I also believe there is a solid case for the Rez that meets a reasonable burden of proof for matters of history. Equal, at least, to that which we accept for other pivotal events in ancient history accepted as true and rarely questioned.
As indicated by the spectrum of the below quoted scholars and historians, I propose we can be reasonably certain some historical "facts" are probably true regardless of our philosophical predispositions. We can then look at theories that account for those facts.
The Methodology:
A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...
- 1. Eyewitness attestation
2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)
Historian Paul Maier notes, "Many facts from antiquity rest on just one ancient source, while two or three sources in agreement generally render the fact unimpeachable." Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks a Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church (1991), p. 197.
As a side note, I’m confident we can reconcile alleged contradictions in the NT, demonstrate traditional authorship of the Gospels/Acts (i.g. The disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew and so on. Just as we would for any other ancient document, see here ), and demonstrate the synoptics were written before 70AD. However, we'll forgo debate over the preceding to avoid rabbit trails and make it more of a challenge for the Rez theory. So, for the sake of argument in this thread we will assume:
- 1. The Bible is errant and not inspired by God. We'll consider it merely a collection of ancient writings.
2. The Gospels/Acts are technically anonymous and may or may not be eyewitness accounts.
3. The Gospels and other Christian/non-Christian accounts contain minor errors and contradictions in secondary details.
4. The Gospels/Acts were written after 70AD, but no later than 100AD.
5. Mark was the first Gospel written. The authors of Luke and Matthew used some of Mark as a source for their Gospels.
We could submit many, but to start, here are 5 "facts" that should pass enough of the listed criteria to be considered probable:
FACT 1. Jesus’ crucifixion and death
- a) Early (and enemy) attestation from the Apostle Paul - (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10, 2:15; 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2 and early creedal passages in 1 Corinthians 15:3 - ca. 50-60AD)
b) Multiple attestation in all four Gospels and the Book of Acts (ca. 70-100AD)
c) Enemy/neutral attestation from Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 18:64 - 96AD)
d) Enemy/neutral attestation from Roman historian Tacitus (Annals 15:44 - ca. 115AD)
e) Enemy/neutral attestation from Greek satirical writer Lucian (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13 - ca. 150AD)
f) Enemy/neutral attestation from Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a - ca. 200AD)
g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the humiliating suffering and death of a supposed Messiah and the Son of God (as well as Principle of Dissimilarity from Jewish anticipation of a military type leader in the Messiah).
The critical NT scholar and Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan wrote, "Jesus’ death by execution under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be. For, if no follower of Jesus had written anything for one hundred years after his crucifixion, we would still know about him from two authors not among his supporters. Their names are Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus...We have, in other words, not just Christian witnesses but one major Jewish and one major pagan historian who both agree on three points concerning Jesus: there was a movement, there was an execution because of that movement, but, despite that execution, there was a continuation of the movement." John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?, pg. 5
Crossan also said, "Despite the differences between the studied impartiality of Josephus and the sneering partiality of Tacitus, they agree on three rather basic facts. First, there was some sort of a movement connected with Jesus. Second, he was executed by official authority presumably to stop the movement. Third, rather than being stopped, the movement continued to spread. There remain, therefore, these three: movement, execution, continuation. But the greatest of these is continuation." John Dominic Crossan, The Essential Jesus, p. 7.
John P. Meier wrote, "For two obvious reasons practically no one would deny the fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion: (1) This central event is reported or alluded to not only by the vast majority of NT authors, but also by Josephus and Tacitus...(2) Such an embarrassing event created a major obstacle to converting Jews and Gentiles alike...that the Church struggled to overcome..." (John P. Meier, "The Circle of the Twelve: Did It Exist during Jesus' Public Ministry?", Journal of Biblical Literature 116 [1997] p. 664–665).
FACT 2. The tomb was discovered empty.
- a) Early attestation from Paul - he implies an empty tomb (1 Cor. 15:3-4)
b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (the very early Pre-Markan Passion source probably contained the empty tomb)
c) The disciples were accused of stealing Jesus’ body by unbelieving Jews - indirect enemy confirmation that the tomb was empty (Matthew 28, Christian apologist Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 108 - ca. 150AD; Christian apologist Tertullian De Spectaculis 30 - ca. 200AD)
d) The principle of embarrassment applies to the empty tomb reported as having been discovered by women
e) We have no record of Jesus’ corpse being produced only accusations that the disciples stole the body.
f) Setting the stage for the empty tomb was the honourable burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimethea (another fact we could admit as number 6 - but won't as it isn't really necessary to do so). It is attested by all four Gospels. As well Paul mentions the burial of Jesus(1 Cor 15). It also is strengthened by the Principle of Embarrassment where a Jewish member of the council, rather than a disciple or family member, that condemned Jesus was reported as honourably burring Jesus. This would have been offensive to the disciples and as such is unlikely to be a fabrication.
William Wand, a past Oxford University church historian wrote, "All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour [of the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other grounds than that of scientific history." William Wand, Christianity: A Historical Religion? (1972), p. 93-94
NT critic D. H. Van Daalen wrote, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." D.H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection(1972), p. 41.
