuineness?
Outside confirmation increases trustworthiness, provided the confirming source is also trustworthy, of course.3) Does archeology support or go against material in the document?
Should be obvious what this does, eh?4) Could contemporaries of the document falsify the document's accont, and would they have a motive for doing so?
If there were people around who could have exposed the document as a falsehood and would have wanted to do so, but didn't - so far as history tells - then credibility is increased.So what happens when we use these criteria? Let's see!
Internal #1: Luke, who was not an eyewitness, tells us he is using eyewitness sources an that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of what he records (Luke 1:1-4). John tells us he is an eyewitness. Matthew and Mark don't make an explicit claim to being eyewitness accounts, but simply assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that these were the authors. (This is external criteria #2)
Internal #2: the Gospels contain an awful lot of irrelevant detail. For example (and this is a good one since it deal directly with the Resurrection), John 20 1:8:
Early on the first day of the week
(when? does it matter?) while it was still dark
(who cares?), Mary Magdalene
(an incriminating detail, see next criterion) went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came runniing to Simon Peter an the other disciple, the one Jesus loved
(John's usual modest way of refering to himself -- another mark of genuineness. This identification is made with himeself only at the end of his gospel, in case you were wondering) and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they have put him!"
(note her lack of faith here). So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. They were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first
(again, who cares about this irrelevant detail?). He bent over
(the tomb entrance was low, a detail which is historically accurate for tombs of the kind and time period in question) and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in
(why not? irrelevant detail). Then Simon Peter who was behind him arrived and went into the tomb
(Peter's boldness stands out in all the Gospel accounts). He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head
(irrelevant and unexpected detail -- what was jesus wearing?). The cloth was folded up by itself, seperate from the linen
(WHO CARES? Jesus folded up one part of the burial cloth before he left. Whoopee.) Finally, the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went inside
(and we care about the order of entrance because...?).
I hope you see the point. There's absolutely no reaosn to throw in this sort of irrelevant detail. It contributes nothing to the story line, except it's just part of what happened, so he throws it in as he remembers it. The Gospels are full of stuff like this.
Internal #3: The Gospels are full of self-damaging detail. For example, in the Resurrection account above, a woman is said to be the first one to discover that the tomb was empty. But this could only damage the testimony of the early Christians, as women in first-century Jewish culture were considered incurable "talebearers." They couldn't even testify in court (which is why Paul doesn't include any women in this list of people who saw the risen Christ in 1 Corinthians 15). Moreover, the disciples are constantly protrayed in a bad light, which is not a good plan if you're supposed to be leading people. Even aspects of Jesus' life are included which, if the story were being fabricated to convince people of his messiahship, would have been excluded. For example, on the cross Jesus cries out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is not what one would expect from a document trying to prove that Jesus was divine. It's a tough statement, but that just proves the point. The only reason to include it is because it happened.
Internal #4: The Gospels present a consistent portrait of who Jesus is and what he did, as well as the events surronding his life. If the accounts were individually fabricated, where did the consistency come from? On the other hand, however, there are minor differences, showing the relative differences of their perspectives. If they were all fabricated together, the consistency would be greater than it we find.
Internal #5: C.S. Lewis was a professor at Oxford and an expert on ancient mythology. He once said, "as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the gospels are, they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend, and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing." Basically, the Gospels contain much supernatural activity, but they just don't have the ususal legendary style. Legends make a big deal out of stuff, waxing poetic, embellishing with detail, and painting an epic picture of things (read the Odyssey, or the Lord of the Rings for that matter, to see what I mean). The Gospels are almost drab in their presentation. The style is about like this: "There was this one time he multiplied some kid's lunch to feed thousands of people. Then later he went off to pray." That's about it. One could almost wish it WAS more embellished; it'd be more fun. It is interesting to note that later fake gospels were written, largely by a broad branch of heretics called Gnostics, and their gospels do evidence much embellishment where these recognised ones do not.
External #1: What motive could the early disciples have had for faking it? Well, actually they had a whole lot of reason NOT to believe what they did. It tended to get you severely persecuted. In fact, of all the original bigwigs of the church, the only one not to meet some unpleasant end for refusing to deny Jesus spent his old age exiled on a windswept rock. The rest were all killed in unpleasant fashions (decapitations, more cruxifixions, fed live to starving lions, honest-to-God boilings in oil, etc.) because they refused to deny that Jesus was risen and was Lord.
People
just don't do that for something they know is a lie. Heck, many a later Christian denied it when faced with such torture and death, even though they did believe it. If I make up a lie to trick people with, and you say to me "Admit it was a lie, or we put the thumbscrews to you," I'm gonna admit it was a lie pretty damn quick! I know of no scholar anywhere who doubts that the disciples really believed what they preached.
External #2: As said before, the authorship of these Gospels is attested by numerous sources in the early second century,who were in a much better position to know than we are today. More importantly, perhaps, we can also ascertain some thngs about jesus and the early disciples, things which fit well with the Gospels, from other secular ancient sources as Tacitus (ca. 55-120), Suetonius (early second century), Josephus (cs. 37-97), Thallus (mid first century), Pliny (early second century), as well as ancient Jewish writing against the Christians (the Talmud). I know of no non-Christian sources that confirm the event of the Resurrection, and want to make that clear so as not to mislead you, Kamikaze. (That probably isn't surprising, though, since if one believes it happened, one is pretty certain to become a Christian, too.)
External #3: Well, archeology doesn't shed a whole lot of light here, given the nature of the texts, their short timelime and the fact that they primarily deal with the doings of a man, and not archological sorts of things. What light there is to be shone by archeology is concurrent with the Gospel acconts. It should suffice to say that the historical existence of Jesus where and when he is supposed to have existed is held as beyond doubt.
External #4: This one is one of the most telling for me. Christianity was running around claiming that this guy had risen from the dead and had done all these crazy miracles, and there were other people who absolutely hated Christianity. There was nothing they'd have liked better than to stamp out this "heresy," and it would have been ridiculously easy to do. Just take these Christians by the collar, drag them over to this tomb and say "Look, there's his body. He's dead. Shaddup." That would have been the end of it. Christianity would have been struck dead in its tracks.
But no one did that. They didn't even deny that he did all those miracles. The best they could do was argue that he's really done those miracles by the power of Satan, and suggest that maybe the disciples stole the body (but see External Criterion #1).
So anyway, a long answer, and I'm sorry, but you asked a good quesiton about the single most important thing in my entire life, so I wanted to answer it well.
Poll
