Articles:
Apologetics, Questions, Issues
The Resurrection of Christ—Fact or "Wishful Thinking"?
by Jeff Kimble

Each year on Easter Sunday Christians around the world gather to remember the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The triumph of Christ over death is celebrated in sermons, liturgies, and hymns throughout the world. But in the halls of academia, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar¹ contend that Christ's resurrection is little more than "wishful thinking." According to Seminar Co-chairman, Dr. J.D. Crossan, after the crucifixion Jesus was probably laid in a shallow grave barely covered with dirt and eaten by wild dogs. The resurrection, based on his account of the evidence, is myth.

But in a 1995 debate moderated by William F. Buckley, Jr., Crossan's view was successfully refuted. In the debate, Dr. William Lane Craig, a Christian philosopher, met with Dr. Crossan to defend the historicity of the resurrection ac­counts. Craig made two main contentions which went largely unanswered by Crossan:

1. that the real Jesus rose from the dead in confirmation of his claims to divinity, and
2. that the first claim, if false, reduces Christianity to myth—a claim which Crossan, of course, conceded.

Consequently, the emphasis of the debate focused largely on evidence Craig presented for the first claim. Four facts, established by a consensus of Biblical scholarship, offered good inductive grounds for historicity of the resurrection:

1. After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in the personal tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Since the location of Jesus' tomb was thus well-known, the only evidence needed to debunk the resurrection claim was a tomb with a corpse—which makes it quite unlikely that the disciples fabricated the story of the resurrection.
2. On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb was found empty by a group of Jesus' women followers. If the disciples intended to fabricate the resurrection claim, surely, in a culture where a woman's testimony meant little or nothing, they would have had men, not women, find the tomb empty.  Yet, the resurrection accounts agree that the women discovered the empty tomb. Also, the earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples stole Christ's body presupposes that Christ's body was missing from the tomb.
3. On numerous occasions and in various circumstances, Jesus appeared to his followers in a resurrected body. In the Gospels, the various appearance traditions provide multiple independent attestations of Christ's post-resurrection appearances. Also, the list of eyewitnesses to these appearances conveyed to Paul by his personal acquaintances confirms the likelihood of the occurrences. The list includes Peter, the other disciples, a group of five hundred brethren and James. Regarding the evidence for the post-resurrection appearances, the late New Testament scholar from Chicago University, Norman Perrin, said, "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based."
4. The theological predisposition of the early disciples makes it unlikely that they would have believed in Christ's resurrection themselves unless it actually occurred. For instance, the Jewish messianic belief at that time contradicted the notion of a dying, much less a rising, Messiah. Jewish law regarded Jesus as a man under God's curse because he died a criminal's death. It's doubtful that man under the curse of God would be resurrected by divine power. Also, the Jewish view of the afterlife precluded belief in anything but a general resurrection at the end of the world. Yet, the later testimony of the disciples confirms their belief in the resurrection and a willingness to die for Christ in light of that fact.

Not surprisingly. Dr. Crossan denies all of these facts. He contends that:

1. Jesus' corpse was thrown into a common grave and was eaten by wild dogs.
2. The women's visit to the empty tomb was fabricated by Mark.
3. The appearances of Jesus never occurred.
4. The disciples never believed in the resurrection at all.

From my standpoint, it seems implausible that on every one of these points Crossan is correct and the bulk of New Testament scholarship is wrong. But, as I see it, the crux of the debate focuses not on a list of facts but on the assumptions supporting them.

Craig, it seems, from the standpoint of his world view, has good reasons to believe the historicity of the resurrection. If God exists, miracles, such as the resurrection, are certainly plausible and the facts presented make good sense in that light. But Craig is admittedly open to a supernatural explanation of the facts.

Dr. Crossan and the scholars from the Jesus Seminar, on the other hand, begin elsewhere. Implicit in their presuppositions is the belief that a supernaturalist outlook is untenable in light of modern science. The Introduction to the Five Gospels authored by the Seminar states, "The contemporary religious controversy...turns on whether the world view reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith..  The Christ of Creed and dogma can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo's telescope."

The disturbing aspect of Crossan's conclusion about Christ's resurrection is not that be disbelieves it, but that he dis­misses it because he believes miracles are impossible. But, I ask, what other conclusion could he draw from his research on the resurrection if at the outset he rules out a supernatural explanation of the facts? Based on his presuppositions, the only possible explanation of the resurrection is the naturalistic explanation, which makes Crossan's view nothing more than the logical outworking of his philosophical prejudices regarding the supernatural.

 

¹ A forum of liberal, Biblical scholars whose conclusions regarding Jesus have been widely publicized in magazines such as Time and Newsweek and who generally dismiss the historicity of Jesus' life and resurrection.

Jeff Kimble is the Business Data Specialist at Schenectady Christian School in New York. He also teaches a senior-level philosophy of religion class and leads a high school apologetics mentoring program.