FACT 3. The apostles sincerely believed Jesus rose from the dead and then appeared to them. So sincerely that some were willing to endure persecution and possibly even death because of this belief:
Claims of appearances to the disciples:
- a) Early (and enemy) attestation from Paul (1 Cor. 15:4-8)
b) Multiple attestation from all four Gospels (even without the later addition of 16:9-20, early attestation in Mark's Gospel predicts the Rez and appearances in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and suggests there will be appearances made by Jesus 14:28, 16:6-7)
c) Multiple attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 1-5, 10, 13, 17)
d) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Tacitus (he may be inadvertently providing evidence that the apostles at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Annals 15:44 when he says, "...[Christianity] thus checked for the moment [by the crucifixion of Jesus], again broke out not only in Judea...")
e) Possible neutral/enemy attestation from Josephus (he may be reporting that the disciples at least believed Jesus appeared to them in Antiquities 18)
f) The Principle of Dissimilarity applies to the notion of a man/Messiah resurrecting from the dead before the end of time was contrary to Jewish belief and therefore reduces the odds it was "made up."
g) Principle of Embarrassment applies to the evidence that some disciples at the first instance did not believe but had doubts that Jesus was alive (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:36-38, John 20:24-25).
Persecution and death of some disciples:
- a) Early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 12 - death of James brother of John)
b) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5 - ca. 95AD)
c) Attestation from Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 3:2-3 - ca. 110AD)
d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9 - ca. 110AD)
e) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (ca. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
f) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 - ca. 200AD)
g) Attestation from Origen (Contra Celsum 2:56,77 - ca. 230-250AD)
Paula Fredriksen, a sceptical historian and scholar of religious studies, said in an interview with Peter Jennings (ABC) entitled The Search for Jesus in July 2000, "I know in [the disciples] own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something."
FACT 4. Paul, an enemy and persecutor of the church (Acts 8:3, 1 Cor. 15:9, Gal. 1:13) was transformed and became a prolific apostle because of his belief that a risen Jesus appeared to him. He was persecuted and reported as martyred.
Appearances of Jesus to Paul and his conversion:
- a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul himself (1 Cor. 15, Gal. 1, Phil. 3)
b) Multiple and early attestation from the Book of Acts (ch. 9, 22, 26)
- a) Early, multiple and eyewitness attestation from Paul for his suffering (2 Cor. 11, Phil. 1)
b) Multiple and early attestation from Book of Acts (ch. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23)
c) Early attestation from Clement of Rome (1 Clement 5)
d) Attestation from Polycarp (Letter to the Philippians 9:2)
e) Attestation from Tertullian (Scorpiace 15 and also quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:25:8)
f) Attestation from Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170AD - quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:25:8)
g) Attestation from Origen (Commentary on Genesis as quoted by Eusebius in EH 3:1)
- a) Principle of Embarrassment applies as Jesus' own family and brother James were described as sceptical prior to appearances (multiply attested - Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, 6:3-4, John 7:4-5)
b) Jesus appeared alive to James after His death (early and enemy attestation from Paul - 1 Cor. 15:7)
c) James is later described as an apostle by Paul(Gal 1:19) and leader in the early church in Jerusalem (Gal 2:9,12 and Acts 15)
d) Suffered and martyred - Enemy/neutral attestation from Josephus (ca. 96AD - Antiquities 20), further multiple attestation from Hegesippus (ca. 160AD - as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 2:23), and Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180-200AD as quoted by Eusebius in EH 2:1).
Note that none of these 5 facts are supernatural or hard to believe on their own. They are all well attested with early and multiple sources. By any reasonable historical methodology these should be considered solid facts. Keep in mind on their own each fact presented does not build a strong case for the Rez. However, it is as a collective unit we must consider the evidence. We are looking for the best explanation that accounts for ALL the evidence. I posit the theory that God resurrected Jesus from the dead best accounts for ALL the evidence and combines explanatory power and scope given the context of Jesus' life and the claims made of Him and by Him.
Question for debate: Is the Resurrection the best explanation for ALL the evidence (i.e. the five facts presented)? Or, is there a better competing theory that accounts for ALL the evidence?
Additional considerations and requests:
1. Persons who side with the weight of evidence, what the evidence suggests, and cogent arguments supported by good evidence could be described as taking a rational position. We would be justified in deeming "irrational" a position that denies evidence with out good reason and opposes strong arguments to side with weak unsupported arguments. On this, we can all agree.
2. As history deals more with degrees of probability rather than absolute certainty I would suggest the following. A single theory that has explanatory scope and power, given the context of surrounding events, and accounts for ALL the evidence should be considered more probable over a compilation of several theories stacked upon one another in an ad hoc manner. Especially if those ad hoc theories are speculation rich and evidence poor.
3. Please supply the methodology/criteria for questioning any one of these 5 facts (or any other evidence one wishes to refute or admit for consideration). We can then apply this methodology to other ancient historical facts. This will help us determine if the objection has credibility or is merely stemming from a bias against either the supernatural or Christianity. Simply making the objection, for example, that we cannot trust anything written by a Christian because they were biased is very problematic. Applying that overly simplistic criterion to the rest of ancient history would call almost all of it into question (even most of modern history).
I'll look forward to reading the responses.
